The Difficulties of Being a Responsible Researcher
This week I was exposed several times to the topic of responsible research conduct. As part of the Howard Hughes Program we watched the movie, “And the Band Played On”, which specifically dealt with the research that was first conducted on HIV and the controversy surrounding that research. Then I read several articles about other articles being retracted and found some retracted articles on my own. Finally, I had a conversation with the author of the paper whose results I am trying to reproduce, which gave me a unique insight into the field of responsible research.
After this week on responsible research I feel that there are two different types of “misconducts” in research. One type is fabricating data intentionally and publishing material that you know is not true. This type of misconduct happens mostly because of the intense competition for grants. I agree with many who say that this kind of research is unacceptable because it hinders the main goal of research – to make progress in science. However, this kind of misconduct will always be present because there will never be enough grants for everyone. Having enough grants would require too much money and without competition for grants there may be less of a sense of urgency in labs. Therefore it is really up to each person to make the right choice.
The other type of “misconduct”, which I put in quotation marks because I personally do not think falls under the category of misconduct, is publishing results that someone genuinely thinks are true at the time, but later turn out to be unrepeatable or flawed. I do not think that these mistakes should be considered misconduct, but rather necessary stepping-stones of science. In the movie, the CDC group did not publish its findings about HIV and its transmission immediately because it was not considered scientifically sound. However, had they published their results, they could have possibly reduced the number of cases by making people aware of the means of transmission. They would have helped other groups also studying HIV by sharing their findings among the scientific community. Even if they were wrong, other groups would still benefit from knowing what they did and what information they found.
So this past week, I talked to the person who wrote the paper I am following in my research. It was actually really cool to talk to her because I never imagined that I could call the person who wrote an article and talk to them about their work. I learned how connected the scientific community actually is. She was really helpful, which was a surprise to me because I thought she would be reluctant to help someone who is doing similar research as her. Plus I thought she might be a little unwilling to share her protocols, which took years to perfect, with someone who wishes to repeat her experiments in a matter of weeks. However, to my surprise, she was really nice and helpful. She gave me many tips about the protocols she used and even offered to give me materials if I was unable to obtain them in a timely fashion.
Anyways, back to the point, one thing I found really surprising in our conversation was that she kept telling me about how unsure she was of her results and how she kept trying new techniques and materials to make sure her results were real. She also kept saying how glad she was that I was repeating her experiment so that it would give her a peace of mind to know that her results were real. Let’s say one day her results turn out to be unrepeatable. There were certain conditions in her lab or with her materials that allowed certain results to be seen, but that condition does not exist in the human body. Then would she be accused of misconduct? I would argue no. Should her paper be retracted? I think it would be, but that there should not be blame or stigma associated with the paper being retracted. She genuinely thought her results were real and tried her best to ensure that they were real. Fear of having results that turn out to be wrong does make you more careful, but in cases where data and results are needed right away, it also hinders useful information from being released. Furthermore, even published papers with mistakes can be helpful for other lab groups who can continue the research and find out why the mistakes are present and work on them. However genuine mistakes should not be looked at with such a scornful eye because we are human after all. Mistakes, even in published papers, are learning lessons.
