Slashdot Mirror
The Best Way To Blow the Whistle
bmahersciwriter writes "Helene Hill thought she was close to retirement when, on a whim one day, she decided to check on a junior colleague's cell cultures. They were empty, she says, yet he produced data from them soon after. Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years and $200,000. See how she and other whistleblowers fared in this story from Nature."
Poorly. Rock the boat, and you can expect to be thrown off. It's the Human Way.
Unfortunately, the corporate world has become very much like the political arena.
Honesty is no longer treasured.
No matter if it's Helen Hill or Edward Snowden, as long as you blew the whistle on wrongdoings of others, you will get punished.
The world we live in is becoming more and more fake.
Lies worth much more than truth.
Fakeries work much better than honesty.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
From the slashdot entry at the top: "Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years..."
From the linked article: "Hill would spend the next 14 years trying to expose what she believes to be a case of scientific misconduct. "
Reading the slashdot entry, I thought that she went to jail for 14 years, which she didn't. :)
Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years and $200,000.
What actually happened, from the article: she thinks a colleague forged results, and spent 14 years and $200,000 voluntarily pursuing court action, which repeatedly found there was no wrong-doing. She was not fired, was not fined, was not imprisoned.
The summary's deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and imply that she was persecuted for whistle-blowing.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Blowing the whistle on what she thinks was research misconduct cost her 14 years and $200,000.
This sounds juicy, and if you read the actual article, it is.
If anyone is wondering why it cost her $200,000 (and doesn't want to read the article, though I couldn't imagine why), it's because after the university committee on ethics determined that there was no evidence of misconduct, she decided to file a lawsuit, which she also lost.
Even after losing the lawsuit, she is still trying to get her coworker disciplined, which is why the dean warned her that she could lose her job as a result. But she is continuing. Choice quote from the article, in explanation of why she continues the fight:
“I want to finish,” she says. “It becomes almost an obsession.”
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
i would most definitely blow the whistle anonymously, maybe post on some forums and upload videos from a public library or public wifi hotspot while using fake names for signing on anywhere
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
to wind up swimming. The vast majority of folks are willing to pipe down in the face of consequences and repercussions. Call the other option what you will: foolhardy, insubordinate, obstinate, or brave... all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Not the best way to blow the whistle. Besides, everyone who has had the misfortune of being the "randomly-selected few" already knows that.
It wasn't blowing the whistle that cost her 14 years and $200k, it was her improper handling of the situation and zealotry in pursuing the matter.
Let's say this was a murder. If I saw you with a dead body, a shovel, lime, rope and bloody knife. After you left, I grabbed the bloody knife and took a picture of it and gave it to the police. The picture of the knife would not be admissible as evidence, the knife itself would, but not a picture of it. Hill was playing private eye, but doing it in a way that she couldn't gather enough evidence to support her case. The article is totally slanted towards her side and makes it sound like the University committee, federal investigators, and New Jersey District Court were all incompetent.
1. Research assistant at a friend's lab was fabricating data in order to shirk off. They discovered it because the variance of the fabricated data was weird. He admitted it when challenged and was fired.
2. PhD student I know fabricated data in order to do less work. He did a bad job of it, though, and was easily caught. He admitted it but further action wasn't taken because the lab wanted to avoid a scandal and the results weren't published. Eventually he produced a shitty thesis and was told to re-submit. He failed to do this but is writing on his CV that he has the degree.
3. Post-doc currently on my floor claimed to have produced a set of data but we all know it's a lie because: a. he didn't us the equipment at any point. b. he doesn't know how to use the equipment. c. he can't show the raw data. Was challenged by his boss and denied it. That was last year, he's still here, he's done no work, he's an arrogant prick, everyone hates him and nobody talks to him any more.
4. Post-doc in a friend's lab manipulated raw data out of all recognition. He was caught because the raw data looked nothing like his claims. He was challenged and fired.
I'm sure this sort of thing happens all the time.
soylentnews.org
What's the best way to blow the whistle?
Take a deep breath, put your lips around the whistle's mouthpiece and exhale forcefully?
Oh, you meant figuratively? I'd say, that the best way is to avoid working with people who are unethical so whistle blowing isn't necessary. If you do happen to end up in a situation that you know something untoward is going on, report it. But only report it to someone you trust will behave responsibly and has the authority to resolve the issue. If that person doesn't exist, start polishing up your resume and look around for a better place to work.
Knowledge Brings Fear
Deep throat. Practice with foot long hotdogs.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Anomalies happen all the time, too.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Apart from the inflammatory article, I believe there is a valid question to be asked here: how does one identify and catch/correct errors?
In experimental fields, if a result is interesting enough, there will be people who will verify it by trying to repeat or improve the results. However, in more theoretical fields (where computer simulations are the norm), I wonder how well vetted the results are. Especially since many people don't release the source code, and even if they do, it is too large to actually go through and verify each line.
I know of some models (in the aerospace industry) that have been widely used that are flawed in many ways - from sign changes, to impossible geometric configurations. I'm sure that in many other simulation-centric fields, the same problems exist. Often, the results and simulations are just part of some larger methodological contributions - the methodology is still solid, but the presented results are flawed.
Take a look at the Prof Sanna's ratings as a teacher: sounds like a real asset to the faculty, right?
Now notice when most of the flattering reviews were posted.
Now look at when Sanna resigned.
Statistically, you could treat this as an underlying error rate in published data and try to account for it in metastudies.
So she said "This data is faked!" the university looked in to it, they have committees for that kind of thing as I'm sure you know, and said that no, they could find no evidence of wrongdoing. So she got the federal Office of Research Integrity involved, they looked in to it, and said "Nope we see no evidence of wrongdoing here." So she took it to court, and lost the case, appealed it, and lost that case.
This would seem to be a case where she's wrong. She thought she saw misconduct, but she was incorrect, but she's pushing this anyhow.
Remember that just because scientific misconduct happens does not mean all accusations of misconduct are true.
Whistleblowers, we need to take care of them, like I said the other day. It's going to be tough. Maybe at least give some
thoughts to Snowden these days, but think hard about how we could give one of our own safe harbor. It's a tough problem
because us geeks live mostly in a virtual word, and this here is a very physcial problem. Though maybe the solution is
somewhere on the tangent where the physical meets the virtual. Snowden's doomsday docs may be a starter idea.
Now the thugs: toss some of their own stuff back at them! Here's a GREAT idea, and I jand it to you for free:
When o when, is finally a website being opened in the USA that gathers and published 'Metadata' on your fine politicians.
I'm talking 'Alexander (Feinstein, Biden, you name em) spotted today, where, time, what was he doing, who was he with,
what circumstances could anything be overheard, what food did his wife buy, who's his dentist. You get the puicture, nothing
excluded, but the thing is: nothing nefarious, just eyeballs and registering goings on. Let's see how soon that gets them to
puking sick.
Beware that whistleblowers are almost always retaliated against. If you approach the media take great care in picking a journalist:
http://victimsofdsto.com/guide/whistleblowers_guide_to_journalists.pdf
http://victimsofdsto.com/guide/whistleblowers_guide_to_journalists.html
Govt/industry worked very hard to destroy his career...
A Google search for "Slashdot" still comes up Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters, but a single story summary this shitty sure puts paid to that aspiration.
For stories like this one, if my account wasn't a pseudonym I'd have to wear a bag over my face just to post here.
This is how you blow the whistle:
1. Write a journel article, news item, or book which exposes the misconduct.
2. Have your lawyer send it to the accused along with a letter, which says, "We are going to publish this in 72 hours, but we wanted to have you review it first to verify that there are no errors in fact and that everything is absolutely true. If you find any errors, please have your lawyer contact me."
3. Your lawyer negotiates a confidential agreement in which you agree not to publish, and the accused agrees to send you a large cash payment
If you want to extort someone legally, you need to use the legal process.
Don't whistleblow...Blackmail!
Probably safer and more effective.
Don't add to the story that you went in and singlehandedly killed a terrorist with your rifle-butt. That could get your NOC cover blown, cause people to dismiss everyone else who had the same complaints as you, and cost any journalists who trusted you their jobs.
Before you blow the whistle you need to contact a quality lawyer and be advised. You may need to file a report with an outside agency in order to get whistle blower protection in the courts. If you work with any kind of in house security or internal affairs you may gain extra protection if you are a paid informant. That pay could be one penny or one dollar. Also the timing of blowing the whistle could be vital. For example getting a review and a raise and blowing the whistle just afterward make sit harder to claim your work is defective. But back to the original point first get a lawyer. The reality is that you will probably be fired. Regardless of what the law says you probably can never return to work. But if done correctly you may earn a lot more money by blowing the whistle than you could ever hope to earn from work. So many companies are involved in illegal activities that whistle blowing could be an entire career for the right person.
In a prelude to the more recent gross attacks on democracy, the US and UK have both been consistently shitting on whistleblowers for many decades.
Snowden's method will probably only work if your leak will make you famous. For everyone else, anonymity would be advised.
The author of Spyblog has been documenting the progress of the UK's seemingly-inexorable descent into a Stasi police state for about 10 years.
In 2006, he started posting tips on whistleblowing. This has since evolved into a more comprehensive website.
http://ht4w.co.uk/
How is any of this new? These days you merely get scorned in public, back in the day you simply disappeared never to be seen again
Well, guess what ?
The "disappeared never to be seen again" phenomena are still happening, even inside the United States of America !
Just because you do not read it in the newspaper does not mean it never happens.
The procedures she has been in have not found evidence of wrong-doing. That is something different than that it found evidence there was no wrong-doing. It's a lack of substantial evidence proving her right, no evidence proving her wrong has been found. This academical difference is crucial here, since legally she's wrong, but scientifically she can still be right.
I'd like to see the research she is disputing repeated by independent researchers. If a few repeat experiments are done, we'll get a good idea of who is actually right in this case without court action. In this case the law sees no evidence of wrong-doing, but science might at least prove the experiment was conducted wrong. Proving intent in publishing false results may still be hard, but at least the results will be nullified.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Just as I have high standards, integrity and rigor in my professional life I'm also very principled and practice diligence when those standards slip and I have to/want to cut corners.
If you're lazy and stupid in your work, chances are you'll be lazy and stupid in your misconduct too.
what I tell her is this:
Yes, when you lie, your peers will punish you when they find out. But that's not the real issue.
When you're a liar, you're projecting a false self as a problem solving tool. This forces you to keep multiple versions of reality in your head.
Carried systematically across a lifetime, this will cause you to become a person made up of many people, none of whom are you.
Eventually, you will not know who you are, or what you believe, and when you meet a strong person with integrity, you will be unable to hold a form of your own in their presence.
This is a road to hell on earth, a hell contained within ones own mind, where the wind can blow your identity to and fro at a moments notice, and you live in a constant state of fearful reactionary adjustment of self.
What it all boils down to is this: people are not worth lying to.
http://experiencelife.com/article/walking-your-talk-the-path-of-personal-integrity/
http://melodylovesthis.com/parentingohyes/kids-and-lying-why-truth-matters/
In my field (accelerator physics) in 25 years, the only thing resembling misconduct that I've seen is overselling of future applications. By this I mean presenting an overly optimistic picture of future possibilities (typically known as marketing), not misrepresenting any work that was already done. This may be due to the way that most of the field is supported by large grants to large laboratories rather than grants to individual researchers. Might be a useful model to apply elsewhere.
I think you're right. Specifically, I think it's because your papers usually require very large numbers of coauthors so the work is inherently cross-checked. I'm in the life-sciences. There are papers in my field which are basically single author (student/postdoc + PI), so it's much easier to pull the wool over people's eyes that way. Even in multi-author papers, often different people do different experiments so it's still possible to have a bad apple in there. In our field grants are often still given to large labs (although not on the scale of yours), so I don't think that on its own explains things.
soylentnews.org
I don't think that word means what you think it means....
I would recommend blowing it in the tranditional way: You put it in your lips breath deep in and blow as hard as you can.
It usually works, at least for me!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
I have perpetrated two whistle blowing cases. In the first case, it may have been a gentle shove to an already decaying relationship. In the other case it was documenting heresay that was told to me. In each case I was a third-party not in the chain of command and since one was a contractor to a state agency and the other was a state agency, openness made it more likely that my message could get sent. So the first lesson is that doing this for in a government with a non-chain-of-command channel is much easier.
Another situation was one where I was almost victimized because the channel around a corporate chain of command was just removed, maybe because, the management wanted to do illegal things. I was able to get a gentle shove out of the door rather than a layoff for cause because the way I was treated was possibly illegal.
If you are seeing something wrong, tell a third-party who is not in the chain of command and let them tell your story as heresay. If you present enough detail, the account alone will get the interest of the regulatory people you have them contact.
it's the only way to be sure.