|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
HUM-MOLGEN -> mail archive | Search | register for news alert (free) | |||||||||||||||
Carlo Gambacorti: Re: 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: Re: ETHI, SPEC: Fraud at NIH/HGP From: Carlo Gambacorti <GAMBACORTI@ICIL64.CILEA.IT> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:25:52 +0000 Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ICIL64.CILEA.IT At 11:36 PM 11/6/96 -0500, you wrote: >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 > Hans, did you look at the Nature page I suggested ? There, I think, you find a response. Carlo
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Mail converted by |