E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Donald Kennedy Reflections on a Retraction Science 2000; 289: 1137 [Summary]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

An Ounce of Prevention

Susanna Lewis   (1 September 2000)

An Ounce of Prevention 1 September 2000
Susanna Lewis, Senior Scientist Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute Respond to this E-Letter: Re: An Ounce of Prevention	It is always very sad and maddening to read a retraction, but I think, too, there is for many of us an accompanying false sense of immunity (and perhaps also morbid relief) of the type that one gets when viewing an obituary. Probably every case of fraud is different with respect to when it "should" have been discovered, but I would like to suggest that sometimes it cannot be uncovered without extreme measures, as here, when the principal investigator rolls up his or her sleeves and tries to reproduce the data. It is too easy to criticize a person for "creating a stressful laboratory environment"; however, there is little that is not stressful about a career in science, and I think that, even if that were the case in the Lieber lab, it is casting blame unfairly. Those who can’t take the heat shouldn’t be in the kitchen. But often this is not realized (to over- extend a metaphor) until food poisoning sets in. It is also easy to suggest that there was inadequate oversight of the experiments, but I believe any scientist can think back to his or her own post-doctoral days, and with a little imagination, can work out how it would have been possible to have overtly manufactured the data he or she produced, especially if that work was on the "cutting edge" where there is little reference to previous results and experience from other laboratories. So, should the lab head be expected as a matter of course to duck into the lab and check results? Or should there instead be some acknowledgement that here was a responsible group that was victimized by one unethical member? I suspect that this is not something that happens all of a sudden in one particular circumstance. Without knowing any of the particulars in the present case, I would like to suggest that it may be informative to instead look at the people who supply reference letters for those who have cheated. Is there some "passing the trash" going on? In my experience, too often people tuck criticisms "in between the lines" and expect the recipient to interpret faint praise as condemnation. Maybe a little honesty at this level is in order. Mike Lieber is a colleague of mine. I did a post doc in the same laboratory as he. I wish him well.