BioScience Biz

Challenging conventional wisdom: too many PhDs?

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recently tackled some familiar questions, such as how to boost the number of students in technical fields and how to encourage more partnerships between colleges and the private sector. But not all of their answers fell neatly in line with conventional wisdom.

Michael S. Teitelbaum, a demographer at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, looked at what he called five “mysteries” of the STEM work force issue. For example, why do employers claim a shortage of qualified STEM graduates while prospects for Ph.D.s remain “poor"? Why do retention and completion rates for STEM fields remain low compared with students’ aspirations? Why is there a “serious” funding crisis at the National Institutes of Health after its budget doubled from 1998 to 2003?

Read the article on insidehighered.com

Biotech in high school?

In the Journal of Life Sciences, award winning high school teacher, Kirk Brown, tells about how he has inspired a new generation of scientists through an unusual curriculum and partnership with industry.

Read here how Mr. Brown has created many personal success stories at a blue-collar high school in central Califorinia.  It is a story that could be repeated anywhere there is a strong biotech presence.

Purdue University guilty of misconduct in research misconduct case, by Steven S. Clark

Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University, was found guilty of 2 of the 12 charges of research misconduct by a special scientific panel appointed by the university.  In 2002, Taleyarkhan published papers claiming to have created what was commonly called “tabletop fusion” or “bubble fusion.”

When other scholars found themselves unable to replicate his findings, questions emerged about the veracity of his work. This led to an earlier Purdue probe into Taleyarkhan's research that found no evidence of misconduct.  But, this did not eliminate the swirling accusations and the university capitulated to Congressional pressure to launch a second investigation.

A report from the second investigation, issued Friday, like the report from the first investigation, did not find that any of the original work was falsified. However, it did find that Taleyarkhan was guilty of “gift authorship”, or adding a name to a paper on which the researcher played no role. In addition, the panel also found that Taleyarkhan overstated a claim in a scientific paper that his findings had been independently verified. Taleyarkhan’s lawyer told The Indianapolis Star that his client was considering an appeal.

In other words, this is what transpired: competitors who were unable to replicate the Purdue Prof's research accused him of faking it. Two panels at Purdue looked into this allegation and neither faulted him on his research findings.  Rather, one panel, but not the other faulted him for comparatively minor (important, but minor) infractions that seem unrelated to the original accusation.  And these infractions were only found after very close scrutiny of the Prof's day-to-day activities.

Put all research professors to the same stringent test and you will find similar minor problems of gift authorships, hyperbole, negligence in attribution, etc.  Put anyone in any profession to such a stringent test and you will find similar minor problems.

To be sure, people need to be transparent in their professional lives where the appearance of proper behavior is just as important as behaving properly.  We need to have people believe in our research and have confidence in our findings and when we give an appearance of sloppiness, even if we are not sloppy, that confidence is lost.

This applies not just for individuals, but for institutions as well. It certainly appears on the surface that Purdue went witch hunting in order to find or manufacture anything against Taleyarkhan. Even if this is not true, the perception of the University's behavior in this case is very troubling.

Was Purdue going to try the guy until they could find something to pin on him?  To what extent would they have gone to do this?

Committee 1 finds no fault.  Committee 2 finds just a little bit. Which is it?  What about committee 3?

This is double jeopardy.  What a terrible blow for due process in the academy and Purdue's faculty is the big loser here.
________________________________________________________________________________________

© 2008 Steven S. Clark, PhD, some rights reserved. Articles contained herein, are meant to be distributed freely to interested parties. However, any excerpts from any article must credit BioScience Biz.

Disclaimer: The authors used their best efforts in collecting and preparing the information published herein. However, neither Steven S. Clark, nor other authors, assume, and hereby disclaim, any and all liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident, or other causes.