Slashdot Mirror
Request to Falsify Data Published In Chemistry Journal
New submitter Jim_Austin writes "A note inadvertently left in the 'supplemental information' of a journal article appears to instruct a subordinate scientist to fabricate data. Quoting: 'The first author of the article, "Synthesis, Structure, and Catalytic Studies of Palladium and Platinum Bis-Sulfoxide Complexes," published online ahead of print in the American Chemical Society (ACS) journal Organometallics, is Emma E. Drinkel of the University of Zurich in Switzerland. The online version of the article includes a link to this supporting information file. The bottom of page 12 of the document contains this instruction: "Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis ..." We are making no judgments here. We don't know who wrote this, and some commenters have noted that "just make up" could be an awkward choice of words by a non-native speaker of English who intended to instruct his student to make up a sample and then conduct the elemental analysis. Other commenters aren't buying it.'"
The beauty of (natural) science is that you can replicate the results. Why spark a debate (which is more in social sciences ballpark) when you can just run the experiments and validate the statement that way? The paper would only omit important analysis steps if a patent is involved, something that the title of the paper does not imply.
some commenters have noted that "just make up" could be an awkward choice of words by a non-native speaker of English who intended to instruct his student to make up a sample and then conduct the elemental analysis. Other commenters aren't buying it.
You know what the great thing about science is? We don't have to focus on emotion and rhetoric. We can do the experiment, and see if it would have supported the conclusion. If it would, our societal view of justice compels us to assume they were asking for the valid test results to be included. If it would not have supported the conclusion, then we can call for the author to be sanctioned.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I would have thought that standard peer review would have caught this - someone reading this, specifically with an eye towards accuracy, should have noticed it well before it made it to print. Whether that would result in just removing the offending text (which, while not completely guilty, definitely sounds bad) or result in actual correction of the experiment, I can't say.
None of the data talked about in the note was used in the final journal submission and the compound the author was referring to was what he claimed was a theoretical intermediate. I am leaning toward a misunderstanding in a hastily written note.
love is just extroverted narcissism
when I was tricked into drinking Hydrogen Hydroxide when I distinctly requested a beaker full of Dihydrogen Monoxide. The cover-up, the pointing of fingers, the falling out of the scientific community. HOYVIN GLAVIN!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Many languages use only one verb for several uses of "make" and "do". English has some odd cases where "make" is used but, from a logical point of view, it would seem that "do" would be more appropriate, making translations more difficult. Thus, instead of "make up an analysis", one could easily imagine someone with a less than perfect grasp of english meaning "do an analysis"
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
That looks like German wording of "make up" = "do", nothing nefarious about it, slow news day?
Ah, true. Can't blame peer review for only skimming the appendices.
Now, the journal editors, them I think we can blame.
Or has that already happened?
On numerous occasions politicians have released MS-Word docs, and the full edit history could be retrieved, with occasionally embarrassing results.
I'm not disturbed by the note, and yes it's likely a poor choice of words from a non-English speaker.
Are we now condemning conspiracy to submit fraudulent information? I thought fraud was the bad act.
I've worked with non-English speaking students, and there are a surprising number of awkward constructions that you wouldn't notice as a native speaker.
For example, one multiple-choice optics test question had this answer: "The image is half as large".
The phrase "half as large" translates simultaneously into "big" and "small" at the same time... it was pointed out that many students didn't know what this meant. The first rewrite came out as "half the size", but since many cultures implicitly measure size in terms of area instead of height, lots of people misinterpreted this as well (half the height = 1/4 the area). Having an answer "none of the above" further confused the issue. The test should have been specific in saying "half the height".
I've proofread/edited more than 10 papers written by foreign types, and "twisted meanings" are quite common - phrases that seem syntactically reasonable but which have a different meaning to a native speaker. (I grew up in Amish territory - statements like "Sarah is wonderful sick today" and "throw papa down the stairs his hat" were commonplace.)
I wouldn't think twice about the note in the paper. Unless the researcher actually makes up the analysis out of whole cloth it's not a problem.
Science is about evidence, not hearsay.
Yes, we can do the experiment, but most of the time we don't. Nobody gets grant money for replicating stuff other people have already done. There's no glory in it; the citations, the namings, the prestige will all go to the original experimenter, and grants are very much about glory (to the host institution, of course, not so much for the researcher herself). Yes, the big, important stuff gets replicated, but a dreadfully mundane study of some palladium catalysed reaction is not in that category, and so is unlikely to be replicated. The allegation of "made up" data in this particular paper may prompt somebody to try it in this case, but there will be many more that will slip through.
I run a scientific research lab in a Big University You Have Heard Of. I had a conversation with an intern and a post-doc earlier this week where we talked about figures that could be added to a review paper the intern is working on. I swear I used the words, "I'll make up a figure ..." to describe the actions of collecting the necessary supporting data to create a figure for the paper that my post-doc suggested would be instructional. "Make up" in this case meant, "construct," and wholly lacked nefarious, subversive, or deceptive connotations.
And I speak English as my mother tongue.
The so-called conspiracy to commit fraud here is a bunch of hooey. The only thing the authors are guilty of is not submitting a fully completed manuscript.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Exactly. It's someone telling their assistant to get a NMR done.
It's become a sad day here in the US where there's a faction of people so against science, that they try to manufacture issues like this. I don't care that some people want to remain stupid... it's there choice, but they should at least have enough brain cells left to understand if they want to stay stupid, their opinion doesn't mean shit because it's based on stupidity.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's