|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
HUM-MOLGEN -> mail archive | Search | register for news alert (free) | |||||||||||||||
Hans Goerl: ETHI, SPEC: Fraud at NIH/HGP | ||||||||||||||||
[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Topic Index] |
||||||||||||||||
To: Multiple recipients of list HUM-MOLGEN <HUM-MOLGEN@NIC.SURFNET.NL> Subject: ETHI, SPEC: Fraud at NIH/HGP From: Hans Goerl <GENETHICS@delphi.com> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:36:29 -0500 Surprisingly, only one substantive reply was received on this subject, which has certainly been the topic of discussion in many labs. What else could Dr. Collins have done to prevent this embarrassment to NIH and the genetics community from occurring? What could/should the journals involved have done? Have any labs or scientists made any changes in their procedures as a result of this incident? Or... is everybody convinced that it couldn't have happened to them? Hans Goerl ETHI Editor ***************************************************************************** *** From: Srinivasan Ramachandran <SRAMACHANDRAN@atlas.niaid.nih.gov> Some of the suggestions mentioned in the earlier post might be very good as it looks but implementing them in practise is not an easy task. Authorship is an important issue but I certainly don't see that it is a problem everyday. It is also not clear whether pressures to perform leads inevitably to fabrication of scientific data. In an era of limited resources and funding it is not always easy to request someone else to reproduce the expermients done by other reasearchers. I think one good way might be to do internal peer review i.e., check and critique the lab. results in the lab. meetings.Frequently erroneous approaches come to light in these meetings. If taken objectively, these forums provide excellent opportunity to review one's own results and approaches. It is the responsibility of the investigator to set up such an environment. This involves no additional burden, no extra time. Similarly I don't think reviewers' serving the journals can be held responsible. The same paper read seriously by three independent experts most often come to very different points of criticisms. Some effect of personal view about a subject is inevitable. The editors generally take careof these points but if a paper comes from a reputed lab. some bias towards believing the results is unavoidable. It is that kind of reputation that has been damaged in the case of Francis Collins. However since he has honestly come forward, I think he will still be highly regarded despite some setback. S. Ramachandran
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Mail converted by |