Situations like this reminds me of my favorite part of Brave New World:
> Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear
holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops
that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till
finally the rock is all one scarlet blob.
This doesn't wear a hole into what a PhD is and erode away the foundation. It smothers it in something else, and slowly but surely we're not left with a rock, but one soft blob of wax -- totally different from what a PhD is, but slowly enough that we still pretend we're dealing with what it was.
Of all the experiments Ive ever performed western blots are probably my most hated and for that I empathise with the doctor. Theres something particularly painful about performing an experiment that consistently fails and has a significant number of variables which forces you to repeat the experiment under various conditions to determine whether you genuinly have noo result or the experiment failed.
Ive spent 6 months doing western blots trying to workout whether the protein i was interested in was actually not expressed or whether something was wrong. It turned out that the commercial antibodies I was using had failed.
Theres enough pressure in research to destroy ones confidencce and self esteem and I genuinly understand that urge to sometimes just turn a blind eye or pretend I saw something I didnt.
At the end of the day though you have to be honest with yourself and decide which road you will travel. Im glad they didn't strip him of his PhD. The public humiliation will warrant enough misfortune for the scientist and hopefully he will learn from his mistakes.
He faked data in his graduate thesis, in applications for National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association grant, and in two published papers, so his behavior is part of a rather inexcusable pattern.
Doctorate work is supposed to be difficult, and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement.
The only responsible course of action they could have taken was to strip him of his credentials. They didn't do that, so one must naturally question every single doctorate they hand out.
Perhaps it doesn't matter to some that they hand out PhD's in the bottom of Cracker Jack boxes, but this is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.
You are talking about pressure, hate and pain when researching. So if I understand you correctly you say something like:
"Research is hard. You try to discover something new. You spent months on research and you still have not discovered something. This is part of the reason why some researches fake results."
Right?
Wouldn't that be 'solved' if we had well established research journals which accept papers of failed research?
Because then you could at least publish what you tried and how/why it failed so that other researches can learn from what you did even though it did not turn out to produce new "positive" knowledge...
This is what happens when your PHD is dependent on how important you graduate thesis is.
I understand the urge to make it difficult but when PHD's are dependent on papers people will do whatever it takes and we get a lot of fake scientific papers because people want the degree.
You should be doing research because you are genuinely interested in the results not to get a piece of paper you can show your family and friends to show them how smart you are.
Worst of all the fake research dilutes the value of research papers in general making you question all your assumptions and the papers they come from.
I agree completely, and there is also a profit motive. PhD candidates typically make paltry pay, but have often racked up a good amount of debt that was delayed during their PhD work. In order to get a job that can actually make those years of study and work economically viable, they have to have first authorship on huge papers. At least that's the case in biology right now.
Unfortunately, there is a chain of dependencies that forces some people to do the wrong things. For example, the number of papers you publish is a major factor among others:
- in receiving grants,
- in hiring you as a researcher by universities,
- in getting your papers accepted by journals.
All these force you to write papers in bulk. But, how many original papers you can write based on a set of data, analysis, and results?
IMO, The question whether the scientist gets to keep his PhD is secondary.
The more important question is how do we make sure that we base our research on sound results.
"Nitin Aggarwal" is a very common name - 332 hits on LinkedIn. With his ill-gotten PhD in hand, he will very likely be able to continue his research career while "hiding in plain view."
So, what are the criteria of "scientifically valid" theses these days?
I would have preferred a statement like, "After discarding all parts which relied upon the fabricated data, the resulting thesis is still acceptable to the committee as a doctoral thesis." However, I feel bad about all the Ph.D.'s out there who may feel they have to defend the integrity of their work. (Mine is in pure math; fabricated data is not a big worry for us :D )
I was very surprised by the response from the institution. I wonder what the backlash will be with regard to those grants (NIH and AHA). Should this invalidate those grants?
So if I claim to have a degree from MCW, who would ever find out I'm lying? I'm also wondering if Bristol-Myers Squibb considers the ability to fake data a plus or a minus ... I guess it's a plus before you're caught and a minus afterwards?
[+] [-] bdg|12 years ago|reply
> Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob.
This doesn't wear a hole into what a PhD is and erode away the foundation. It smothers it in something else, and slowly but surely we're not left with a rock, but one soft blob of wax -- totally different from what a PhD is, but slowly enough that we still pretend we're dealing with what it was.
[+] [-] cup|12 years ago|reply
Ive spent 6 months doing western blots trying to workout whether the protein i was interested in was actually not expressed or whether something was wrong. It turned out that the commercial antibodies I was using had failed.
Theres enough pressure in research to destroy ones confidencce and self esteem and I genuinly understand that urge to sometimes just turn a blind eye or pretend I saw something I didnt.
At the end of the day though you have to be honest with yourself and decide which road you will travel. Im glad they didn't strip him of his PhD. The public humiliation will warrant enough misfortune for the scientist and hopefully he will learn from his mistakes.
[+] [-] AmVess|12 years ago|reply
Doctorate work is supposed to be difficult, and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement.
The only responsible course of action they could have taken was to strip him of his credentials. They didn't do that, so one must naturally question every single doctorate they hand out.
Perhaps it doesn't matter to some that they hand out PhD's in the bottom of Cracker Jack boxes, but this is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.
[+] [-] LinaLauneBaer|12 years ago|reply
"Research is hard. You try to discover something new. You spent months on research and you still have not discovered something. This is part of the reason why some researches fake results."
Right?
Wouldn't that be 'solved' if we had well established research journals which accept papers of failed research?
Because then you could at least publish what you tried and how/why it failed so that other researches can learn from what you did even though it did not turn out to produce new "positive" knowledge...
Just did a quick google search - there is a journal out there for that: http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/
Maybe it is not prominent enough?
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuxy|12 years ago|reply
I understand the urge to make it difficult but when PHD's are dependent on papers people will do whatever it takes and we get a lot of fake scientific papers because people want the degree.
You should be doing research because you are genuinely interested in the results not to get a piece of paper you can show your family and friends to show them how smart you are.
Worst of all the fake research dilutes the value of research papers in general making you question all your assumptions and the papers they come from.
[+] [-] jonlucc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drd|12 years ago|reply
All these force you to write papers in bulk. But, how many original papers you can write based on a set of data, analysis, and results?
[+] [-] hkmurakami|12 years ago|reply
I wonder what action, if any, his employer will take.
[+] [-] cincinnatus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droid_w|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skj|12 years ago|reply
This university has substantially lowered the reputation conferred by their degree by allowing this person to keep his.
[+] [-] auctiontheory|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clintonc|12 years ago|reply
I would have preferred a statement like, "After discarding all parts which relied upon the fabricated data, the resulting thesis is still acceptable to the committee as a doctoral thesis." However, I feel bad about all the Ph.D.'s out there who may feel they have to defend the integrity of their work. (Mine is in pure math; fabricated data is not a big worry for us :D )
[+] [-] jonlucc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoyer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imahboob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valugi|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]