G*P
发帖数: 214 | 1 不过第一段英语写得真差，之前如果完全不知道此事的话，这段话可以让你云里雾里，
而且混淆当事人
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110608/full/474140a.html
Whistle-blower claims his accusations cost him his job
University denies it retaliated against researcher who questioned supervisor
's data.
Eugenie Samuel Reich
Zebrafish embryos are at the centre of a dispute over research integrity.
Zebrafish embryos are at the centre of a dispute over research integrity.R.
KESSEL/VISUALS UNLIMITED/CORBIS
After months of friction that culminated in his openly questioning the
reproducibility of data published by his supervisor, a postdoc at the
University of Wisconsin–Madison's zoology department was presented with
three options. The department's chairman said he could wait to be fired,
resign voluntarily or accept a "gracious exit strategy" that would give him
time to prepare a paper for publication, if he dropped his "scientific
misconduct issues".
When geneticist Aaron Taylor objected that the third option sounded like a "
plea bargain" meant to discourage him from pressing his concerns about the
lab's data, the chairman, Jeffrey Hardin disagreed. But Hardin also said: "I
think you'd have to decide which is more important to you." He later added:
"You have to decide whether you want to kind of engage in whistle-blowing."
Taylor recorded the November 2009 exchange without Hardin's knowledge —
something permitted under Wisconsin law. Although Taylor declined to make a
decision in the meeting, he resigned a few days later, minutes before a
disciplinary meeting at which he would have been fired. He says he lost his
job because he voiced doubts about data published by the lab of Yevgenya
Grinblat, the faculty member who employed him. Grinblat, whose scientific
conduct has been upheld by the university and who is not under investigation
, says that Taylor lost his job because of a "disrespectful attitude".
The story illustrates a problem that can arise when a junior researcher
comes into conflict with a senior colleague over research integrity. Whistle
-blowers are supposed to be protected from retaliation, even if they are
wrong, as long as they are acting in good faith. Yet, when personality
clashes enter the mix — a likely scenario when accusations begin to fly —
the outcome can be much less clear cut.
In Taylor's case, Hardin strongly denies any retaliation, and says that a
move was made to terminate Taylor's contract for "serious personnel issues".
E-mails provided by Grinblat show that she had mentioned and sought advice
about what she said was Taylor's negative attitude to colleagues inside and
outside the university before he questioned her data. Even so, an e-mail
from Hardin to Eric Wilcots, an associate dean for mathematical and natural
sciences at the university, seems to imply that Taylor's accusations played
a part in his departure. The e-mail said that Taylor had engaged in "
seemingly inappropriate correspondence" — referring to a caustic e-mail to
Grinblat in which Taylor alleged that she acted improperly as a researcher
and a lab supervisor.
C. K. Gunsalus, a lawyer and expert on research misconduct at the University
of Illinois in Urbana–Champaign, who read documents provided by the
university at Nature 's request, says: "On the face of it, the university's
actions at least raise a question as to whether there was retaliation for
speaking out."
“You have to decide whether you want to kind of engage in whistle-
blowing.”
Reprisal against whistle-blowers is banned by the US federal policy on
research misconduct, which guides how allegations should be handled by
institutions that receive grant money from the government, which Grinblat's
lab does. The University of Wisconsin also has a policy that explicitly
protects whistleblowers from retaliation. Taylor says that his experience
therefore holds a lesson for those who wish to question a supervisor's work:
being explicit about suspicions and citing relevant statutes when making
allegations might help to prevent reprisals.
Taylor was studying zebrafish development in Grinblat's lab when he became
concerned about work the lab was submitting for publication. In one paper (
Development 136, 3791–3800; 2009), on which he was listed as a co-author,
Taylor felt that images of zebrafish embryos that were being used to
illustrate changes in the expression of particular proteins had been chosen
without quantitative support. E-mail records show that he queried the data
with Grinblat, but they were nevertheless submitted for publication.
Grinblat responds that the use of the images followed standard methods and
is based on repeatable experiments. She adds that the quantification method
Taylor may have wanted to use was not sensitive enough to detect the changes
in gene expression they were observing.
Taylor says that he now cannot prove that the images amounted to
falsification because he does not have access to the raw data. He requested
access under Wisconsin's public-records laws, but the university declined to
release them, in part because it determined that releasing a faculty member
's data would violate academic freedom.
Some months after they disagreed on the images, matters came to a head when
Grinblat asked Taylor to provide a detailed protocol for a lab technique.
Taylor accused her of repeatedly pressuring him to publish data that he
considered unreliable, and threatened to bring a case against her to the
dean. Soon after, he wrote to Hardin saying that he had doubts about the
reproducibility and reliability of work published by the lab.
When asked about Taylor's charges of being pressured, Grinblat says she gave
him a deadline because she felt that was the only way to get him to publish
his good data. Grinblat comments that, in general, Taylor was
extraordinarily reluctant to publish his work.
Difference of opinions
Taylor's former PhD supervisor, neuroscientist Justin Fallon at Brown
University in Providence, Rhode Island, says that Taylor is a smart and
original thinker who worked independently in his lab and published his work
expeditiously. "He worked in a professional and efficient manner," Fallon
says, adding that he doesn't agree with the suggestion that Taylor is
difficult in the lab.
A letter to Taylor provided by the university says that Wilcots reviewed the
evidence that Taylor submitted and talked with him and others before
deciding that his complaints did not meet the university's criteria for
research misconduct. "What he was presenting was a difference of opinion
with his co-author on the significance of results," Wilcots says. However,
Wilcots says that he did not look at the raw data from the zebrafish
experiments before making that decision. Nor did the university hold an
investigation into the matter.
Gunsalus says that her interpretation of the documentation is that Taylor's
concerns included allegations of misconduct, and would warrant an inquiry.
Because the university asserted that he was not fired, Taylor was not
entitled to unemployment benefits in Wisconsin. He therefore filed a
complaint with the state's Department of Workforce Development, which ruled
that, counter to the university's statements, his departure was not
voluntary. In 2010, he also filed a complaint of whistle-blower retaliation
with the department, but dropped the case after he took a job at an
institution in another state.
Taylor subsequently forwarded his charges and concerns to the Office of
Research Integrity (ORI), which oversees allegations of misconduct in
research funded by the National Institutes of Health. The ORI told Taylor in
2010 that it was looking into whether the university had investigated
adequately, but would not pursue the allegation of retaliation because
Taylor had filed a case at the Department of Workforce Development, even
though the case was not longer active.
Wisconsin's associate dean for research policy, William Mellon, says that he
did receive a phone call from the ORI about the case, but no further
inquiry has been made.
ADVERTISEMENT
Click here
The timing of Taylor's termination and the clash of personalities suggest
that extra care was needed to avoid an ambiguous outcome. But Mellon
expresses surprise at the suggestion that the university did not act
appropriately. He says that the university does take a firm stance on
misconduct when it is warranted. "But when it doesn't meet the standard,
there are no actions for us to take," he says. Taylor says he has been able
to put the situation behind him and is happy at his new institution, which
Nature agreed not to name, but he remains disillusioned with the way his
situation was handled by his former employer.
"It is critical for the integrity of science that universities are not
allowed to retaliate against whistle-blowers," he says.
Comments
If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise
comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant '
Report this comment' link.
Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.
#23702
Well i think this is not an isolated episode. This may be the case in
many places. The only thing is it does not get reported as the students are
anxious about their research carriers and they know their exsistence in
their respective fields can be strongly influenced by their peers!!!!!. This
is a great show of courage !!!!!!! i appreciate a lot.
Report this comment
2011-06-08 12:56:47 PM
Posted by: Rajdeep Roy
#23704
It sounds like a begining rather than an ending of a big problem. Stay
tuned and see what will happen next.
Report this comment
2011-06-08 01:51:29 PM
Posted by: Dick Baltimore |
|
