Chemistry at Columbia University: Unreproducible results

A Columbia University chemistry professor has retracted two papers and part of a third published in a leading journal after experiments performed by a graduate student could not be reproduced.

The senior author of all three papers, which were published in 2004 and 2005 in The Journal of the American Chemical Society, was Prof. Dalibor Sames; the graduate student, listed as an author on each, was Bengu Sezen, who left the university after getting her doctorate last year.

The article goes on to explain that because other scientists tried to reproduce the results and couldn't this is an example of science correcting itself.

I've written about this before and used the stem cell faked data "from South Korean stem-cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk" as an example. When scientist go about their work, and part of that is trying to reproduce the results of others, they provide perfect checks and balances to one another. it's a good system, but it's not good enough.

What's disappointing here is the graduate student probably faked her work and got (not earned!) her degree, a Ph. D., no less. The university needs to do a full investigation and if these results were faked (not just wrong, but deliberately falsified) to rescind her degree. If not, what message does this send to other would-be liars? Well, just fake it, no one will find out, at least not until it's too late. And, then so what? You already have your degree and can go on anyway.

Next, the school should discipline the faculty advisor. Afterall, it's the advisor's responsibility to supervise and review all the work of the graduate student. He or she has the authority to approve or disapprove what goes on in his or her lab. If faulty work goes out, it is the advisor who is ultimately responsible. Yes, advisors are busy. Sure, they can be duped. They are vulnerable to self-duping, because they have a vested interest in seeing work published. Their name is part of the work and they garner credit for tenure and promotion with each publication. Moreover, they obtain funding based on past work. Considered together, that's all the more reason that the advisor has responsiblitly.

Finally, the school itself is cast in a bad light. It would do Columbia well to investigate this cheating futher, discipline each participant properly, and enact rules and policies so that it doesn't happen again.