crazietalk.net

As some of you may recall, I work in a research core lab. Basically this means that we're involved in lots of different projects with multiple principal investigators (PIs). We have one PI in particular that's writing up a manuscript, and I'm listed as a co-author on the draft. Now for the interesting dilemma: after lots of careful deliberation, I have decided that I do not want my name on this particular manuscript. Without going into too many details, I feel that much of what they're doing is at best misrepresentation of the data and at worst outright falsification. Normally I do the data interpretation, but in this case a research assistant professor in the lab is doing the interpretation. In my opinion she's doing this in a manner that gives the answer she wants, and it's not always correct. Any time I point out that I disagree with the conclusion that is being made, I am ignored. The only diplomatic justification I can come up with for removing my name from the paper is that she did the interpretation rather than me. They may argue that I acquired the data, but in all cases where I'm a co-author I actually performed the data analysis. I cannot state how strongly I feel about not having my name associated with this paper, but if I give the real reasons it will cause all sorts of trouble. Can anyone think of a good way to deal with this issue?

If you are involved in other projects can you say that those are taking more time than you anticipated and that you need to remove yourself from this project? Don't let them push you into staying on the project. You have to protect your integrity and hopefully you'll be allowed to do so diplomatically.

I agree with DPA. You don't want to go down with the ship when it sinks.

Can you tell the powers that be that you don't wish to be a co-author because you didn't perform the analysis, and that you made a decision long ago never to be listed as a co-author when you did not perform the analysis?

Honesty will not come back to bite you on the butt...whether it is related diplomatically or not.

Not sure of the approach, but I AM sure of one thing: You're name can NOT go on that document (unless there was a footnote that read something like: Data pulled by (your name), analysis and conclusions all performed and are the property of (them). Something like that. No disclaimer, no name. Period.

Option #2: Pre-meditated 1st degree murder.

If you need help with the second option, just PM me!

-EarlJam

DukePA wrote:If you are involved in other projects can you say that those are taking more time than you anticipated and that you need to remove yourself from this project? Don't let them push you into staying on the project. You have to protect your integrity and hopefully you'll be allowed to do so diplomatically.

I don't think I can go this particular route. Unfortunately this particular PI pays a percentage of my salary. Basically, this has meant that they expect me to drop everything and jump whenever they say froggie. The research assistant prof who's doing the data analysis will come to my desk and ask me to "help" her do something when I am clearly working on something else. More often than not I'll be in the middle of typing a sentence when she comes in and starts giving orders. It's so bad that I have considered telling my boss that I'd be willing to have my salary cut by the percentage that the PI is paying to not work with them any more. The data misrepresentation exacerbates the problem.

lawgrad91 wrote:I agree with DPA. You don't want to go down with the ship when it sinks.

Can you tell the powers that best that you don't wish to be a co-author because you didn't perform the analysis, and that you made a decision long ago never to be listed as a co-author when you did not perform the analysis?

That's the approach I'm going to take, I think, and the conversation will start with my boss. It will be interesting to see how he reacts. In the past I've expressed concerns with the project and he's supported me, but he does a complete 180 in the meeting with the PI (who happens to be a department chair). IMO they're pulling in junky data in order to get the answer they want, and my boss seems to support it. Yes, I tend to be conservative in my approach, but I think a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. Who knows; my refusal to put my name on the manuscript may make them think a bit more about what they're doing. I doubt it, but I could be wrong.

There's another paper coming down the pipe where I have similar problems. This caused me major headaches in a meeting today because my concerns were constantly blown off. Basically they have these results that they're wanting to publish for which their results don't match those in the literature unless they pull in garbage data. They're having to pull in the garbage data because they completely changed the protocol that they used (i.e. they didn't follow literature precedent). To me, that means their entire experiment is bad. To them, it means that my data interpretation is too stringent and we need to loosen our requirements so they can get the answer that they should've gotten. Sorry, but if you repeat an experiment in triplicate and don't follow the procedure that others have followed, you shouldn't expect to get the same answer that everyone else got. It's like following a recipe for a chocolate cake, omitting the chocolate, and then trying to convince everyone that you've made a chocolate cake. Sure, there are some of the same elements present, but it's a different cake.

captmojo wrote:Honesty will not come back to bite you on the butt...whether it is related diplomatically or not.

Thanks capt! Sure hope that's right.

I can say, in all honesty, GO TO HELL CAROLINA!

EarlJam wrote:Not sure of the approach, but I AM sure of one thing: You're name can NOT go on that document (unless there was a footnote that read something like: Data pulled by (your name), analysis and conclusions all performed and are the property of (them). Something like that. No disclaimer, no name. Period.

Option #2: Pre-meditated 1st degree murder.

If you need help with the second option, just PM me!

-EarlJam

The approach I want is a variation of Option #1. My name would go into the acknowledgments section for "expert technical assistance." That's the best way I can think of to get my name the heck away from the conclusions drawn by these clowns. They're honestly not worth the trouble that Option #2 would cause.

A friend from church told me that there's a name that directors use in film credits when they don't want their name associated with a particular project - David Smithee, I believe he said. I could also come up with a pseudonym. Maybe I should use Supervisor Barbie's name.

EarlJam wrote:You're name

-EarlJam

Tsk tsk, EarlJam. I trust that, in retrospect, you see the error in the above excerpt from your original comment.

wilson wrote:

EarlJam wrote:You're name

-EarlJam

Tsk tsk, EarlJam. I trust that, in retrospect, you see the error in the above excerpt from your original comment.

And incidentally, I have nothing to add to what others have already said. I think you need to find as tactful a way as possible not to have your name on the paper, while also remaining aware that you may create headaches (or possibly worse) for yourself. Do tread lightly, and let us know how it comes out. Academic dishonesty vibes from Atlanta.

Whatever you decide is the correct course for moving forward, here are many vibes for you.



And of course...

I would go with Supervisor Barbie's name.

Oh ycch... you do NOT deserve this.

I'm not saying publicly that you should go one route or the other, but you DO need some information:

Scene 1: If your work involves humans, your university should have some mention as to reporting policies to its institutional review board. Check to see what sort of confidentiality policies exist.
Scene 2: If your work doesn't involve humans, look up your university's sponsored programs policies and procedures. Even at my university, we have policies and procedures that you can take if you suspect falsification, misconduct, etc... Privacy is mentioned in our policy.

May I suggest the following immediate solutions:
1: Hello Ted Drewe's. I'm here to drown my sorrow in a Terra Mizzou.
2: Paging all shinkickers and CrazieDogs (like Georgia).
3: Schlafly's Tap Room.

I know... these solutions don't rectify the problem directly, but they are known to provide comfort when we need help.
Cheers,
Lavabe

PS Are you going to be in St. Louis next week, or are you going out of town?

EarlJam wrote: Option #2: Pre-meditated 1st degree murder.

If you need help with the second option, just PM me!

-EarlJam

EJ: What DID you do with billybreen? ;)

Lawgrad offered the option I was going to offer. The compromise of having your name listed as providing the data is probably ok - but you don't want to be listed as an author if you don't agree with the results. I guess you don't get an option of a dissenting opinion like the Supreme Court?

I do like the Supervisor Barbie option - but they probably won't fall for that.

No matter what, shinkicks are being sent their way for putting you in this position. And also to the others that look like they are heading that way.

Once again I'm reminded of how lucky I am to be in the housewifery game! Everybody else in my family goes out daily to do this same kind of battle. Sooner or later each one of them comes home to sit at my kitchen table and relate a maddening story like this. It's not enough for them to be able to do your jobs; they have to know how to protect their backs every single day, as well. Just hearing it all wears me down. I can't imagine what it's like to work with the stress of it every minute.

There's not much I can do to help solve things. I just hug them and say "Here. Eat this. You'll feel better."

My advice for the workplace isn't worth much. So let me just send vibes and cyber hugs and tell you I care. Let us know how it all comes out.
Love, Ima

Lavabe wrote: 2: Paging all shinkickers and CrazieDogs (like Georgia).

I'm not known to kick shins, but HYSTFU! (Hey you, shut the fuck up!) will be more than glad to jump and bark and lick and hump the shins of damn near anybody.........as soon as he gets sprung from the local jailhouse.

lawgrad91 wrote:I agree with DPA. You don't want to go down with the ship when it sinks.

Can you tell the powers that be that you don't wish to be a co-author because you didn't perform the analysis, and that you made a decision long ago never to be listed as a co-author when you did not perform the analysis?

I like this approach.

Lavabe wrote:Oh ycch... you do NOT deserve this.

I'm not saying publicly that you should go one route or the other, but you DO need some information:

Scene 1: If your work involves humans, your university should have some mention as to reporting policies to its institutional review board. Check to see what sort of confidentiality policies exist.
Scene 2: If your work doesn't involve humans, look up your university's sponsored programs policies and procedures. Even at my university, we have policies and procedures that you can take if you suspect falsification, misconduct, etc... Privacy is mentioned in our policy.

May I suggest the following immediate solutions:
1: Hello Ted Drewe's. I'm here to drown my sorrow in a Terra Mizzou.
2: Paging all shinkickers and CrazieDogs (like Georgia).
3: Schlafly's Tap Room.

I know... these solutions don't rectify the problem directly, but they are known to provide comfort when we need help.
Cheers,
Lavabe

PS Are you going to be in St. Louis next week, or are you going out of town?

I like the Ted Drewe's Terra Mizzou option. Unfortunately they lost part of their roof in the storm that blew through town a couple of nights ago.

I think if I go to any sort of institutional board it will cause more problems than it will fix. Lowly senior scientist << dept chair. They'll know who reported them.