E-Letter responses to:

n-focus: Jennifer Couzin SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Truth and Consequences Science 2006; 313: 1222-1226 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Experiments Must Be Repeated

Arnold E. Reif   (27 February 2007)

Saving Our Scientists

Hedvah L. Shuchman   (2 November 2006)

Experiments Must Be Repeated 27 February 2007
Arnold E. Reif Boston University School of Medicine Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Experiments Must Be Repeated	The article “Truth and consequences” by Jennifer Couzin detailed the disastrous consequences for the careers of whistleblowers in the laboratory of Professor Elizabeth Goodwin. A key sentence was that “Despite months of effort, Ly was unable to replicate earlier observations from the lab.” From this remark, it seems that Goodwin failed to follow the unbreakable rule in research work that my postdoctoral adviser, biochemist Van R. Potter, drummed into his students: Repeat each experiment. Never believe an experimental result unless verified by repeating it. Following this rule doubles the time and work needed for research, but it allows one’s work to withstand questioning. The effort needed to obey this gold standard of scientific integrity pays off in peace of mind. Because I followed Van Potter’s rule throughout my career, my experimental results were challenged only twice. In 1964, Joan Allen and I reported the first marker of T-cells, which we called “Theta.” The 19 strains of mice that we tested possessed either one or the other of two alleles of the Theta gene (1), which I later called “Thy.” But a lead researcher of a famous laboratory wrote to me that we had assigned the wrong allele to one strain. I felt dumbfounded and immediately obtained two more mice of that strain. We rechecked them breathlessly and confirmed our original classification. This man had previously played an innocent practical joke on me, so I suspected this was another joke, but less innocent. Our findings were also attacked by a lovely Swedish scientist during the discussion of a paper I gave, but she apologized to me for her disbelief -- 30 years later. Reference 1. A. E. Reif, J. M. V. Allen, J. Exp. Med. 120, 413 (1964).
Saving Our Scientists 2 November 2006
Hedvah L. Shuchman Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Saving Our Scientists	The article “Truth and consequences” (NewsFocus 1 Sept., p.1222) is strongly reminiscent of the plot of Allegra Goodman’s novel Intuition (1). That a prominent novelist has found this sort of circumstance of interest suggests that the story is more common than the scientific community acknowledges. The tragedy is twofold: (i) The careers of the scientists working in the lab tainted by an unprincipled researcher are set back years or snuffed out by frustration and lack of support from institutional administrators; and (ii) the institution of science has been seriously damaged, yet there is no attention given to salvaging the careers of the innocent scientists. It would be good if scientific organizations of all kinds developed an expedited system for dealing with such events, which would help to minimize the consequences for science and scientists. Hedvah Lang Shuchman E-mail: Hedvah@comcast.net Reference 1. A. Goodman, Intuition (Dial Press, New York, 2006).