Students are attracted to science for many reasons: the thrill of discovery, the satisfaction that comes from making a unique contribution, the possibility of good, steady employment. The search for truth offers another potent draw. Students are repeatedly taught that truth can be found in scientific measurements and that scientists honor truth above all else.
So, given the importance that scientists attach to truthfulness, what can one make of the behavior of Columbia University and Professor Dalibor Sames in the wake of the Bengu Sezen scandal? The story, which has been covered in detail by ChemBark (and also by C&ENews), involves a massive fabrication of data by Sezen, a graduate student, and the subsequent publication of these data in multiple papers (later retracted) by Sezen and her Ph.D. adviser, Sames. The University has refused to comment on any part of the case. Professor Sames, for his part, published five more papers with Sezen after other members of his research group (and several groups outside of Columbia) informed Sames that Sezen’s work could not be reproduced. He even retaliated against some of the graduate student whistle-blowers by forcing them out of his research group. Is this how scientists reward the search for truth? Is this how institutions train and protect their students?
Unfortunately, episodes like this suggest that it may no longer be enough to teach our students respect for the highest ethical principles. We may also have to teach them methods for protecting themselves from institutions and supervisors that appear to care more about their reputation and advancement than about a student’s welfare. As Prof. Charles Drain of Hunter College (CUNY) eloquently wrote in C&ENews, “The blatantly unethical actions of Sames, tacitly supported by the Columbia administration by its blanket of silence, have dramatically altered if not harmed the lives of three quite promising young scientists. Pressures on untenured faculty to publish are not an excuse, and Columbia has tarnished rather than protected its image in the sciences. … it is clear that no one had their [the three students’] interests in mind and that even rudimentary checks and balances were not followed to protect whistle-blowers. How can the chemical community recommend students at any level to an institution wherein the quest for new knowledge is subjugated to mentor and university expediencies?“
