James E. Kruse Writing assignment 3 6/18/17 CSAFE REU Responsible Conduct Response
Prompt: What are some of the consequences of LaCour’s behavior? For Broockman and Kalla? For Green? For other researchers in this field? For UCLA? For activists?
First and foremost, by falsifying data, LaCour has more than likely lost most if not all of his credibility. This would have been amplified to an astounding degree due to both the paper being published in a well-respected journal and the subsequent response it got from both the academic and the general community. In addition, he will have a difficult time trying to re-build his career. It was stated in the paper that he lost his faculty position offer from Princeton University due to this scandal.
In the case of Dr. Green, he had good intentions when it came to the way he conducted himself during the development of the paper, but his negligence will also have a damaging effect on his reputation. By neglecting to follow up on the data and allowing this to be published, he failed as both a mentor and supervisor in the case of this paper. This will have an effect on the way both his future and past work will be viewed by other professionals. He will more than likely be able to bring himself back from this over time, but it will be a long hull.
As for Brookman and Kalla, they should be commended for their work on this investigation and paper. Both graduate students took on something that could have damaged their careers if they had been wrong. They, as far as can be gleamed from this case study, checked into many aspects of the case and followed up in both an academic and professional way. This could be a great way to start a career, but it should be noted that there may be some backlash. Publishing an academic paper is no small feat and debunking one could gain one an interesting reputation.
The effect that this would have on UCLA and the field could range. UCLA itself can’t help from getting some negative backlash, but due to the nature of the situation it cannot take all of the blame. As a well-respected institution, it can be assumed that they will be able to survive and prosper in the wake of the scandal. As for the field as a whole, they will suffer a little more. Science is a living animal and everyone that publishes contributes to moving it forward and building it up. By publishing a paper in the manner that they did and it garnering the response it did, there is no way the field will be able to go on unscathed at least in some small way. In some way, countless practitioners and researchers will be viewed differently by both the industry and the public.
Lastly, the activists. It was stated in the case study that many organizations changed in response to this paper and new approaches to the voting system were put into place. The new allocation of funds and future research costs people a considerable sum and all of this was based on a paper that was later retracted. All in all, it should be noted that things like this will hurt the community and public. We as researchers and scientists, no matter the field, are setting precedents and introducing new facts that will help shape people’s views. We have seen many instances, especially through the use of social media and the internet as a whole, which involved the introduction of scientific claims that may or may not have solid scientific backing. People will respond, so it is important that we hold ourselves to a high standard when researching and publishing in any regard.
Prompt: What are the responsibilities of individuals who co-author papers? What can or should a student (graduate or undergraduate) do when co-author is suspected of falsifying data?
When co-authoring a paper, it is necessary to make sure that all data collected and used is honest, legitimate, authentic, and collected without bias or fabrication. While I myself have never been a part of an academic paper, I suspect that this could be tricky.
It would be ideal if all individuals could be trusted to present data that was perfect in every way, but in reality this is unrealistic. When collaborating, it is the responsibility of the individuals involved to look into the people they are working with. Review some of their past work/credentials and then use that as a basis moving forward.
In the case of this paper, Dr. Green was unable to analyze the data due to not having prior approval. There were other ways to get the data reviewed and these could have been followed. It should be remembered that while you may not be the one fabricating data, your name will be on the publication as will the name of your employer.
If you are a student and believe that your superiors are fabricating data, you should go to a trusted advisor or other faculty member to voice your concerns. It is important that you are honest and have evidence to back up the claims as this is a very serious situation and could lead to any number of consequences ranging in severity. If you yourself are working on the paper and have the means without getting into trouble yourself, follow up on the research. In any situation, two sets of eyes are better than one.
As stated above, we as researchers are paving new ground. We need to make sure that our data and claims are founded in fact and can be supported. If they are fabricated, it can and will harm more than just you.