I wish to point out (as I unsuccessfully did to Nature) that by just READING the infamous Table 1 (data collection and refinement stats,
hidden in the supplemental material) any review worth its name should immediately have raised multiple red flags. Check for yourself. Also the B-factor distribution is worth a look (Fig 13-20 in my paper weight). Also, the report by Zbysek Otwinowsky is most gripping forensic yarn. http://bones.swmed.edu/people.html BR From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paula Salgado Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures 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. ========================================================= 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009 21:07 Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures To: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] 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
