Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.

I was in the process of reading through pubmed, when I came across yet another retraction notice. They seem ubiquitous these days, and truth be told, I often don’t pay attention to them. But a name on this one caught my eye: I knew one of the authors. In fact, I considered them a mentor. I was floored. They were the last person I could envision involved in scientific misconduct. Within the details of the retraction it became apparent, as I suspected, that it was warranted, not due to the direct deceit on the behalf of my mentor; but likely due to the actions of the postdoc who was responsible for performing the experiments, who misrepresented their data in order to secure that high impact publication. Luckily, my mentor prevailed with the help of current (and honest) hardworking lab members, and was able solve (and publish) the mystery of the un-reproducible data. How many of us would have the courage and endurance to attack an issue head-on like that? And this brings me back to all those retraction notices on pubmed. They are not just the work of a few students and postdocs starting their career, but can also be the result of principle investigators. Sometimes it is a case of a single honest oversight; sometimes it’s blatant, purposeful, and repeated deception. How has the pursuit of knowledge and truth become fertile ground for deceit?

Scientists depend on the publication of high-profile scientific papers in high-impact journals to receive ongoing support and funding. This has given rise to the imperative to "publish or perish". Clearly, this will apply pressure to motivate desperate (or fame-hungry) scientists to fabricate or ‘massage’ results. This pressure is not for the principle investigator alone. With the ever-growing postdoc population scrambling for the handful of academic positions available (see postdocalypse), this pressure is trickling down the pipeline. Even students lament the lack impact of their publications, when all they should be concentrating on is learning how to perform good science. To this category may also be added paranoia that other scientists are close to success in the same experiment, which puts extra pressure on being the first one. Luckily, there are a few journals who recognize that this need to continually publish novel results actually hurts the efforts of science, and have started to emphasize the publication of reproduced data and negative results. Interestingly, these journals are also often open-resource. I always joked with my colleagues that I needed to edit my own journals --which I lovingly dubbed NADA (NegAtive DatA), and Scooped -- so I could publish all of my results one day. Turns out I'm not the only one.

There are no "scientific police". The community is left, for the greater part, to police itself. Indeed, the main source of detection comes when others fail to reproduce results. However, in many fields, and biology is a particularly good example, results are difficult to reproduce because of factors inherent in biological systems. That means the if a researcher does falsify or 'massage' the data, there is a high chance of being able to get away with it. They can simply shrug it off as biological improbability. Furthermore, reproducing data is costly and there are few granting agencies that give money for 'unoriginal' work. And being second does not win many accolades. Who was the second person climb Mt.Everest? I don't know either, but everyone knows Edmund Hillary was the first (who would have died without his sherpa Tenzing Norgay the unrecognized hero like the postdocs and students in labs that do the research). 

So what do we do? The academic machine is not nimble. Like a large freighter ship, it will take a lot of energy and time to turn it towards a system that rewards good science, regardless of the impact factor of the journal it is published in. In the meantime, I am going to apply the wisdom I found in this video and apply it to science. I will perform research, not with the end in mind (the paper). Instead, I will enjoy every moment along the way.

Science-fiction = Science-reality

The prospect of mind-reading technology has moved a step closer after scientists established the first brain-to-brain connection.

Using electrodes implanted in the brains of two rats, one rodent was able to pass information to another in a cage thousands of miles away – albeit without knowing it was doing so. The experiment, is the first direct communication link between two minds.

This is they type of research, that even neuroscientists like myself, read with absolute amazement ... Science-fiction is becoming more and more of a reality. That being said, where is my hover car already?

Leaning In.

We as scientists have all heard of ‘the leaky pipeline’. The same issue of retaining women in top management positions occurs in business. Both industries lament the loss of women due to child rearing responsibilities. Although not the only factor, it is the most discussed and after at least three decades into this debate, and it seems we are still not much closer to solution. So what else are we doing?

Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, in a recent piece in The New York Times, she is quoted: “We [women] hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in.”

This struck a chord with me. Although I don’t always have questions at seminars, when I do have one, I am more likely to sit back and wait to see if someone else will ask it – because I figure like good ideas, more than one person will think of a good question. And what happens if no one else asks it? There is the internal battle of whether to raise my hand, or just let it go because my question is likely trivial. Simply put, I lack the self-confidence. If you met me you would not call me shy, so where this doubt in my abilities comes from, I will leave for the psychologists to debate. In the meantime, I am going to challenge myself to take Sheryl’s advice, and start leaning in.