Event: Envy: The Cutthroat Side of Science
Moderator: Mariette DiChristina; Panelists: Harold Garner, Ivan Oransky, and Morton Meyers
Date: April 31, 2013
Organizer/Source: New York Academy of Sciences
Like many of the Academy’s Science and the City events, “Envy” presented a panel of speakers. Ultimately it showed the strengths and weaknesses typical of panels. The panel’s main strength was its range of expertise. Its corresponding weakness, a lack of focus, would scarcely bear mentioning, except that this particular panel was split between two perspectives that neither clashed nor harmonized. This split brought to mind the proverbial donkey that stands midway between a trough of water and a bale of hay. The poor beast fails to move towards either because it is just as thirsty as it is hungry.
The first perspective, scientific misconduct as an expression of individual character, was covered by Dr. Morton Meyers, Distinguished University Professor and emeritus chair of the Department of Radiology in the School of Medicine SUNY, Stony Brook. Actually, Meyers did not dwell on the most obvious forms of misconduct such as plagiarism and outright fakery. For the most part, he told stories of acrimonious priority disputes.
Although attendees were probably aware that many scientists are capable of being as selfish as they are ambitious, Meyers provided historical details of considerable intrinsic interest. For example, Meyers explained how the discovery of streptomycin involved a dispute between Schatz and Waksman. Also, he explained how the development of magnetic resonance imaging involved a dispute between Damadian and Lauterber. (These and other controversies are discussed in Meyers’ book, Prize Fight: The Race and Rivalry to be the First in Science.)
Meyers’ co-panelists were less interested in historical drama than in timely metrics. Dr. Harold Garner, Director of Medical Informatics Systems at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, described how database applications are being used to detect instances of plagiarism. Dr. Ivan Oransky, a blogger at Retraction Watch (and Executive Editor of Reuters Health at Thomson Reuters), discussed the increasing number of retracted articles. By some estimates, more than two-thirds of retractions are due to misconduct, not simple error.
To their credit, Garner and Oransky avoided sensationalism, perhaps because they feel that the available data are just beginning to characterize scientific misconduct. In any event, these panelists called for incremental improvements, not sweeping reforms.
Garner suggested that post-publication searches could be augmented by preemptive searches. If a preemptive search were conducted as part of the review of a grant application, a granting agency might detect an attempt at “double dipping,” the solicitation of funds for a project that has already been funded by another granting agency.
Oransky insisted that retraction notices should be clearer. At present, vague notices frustrate attempts to understand the nature of retractions. (Clearer notices might suggest ways to prevent the publication of retraction-worthy papers.)
The circumspection observed by the panelists contrasted with the willingness of the attendees to offer their speculations during the Q&A. Some attendees boldly suggested that the scientific enterprise itself, not just individual scientists or research projects, might be compromised. They raised questions about the role of commercial incentives and political pressures. The panelists, however, seemed unimpressed. Garner expressed confidence that worthless products, ineffective drugs, say, would fail to win patent approval. He concluded, “Products must work.” (For an alternative point of view, see this article.) Similarly, in response to a question about whether political interests could pressure researchers, Oransky said, “It is not so easy to gin up slanted research to support your agenda.”
Perhaps other issues, such as the desirability of more stable funding, could have been taken up, but time was too short, particularly since most of the Q&A time was consumed by just one attendee. Many attendees of Science and the City Events are well informed, though perhaps no so well informed as they imagine. (It seems that they would happily replace any speaker, given the chance.) They must pose a challenge to moderators!
Image: Gustave Doré’s illustration of Dante and Virgil among the envious.