home   genetic news   bioinformatics   biotechnology   literature   journals   ethics   positions   events   sitemap
 
  HUM-MOLGEN -> mail archive   |   Search register for news alert (free)  
  Carlo Gambacorti: Re: ETHI, SPEC: Fraud at NIH/HGP  
   

archive of HUM-MOLGEN mails

 
 

[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


   
 
home   genetic news   bioinformatics   biotechnology   literature   journals   ethics   positions   events   sitemap
 
 
 

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.4.4
WWW: Kai Garlipp, Frank S. Zollmann.
7.0 1995-2001 HUM-MOLGEN. All rights reserved. Liability and Copyright.