ERROR 1. ERROR 2. Password and Confirm password must match. If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. ACS values your privacy. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Log in here. Already an ACS Member? Choose the membership that is right for you. Discount will be applied automatically at checkout. Your account has been created successfully, and a confirmation email is on the way. But many of them will likely never be answered—especially the question, Why?
Columbia in awarded her a Ph. Details of the case make clear that Sezen, at the very least, has a sophisticated understanding of chemical principles. The effort she put into faking it and covering her tracks, say many people who have reviewed the case, easily match that required for legitimate doctoral work in science. But, with mounting questions about her chemistry thesis and published work—eventually to include retraction of research papers she coauthored with her professor, Dalibor Sames , on C—H bond functionalization—Columbia assembled an investigative committee to probe deeper.
In turn, Sezen began an elaborate game of hide-and-seek that intensified over the months-long investigation. At first she was cooperative, if not more than a little spirited in defending her research. Her attitude left many wondering if she really was the highly skilled but misunderstood experimenter she claimed to be. As the evidence of her misconduct began to pile up, however, her attempts to explain away her actions became increasingly implausible.
Of the many difficult issues raised by the Sezen case, experts say, the dependence of graduate students on one professor stands out. Each of these students had spent much time unsuccessfully trying to reproduce and extend Dr.
What became of those former Sames lab members is unknown. Columbia has erected a wall of silence around Sezen, her brazen fakery, and the consequences for those who had the misfortune of working with her. Aside from the few spare and prepared statements about her doctoral degree and the status of its misconduct investigation, the university has blotted out any mention of what happened inside the Sames laboratory between and , when Sezen was a Ph.
During this period, however, Sames was granted tenure. Columbia has expressly forbidden Sames or any of its other employees from speaking publicly about the Sezen case. ORI also declined further comment. But even more, Stemwedel says, with the Sezen case, Columbia has a difficult but unique opportunity to be of service to the academic community.
She says it would be valuable if the university could find a way to open up dialogue about the Sezen case, how it went undetected, and how possible future cases of scientific fraud might be prevented.
But the detailed investigation report now in wide circulation does provide some insight. An ORI notice in the Nov. More than six papers that Sezen had coauthored with Sames were withdrawn by him in because her results could not be replicated. For her doctoral work at Columbia, Sezen claimed to have developed a method for selectively activating C—H bonds, a technique commonly used to functionalize hydrocarbons. The Columbia investigative committee determined that at least one NMR spectrum she produced that year was fake and, in general, noted a lack of data and descriptive detail for any of her experimental work throughout her five-plus years in the Sames lab.
Dalibor Sames got tenure and a promotion. These three scientific trainees got shown the door. Maybe they found their way into another Ph. Or maybe they gave up on the world of chemistry as a snake pit where politics matters more than sound scientific methodology.
In any event, it seems fair to conclude that they did not get the scientific training and mentoring they deserved from Dalibor Sames. Academic laboratories make new knowledge and new scientists. The second of these functions is crucially important if we do not want the ability to build new knowledge to die out with the present generation of PIs. As well, ignoring the training function of these laboratories makes it look an awful lot like university science research laboratories exist primarily to exploit cheap student labor.
This suggests that Sames did not succeed in the task of training new scientists. Moreover, there is no indication that Columbia University has sanctioned Sames at all for his role in Sezen's fraud, nor for dismissing the students who raised reasonable questions about her work. To all appearances, then, Columbia University doesn't take the job of training new scientists very seriously. If it did, not only would there be some non-trivial consequences for Sames which might include serious mentoring in how to mentor scientific trainees , but there would also be some serious effort to arrange the training of graduate students so that they would not be so subject to the whims and judgment of a single faculty member.
Chemists-in-training in a graduate chemistry program have the potential to impact the larger community of chemists, for good or for ill. The chemistry faculty at Columbia University, as a group, has a duty to all the students in the Columbia graduate chemistry program -- to make sure these students learn how to be good chemists, but also to make sure they are not being punished for asking reasonable questions or sharing unwelcome results.
Further, members of the chemistry faculty arguably have a duty to get involved when a colleague drops the ball, whether with respect to mentoring his trainees or with respect to exercising appropriate skepticism about his own results.
There might be a natural impulse to side with one's fellow faculty member over a graduate student who is, after all, just passing through your department. However, if you're doing the job of training new scientists right, graduate students are not transients in one's scientific community.
They are your scientific sons and daughters. The future of your discipline depends on the lessons you teach them. What lessons have Dalibor Sames and Columbia University taught the rising generations of the community of chemistry?
I also wrote about it on my other blog as the case unfolded here , here , here , here , and here. The views expressed are those of the author s and are not necessarily those of Scientific American. Janet D. Her explorations of ethics, scientific knowledge-building, and how they are intertwined are informed by her misspent scientific youth as a physical chemist. Follow Janet D. Stemwedel on Twitter. Already a subscriber?
Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. See Subscription Options.
Discover World-Changing Science. All six papers that she coauthored with her adviser were withdrawn. During the investigation, Sezen, then overseas, disappeared from public view. Similar fraud has occurred in others areas, notably in cancer research.
It is difficult to understand why someone would fabricate a breakthrough. An obscure piece of work, maybe. It might be decades before anyone tried to reproduce it. But an important finding is sure to be checked immediately. Why would someone cheat when they are certain to be caught? Why do some wealthy people shoplift? Psychologists will have to explain that to us, but the lesson to researchers is clear: scrutinize all data!
Bring me the original NMR spectra that this is based on. It is impossible to say how prevalent grad student fraud is.
0コメント