Maybe it's because Indiana University is my alma mater. Maybe it's because I think science needs only those of the utmost integrity. Maybe it's because getting a PhD, publishing papers, and getting grants is difficult enough without competing against someone who fudges figures to make their observations better. Or maybe I just don't like liars. Whatever the reason, I think the punishment for an IU PhD student who admitted to misconduct is not strict enough.
She admitted to purposefully manipulating data to alter the statistical outcome in a way that was not conducive to examining the results, but only to make them look better. It affected two publications, two grant applications (one of which received funding), and the dissertation she defended in 2008. So it was systemic and purposeful, not an innocent misunderstanding of the statistics or overboard calculations that can be debated for usefulness. It was admitted outright falsification.
She shouldn't have that degree. Yes, she'll have a tough road ahead if she plans to stay in science, noone will want to work with someone with the reputation of falsifying data, but some day her requirement to cite her ills will be gone, and then she'll just be another PhD in the pool, and that's not right. Thousands of honest scientists deserve that those who purposefully mislead for their own gain be differentiated from them.
Her faculty advisor and others in his lab will also be affected in the long-term because of what she did. They have current funding affected by her malfeascence, as well as having to go back and redo anything she touched because of questions that may arise over the authenticity of her findings. Science builds on the previous, but it only works if they can trust that those who went before them did so in good faith.
And yet, she essentially gets a slap on the wrist.
That just doesn't seem right to me.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Toby Beth Jarman
Dr. Evan Levine
Oryoki Bowl
Fay Paxton
lorianne
Mary Ann Sorrentino
Salon.com
Comments
I agree something needs to be done, though our american approach to education, health, sciences, promotes the incentive for fraud because that is often the only way to get paid. There are sadly not enough people in science to begin with, and losing too many smart minds will hurt more. There should be a better way to do systematic review of material throughout the process, rather than having to retroactively review everything- both to protect from fraud, but also to protect from error.
Data is just data, it only becomes knowledge through interpretation, and that is almost always subject to bias and error.
As for personal punishment,
It may cause some problems with the number of scientists short-term, but it would greatly benefit everyone long-term (My mother always said I'm an idealist with little grasp of the realistic lol)
This young woman may have either really bad judgment, a total lack of education in ethics, or a set of peers who are equally lacking and not providing the feedback necessary. There could be a way to implement an unbiased, third party review both in the education of our scientists and doctors, but also the publishing of data. This young woman got caught, but many many people don't.
It's really easy to do almost anything you want when you have a Doctor added to the front of your name. People presume you are ethical, but people also presume the FDA and the govt regularly prevent companies from doing harm to people. Until recently, people believed that NEJM was an unbiased, "peer" reviewed journal of "pure" medicine. Ahahahaha.