Quick navigation: Home   |    Site Map   ||    References   |    Biography   ||    Copyright   |    Other copyright   |    Contact us   |    Advert   |   
 

Re: [ccp4bb] very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication

- Protein crystallography

Main steps:

   - Protein purification
   - Crystallisation

Special:

   - Programs for crystallography
   - X-ray detectors

Basic tutorials:

   - Chemistry
   - Protein
   - Peptide
   - Amino Acids

Xtal community:

   - CCP4BB

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: Re: very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication
From: Ronald E Stenkamp stenkamp {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2012-04-06
Next message:
Subject: UPDATED: Position Available: Technical Key Account Manager at Microlytic
From: Melanie Adams-Cioaba adamscioaba {- at -} GMAIL {- dot -} COM
Date: 2012-04-06


Subject: Re: very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication
From: Patrick Loll pat {- dot -} loll {- at -} DREXEL {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2012-04-06

Ron makes an excellent point. Many institutions devote far more energy to limiting risk than to doing the right thing. This leads administrators to a frightening, but logical conclusion: The less science we do, the less chance of our doing something that could invite a penalty on the university. This translates into rules intended to head off bad behavior, but which in fact make it more difficult to do honest science, and increase the administrative burden (our IT group has already made great strides in this direction--if you can't connect to the network, then you can't use it to violate HIPAA!).
So I agree that we should be cautious about "improvements."
Pat


On 6 Apr 2012, at 12:23 PM, Ronald E Stenkamp wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> Your points are well taken and they're consistent with policies and practices in the US as well.
>
> I wonder about the nature of the employer's responsibility though. I sit on some university committees, and the impression I get is that much of the time, the employers are interested in reducing their legal liabilities, not protecting the integrity of science. The end result is the same though in that the employers get involved and oversee the handling of scientific misconduct.
>
> What is unclear to me is whether the system for dealing with misconduct is broken. It seems to work pretty well from my viewpoint. No system is perfect for identifying fraud, errors, etc, and I understand the idea that improvements might be possible. However, too many "improvements" might break the system as well.
>
> Ron
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Director, Biochemistry Graduate Program
Drexel University College of Medicine
Room 10-102 New College Building
245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192 USA

(215) 762-7706
pat.loll@drexelmed.edu

CCP4bb navigation

CCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999
Previous message:
Subject: Re: very informative - Trends in Data Fabrication
From: Ronald E Stenkamp stenkamp {- at -} U {- dot -} WASHINGTON {- dot -} EDU
Date: 2012-04-06
Next message:
Subject: UPDATED: Position Available: Technical Key Account Manager at Microlytic
From: Melanie Adams-Cioaba adamscioaba {- at -} GMAIL {- dot -} COM
Date: 2012-04-06



ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2010 by Quid United Ltd