Thursday, August 7, 2014

The line between scientific discussion and a witch hunt.



In the past few days, I have received multiple emails arguing that the debate around STAP was normal discussion. On the other hand, PubPeer and Retraction Watch have come under attack as the agitators facilitating the witch hunts. Retraction Watch just responded. And another terrific post on this issue "It isn't the fraud witchhunt, it's the Glamour culture of science."

There is a difference between “peer review” and a “witch hunt”, and I think it is important to clarify this.

To me, it’s a simple line. Discussion of the science on Retraction Watch and PubPeer is not just "okay". It is essential for the progress of science. I am an ardent fan of post-publication peer review and particularly PubPeer. I wholeheartedly support investigations of misconduct and in no way consider them witch hunts. I found it important to connect PubChase and RetractionWatch.

If you cannot tolerate criticism and post-publication scrutiny or criticism of your work, science may not be the right place for you.

What unnerved me over the last few months about the STAP discussions is not the efforts to reproduce or the investigation. I want more rather than less post-publication discussion. What I am calling for is caution in assigning blame, guilt, and allegations of misconduct and fraud in the court of public opinion. Media, blogs, Twitter, and private discussions of the STAP work have been full of heated rhetoric, mostly based on assumptions, and often without realizing the damaging consequences of the vitriol. Out of sensitivity, in light of Dr. Sasai’s death, I will not mention any specific posts or individuals.

I draw the line at discussions of Dr. Sasai that focus on “he was full of himself” or “was not a researcher any more and only thought about fame” or “did not have the time to supervise his lab, so of course this happened” and so on. These assign blame. They say that he could have and should have detected problems and is therefore responsible. If you don’t have internal knowledge of RIKEN CDB and Dr. Sasai, if you are not on the investigating committee – don’t blog these thoughts. You don’t know what happened.

I draw the line at blog posts arguing that Dr. Obokata must have done this intentionally; at blog posts saying that her citation count is low and Dr. Sasai should not have promoted her. At articles focusing on Dr. Obokata’s “lawyering up”. Do you know Dr. Obokata? If not, you don’t know why she did what she did, you don’t know whether it was misconduct or genuine error. Have you been in her shoes? If not, you have no idea why she has an attorney.

My line is very simple – focus on the figures and the methods. Not on the intentions and accusations of misconduct and assigning blame. Leave that to the investigating committees.
------------------
And a few post scriptum thoughts.

1. Retraction Watch has been accused of witch hunts mostly because of the comments that appear under their posts. People, it’s the internet! Have you seen comments on YouTube? If we argue against RW because of the comments, we need to shut the internet down.

2. (This is from my e-mail to a professor who argues that Sasai should have never published it and deserves the blame for missing such poor science.)

On a personal note, I should say that I came across blatant fabrication once in my 13 years in science. It was another student in the lab who had incredible imaging results with a paper that would win all top prizes. Then the hard drive was stolen and all of the images were on it without backup. Then the student lost interest in the project. 

Of course, the professor, couldn't let it go. He put another student on the project. The student couldn't reproduce anything. He put a postdoc on it. Postdoc couldn't reproduce. It took a year. The original student kept claiming it is reproducible. Every time the person did the imaging, it would be at midnight with no one else nearby. Refused to have anyone watch.

I observed this from the side, incredulous. Finally, I felt so bad for everyone else, I walked into the professor’s office and asked him how certain he was that the data were real. I made an explicit accusation of fraud. I said I did not think there ever were any results. The professor was stunned. Couldn't believe it. 

Soon after, the student got on a plane with the PhD in hand and went back to the home country. My professor persisted for a few more months, wasting time of yet another postdoc. Finally gave up. It's been years, and no more talk of this research.

This was a very eye-opening experience. The professor is an amazing scientist. Simply brilliant. Yet, somehow, he just couldn't see the blatant fraud in front of him. It was so obvious. Red flags waving as if it was Soviet Union. But he was as colorblind as it gets. 

Luckily, this student pulled back. But had the student persisted and finished the story, I am 100% sure it would have been published. As long as you trust the people in your lab, you just can't detect fraud.

Not being from the Sasai lab, I would hesitate before making any statements of what he should or should not have done/detected.


2 comments:

  1. [This is a comment by professor Robert Geller of University of Tokyo.]
    Your new post raises some interesting points.

    (1) You say “I draw the line at discussions of Dr. Sasai that focus on `he was full of himself’ or `was not a researcher any more and only thought about fame’ or `did not have the time to supervise his lab, so of course this happened’ and so on.” Perhaps people are saying things like that in private and confidential discussions, but I’m not aware of any such published comments on the internet. So, regrettably, your post newly disseminated comments of the very type you say are inappropriate.


    (2) You say that people who who say that Dr. Sasai could have and should have detected problems and is therefore responsible” shouldn’t blog such thoughts if they’re not on the investigating committee. I have two problems with your opinion. (a) I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss in general what the responsibilities of co-authors should be. (b) The official Riken report (see link below) specifically faulted Dr. Sasai regarding this point. http://www3.riken.jp/stap/e/f1document1.pdf

    (3) You say, “I draw the line at blog posts arguing that Dr. Obokata must have done this intentionally.” But the Riken official report cited above specifically say that she committed misconduct, i.e., that her actions were intentional. So what’s wrong with citing the official report?

    (4) You say you object to blog posts saying that her citation count is low and Dr. Sasai should not have promoted her. I disagree. Publication lists and citation data are a matter of public record and are one factor in evaluating scientists for appointment and promotion. Riken is a taxpayer-supported institution and as such is obligated to conduct fair and objective hiring and promotion practices. If Riken hired someone whose number of publications and citations falls far short of the general standard for that position and age-group, I think it’s reasonable to ask that they provide an explanation. Disclosure: I’ve published such data:
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8943731/STAP-citation-English.png

    (5) You objected to people saying that Dr. Obokata had “lawyered up.” In fact that’s a term I used in an earlier post on your blog. If your objection is to the colloquialism, I’ll agree maybe I should have said instead she’d retained a team of attorneys. But it’s a matter of public record that she’s retained legal counsel and they regularly act as her spokesman (on TV and in speaking to newspapers), so I can’t see any problem in mentioning this fact.

    (6) You say: “My line is very simple – focus on the figures and the methods. Not on the intentions and accusations of misconduct and assigning blame. Leave that to the investigating committees.” My problem with this is that (see the link above) the investigation by Riken has reached and published a conclusion. Surely you or I or anyone else should be free to quote it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Mr Teytelmen

    Thank you for your thoughtful article,and please allow me to post comment for the article 4 months ago.
    I agree with your opinion.
    Here in Japan,there are so many criticisms based on superficial facts not only by scientist but also others.
    I feel so sad and disappointed of this situation.

    People say that Dr Obokata did fatal misconducts and Dr Sasai had to have responsibilities at "certain level”as a corresponding author.
    But I would say that this is comprehensive problem in Japanese society and just blaming on one individual is not the appropriate solution.

    Some scientists say “She deteriorated Japanese science reputation.”
    But I would say “Japanese science reputation might be deteriorated,but it is not caused only by her.”
    Because there are some backgrounds.
    For example-
    1)The duration of preparing the article got shorten suddenly.
    2)She was the leader of 3 faculties, such as Riken,Tokyo women’s medical university, and Harvard university.Even though she doesn’t have so much experience.
    These factors has to be taken into consideration.

    And some non-scientists criticize her about the sloppiness for the dissertation.
    It may be true.
    But I really would like them to see the situation around Japanese university.
    I am almost 10years older than her, and I was a student of Japanese university(Major of sociology).
    At the time,many misconducts already happened in my university.
    And I have heard of negative rumors about the university she had graduated from.
    For these reasons, I can easily guess that certain number of criticisms did similar things.At least, most of them know the deteriorated situation of Japanese universities.

    I really would like to ask them - who can judge her in that situation?

    Sometimes, people here get too emotional suddenly.
    That is the thing I feel so sad.

    I’d like to see this matter rationally.

    Sincerely.

    ReplyDelete