Paula Salgado wrote:
> 
> Actually, I don't think that should be any consolation at all... As
> scientists, from whatever field, we should be appalled by this kind of
> mischief from anyone that calls themselves scientists. Not only it has
> effects on further research, delaying science sometimes by years, but it
> just  gives an appalling image of science and scientists. And of course,
> is unethical and wrong...
> 
> Today is a sad moment for crystallography and science. 
> 

   There are reasons for optimism.  The self-correcting nature of
the scientific method worked in this case.  Kudos to the University
of Alabama at Birmingham for facing this problem and following
through with their investigation of earlier allegations.

Dale Tronrud

> 
> =========================================================
> 
>  Dr Paula Salgado
> 
>  Division of Molecular Biosciences
>  Department of Life Sciences
>  Faculty of Natural Sciences
>  Biochemistry Building, 5th Floor
>  Imperial College London
>  South Kensington Campus
>  SW7 2AZ
>  London
> 
> Tel: 02075945464
> 
> 2009/12/10 Boaz Shaanan <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> 
>     If that's of any consolation for us crystallographers, this
>     "situations" arise in other fields too. Here is another example. See
>     this link:
> 
>     http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Glycosylation-methods-paper-retracted/biotechniques-182060.html
> 
> 
>               Boaz
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Roger Rowlett <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>     Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009 21:07
>     Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures
>     To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 
>     This kind of unfortunate situation only reinforces the notion that
>     there must be some sort of laboratory
>     oversight/communication/mentoring/documentation procedures in place.
>     In my research lab (populated by a postdoc and a bunch of
>     undergraduates) raw images and data processing log files are visible
>     to everyone on the central XRD server, there is a lot of
>     intra-laboratory communication about every structure that is
>     processed, and lots of required documentation that must go onto our
>     electronic laboratory notebook/wiki. While a determined individual
>     could still find a way to perpetrate fraud, it is a lot more
>     difficult when there are a lot of eyes looking at every structure,
>     and raw data and documentation is widely visible within the lab.
>     This is not a bad thing for co-authorship purposes, also.
> 
>     Nathaniel Echols wrote:
> 
>>     On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jacob Keller
>>     <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>         I assume this is the denouement of the Ajees et al debacle a
>>         while back? Does this mean all authors on all of those papers
>>         were complicit? Otherwise, how would one author alone
>>         perpetrate this kind of thing? He pretends to go to the
>>         synchrotron, comes back with the hkl file, and goes from
>>         there? What about the crystals? Grows some lysozyme crystals,
>>         labels as protein x, proceeds to go "to the synchrotron" and
>>         then...? This whole thing is really hard to imagine--is there
>>         an "initiation" procedure in that lab, when the "noble lie" is
>>         revealed to all would-be authors?
>>
>>
>>     I'm curious about this too, but it is actually very likely that
>>     some (perhaps the majority) of the co-authors were unaware of the
>>     fraud, especially those whose name is only present on a single
>>     paper.  I didn't look closely, but I recognized one name of
>>     someone who certainly doesn't need to fake anything at this point
>>     in his career; I would be shocked if he had any clue what was
>>     going on.  Likewise, if there were co-authors from entirely
>>     different fields, I'm sure they wouldn't know what a Wilson plot
>>     is supposed to look like.  Many excellent scientists have been
>>     burned like this before; wouldn't you assume that your
>>     collaborators are acting in good faith?
>>
>>     There are two other things to keep in mind:
>>
>>     1. The standard for co-authorship is often very low.  This is a
>>     problem by itself, and it's one reason why Nature (and a few
>>     others) now list author contributions by name.
>>
>>     2.  Rumor has it that in some labs, the PI may take the data and
>>     solve the structure personally, cutting out the postdoc or grad
>>     student who did most of the benchwork.  (I've seen one or two
>>     author contribution sections that indicated this had occurred.) 
>>     After all, spinning dials and looking at electron density is the
>>     "fun" part of crystallography.  Who is going to second-guess the
>>     professor when a recommendation letter (and future career) is at
>>     stake?
>>
>>     -Nat
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Roger S. Rowlett
>     Professor
>     Department of Chemistry
>     Colgate University
>     13 Oak Drive
>     Hamilton, NY 13346
> 
>     tel: (315)-228-7245
>     ofc: (315)-228-7395
>     fax: (315)-228-7935
>     email: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
>     Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
>     Dept. of Life Sciences
>     Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
>     Beer-Sheva 84105
>     Israel
>     Phone: 972-8-647-2220 ; Fax: 646-1710
>     Skype: boaz.shaanan‎ 
> 
>