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\u00a0measurements and that scientists honor truth above all else.<\/p>\n
So, given the importance that scientists attach to\u00a0truthfulness, what can one make of the behavior of Columbia University<\/strong><\/a> and Professor Dalibor Sames<\/strong><\/a> in the wake of the Bengu Sezen<\/strong> scandal? The story, which has been covered in detail by ChemBark<\/strong><\/a> (and also by C&ENews<\/strong><\/a>), involves\u00a0a massive fabrication of data by Sezen, a graduate student, and the subsequent publication\u00a0of 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\u00a0other 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\u00a0this how institutions train and protect their students?<\/p>\n Unfortunately, episodes like this suggest that it\u00a0may 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\u00a0institutions and supervisors that appear to care more about their reputation and advancement than about a student’s welfare. As Prof. Charles Drain<\/strong><\/a> of Hunter\u00a0College (CUNY)<\/strong><\/a> eloquently wrote in C&ENews<\/strong><\/a>, “The blatantly unethical actions of\u00a0Sames, tacitly supported by the Columbia administration by its blanket of\u00a0silence, have dramatically altered if not harmed the lives of three quite promising young scientists. Pressures on untenured faculty to publish are not\u00a0an excuse, and Columbia has tarnished rather than protected its image in the\u00a0sciences. … it is clear that no one had their [the three students’] interests in\u00a0mind and that even rudimentary checks and balances were not followed to protect\u00a0whistle-blowers. How can the chemical community recommend students at any level\u00a0to an institution wherein the quest for new knowledge is subjugated to mentor\u00a0and university expediencies?<\/em>“<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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… Continue reading