6 ms·

Scientist who faked data in his thesis will keep his Ph.D.

89 points by denzil_correa 13y ago

clintonc 13y ago
So, what are the criteria of "scientifically valid" theses these days? I would have preferred a statement like, "After discarding all parts which relied upon the fabricated data, the resulting thesis is still acceptable to the committee as a doctoral thesis." However, I feel bad about all the Ph.D.'s out there who may feel they have to defend the integrity of their work. (Mine is in pure math; fabricated data is not a big worry for us :D )
- jonlucc 13y ago
  I was very surprised by the response from the institution. I wonder what the backlash will be with regard to those grants (NIH and AHA). Should this invalidate those grants?
  - mbreese 13y ago
    In a world where grant funding is extremely limited, yes. Funding agencies are looking for any reason to reject a grant. I think the only reason to not retract the grant(s) would be the difficulty / practicality of doing so. Nonetheless, this guy's PhD is practically worthless in this country. He will be unemployable and unfundable.
cup 13y ago
Of all the experiments Ive ever performed western blots are probably my most hated and for that I empathise with the doctor. Theres something particularly painful about performing an experiment that consistently fails and has a significant number of variables which forces you to repeat the experiment under various conditions to determine whether you genuinly have noo result or the experiment failed. Ive spent 6 months doing western blots trying to workout whether the protein i was interested in was actually not expressed or whether something was wrong. It turned out that the commercial antibodies I was using had failed. Theres enough pressure in research to destroy ones confidencce and self esteem and I genuinly understand that urge to sometimes just turn a blind eye or pretend I saw something I didnt. At the end of the day though you have to be honest with yourself and decide which road you will travel. Im glad they didn't strip him of his PhD. The public humiliation will warrant enough misfortune for the scientist and hopefully he will learn from his mistakes.
- AmVess 13y ago
  He faked data in his graduate thesis, in applications for National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association grant, and in two published papers, so his behavior is part of a rather inexcusable pattern. Doctorate work is supposed to be difficult, and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement. The only responsible course of action they could have taken was to strip him of his credentials. They didn't do that, so one must naturally question every single doctorate they hand out. Perhaps it doesn't matter to some that they hand out PhD's in the bottom of Cracker Jack boxes, but this is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.
  - Leszek 13y ago
    > and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement. Absolutely not. A doctorate is an apprenticeship in research, and the thesis produced is your "final test" as an apprentice. It's supposed to be the start of your academic career, not its pinnacle.
    - Millennium 13y ago
      This. It's a baseline, not the pinnacle. But if you can't even make the baseline properly, are you really fit to have the degree?
      - jonlucc 13y ago
        I think not. They awarded him a degree based on data he presented to them. They found out it was falsified, and in my opinion, that should invalidate the degree they awarded (and probably his grants).
      - mildtrepidation 13y ago
        Having falsified data doesn't prove outright that he's not qualified for the degree, but in my opinion it does prove that he doesn't deserve it. Unless there is absolutely no code or expectation of ethics in his chosen field, I don't see how this result makes sense. Rewarding such a lack of integrity is a terrible precedent to set. We know this is not the only time people have done something like this, and now people who do this, have done it, or may do it can all see that they may not have as much to worry about since we're now in the practice of shrugging and looking away rather than enforcing any reasonable code of conduct... even the ones that already exist.
droid_w 13y ago
IMO, The question whether the scientist gets to keep his PhD is secondary. The more important question is how do we make sure that we base our research on sound results.
- skj 13y ago
  By punishing those who would fake them. For instance, retracting degrees based on falsified work. This university has substantially lowered the reputation conferred by their degree by allowing this person to keep his.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - checker659 13y ago
    You must be a wife beater too. You know, spank your spouse if she/he does something wrong.
    - gaiaseyes 13y ago
      I think, by your comment, you are not a scientist. As a scientist, there is absolutely nothing more despicable than intentionally and continuously publishing fraudulent data. This is the highest ethical standard in our field. Falsifying data is like an MD intentionally killing a patient because they couldn't handle the stress/demands of treating them any longer (yes, this is a drastic analogy, but I want you to understand the severity of what this man did). It is exceptionally unfortunately that this is perpetrated by scientists who are established in their fields but when this occurs as a graduate student, when the university is still accountable for the research and when you are still training to become an independent scientist the degree should never be granted and should be revoked. A PhD is awarded for the contributions made to scientific discovery, whether the data is negative or positive (to the hypothesis). Doctoral training in the US has requirements for ethics training. This student demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a blatant disregard for scientific ethics. He also falsified his data, so he made no real contribution to scientific discovery. He has failed to meet two of the most basic requirements for a doctoral degree. As someone who recently finished her own PhD, this is utterly disgusting. There is enough incorrect information in scientific literature as is from well conducted, controlled research because of the human error of data analysis and the fact that we simply don't know everything yet. We don't need it to be intentionally polluted by individuals who cannot or will not bear the rigors of research.
imahboob 13y ago
Working on a journal of negative results for two years, this does not surprise me...
hkmurakami 13y ago
>Aggarwal is now working at Bristol-Myers Squibb. I wonder what action, if any, his employer will take.
- cincinnatus 13y ago
  He's fast-tracked for management no doubt.
Fuxy 13y ago
This is what happens when your PHD is dependent on how important you graduate thesis is. I understand the urge to make it difficult but when PHD's are dependent on papers people will do whatever it takes and we get a lot of fake scientific papers because people want the degree. You should be doing research because you are genuinely interested in the results not to get a piece of paper you can show your family and friends to show them how smart you are. Worst of all the fake research dilutes the value of research papers in general making you question all your assumptions and the papers they come from.
- jonlucc 13y ago
  I agree completely, and there is also a profit motive. PhD candidates typically make paltry pay, but have often racked up a good amount of debt that was delayed during their PhD work. In order to get a job that can actually make those years of study and work economically viable, they have to have first authorship on huge papers. At least that's the case in biology right now.
  - hluska 13y ago
    That's a tragic (bad word, but it's early) amount of pressure to put on someone in their mid twenties...
- drd 13y ago
  Unfortunately, there is a chain of dependencies that forces some people to do the wrong things. For example, the number of papers you publish is a major factor among others: - in receiving grants, - in hiring you as a researcher by universities, - in getting your papers accepted by journals. All these force you to write papers in bulk. But, how many original papers you can write based on a set of data, analysis, and results?
bayesianhorse 13y ago
Faking data is a very bayesian thing to do...
- bayesianhorse 13y ago
  I should have put some "irony" markers around that... Mathmatical humor is difficult...
bdg 13y ago
Situations like this reminds me of my favorite part of Brave New World: > Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob. This doesn't wear a hole into what a PhD is and erode away the foundation. It smothers it in something else, and slowly but surely we're not left with a rock, but one soft blob of wax -- totally different from what a PhD is, but slowly enough that we still pretend we're dealing with what it was.
auctiontheory 13y ago
"Nitin Aggarwal" is a very common name - 332 hits on LinkedIn. With his ill-gotten PhD in hand, he will very likely be able to continue his research career while "hiding in plain view."
- pavel_lishin 13y ago
  Conversely, if any of those other Aggarwals have a Ph.D., they might have a rather hard time doing research or becoming employed.
smoyer 13y ago
So if I claim to have a degree from MCW, who would ever find out I'm lying? I'm also wondering if Bristol-Myers Squibb considers the ability to fake data a plus or a minus ... I guess it's a plus before you're caught and a minus afterwards?
valugi 13y ago
All scientists "massage" their data arguing that pure data is too random. Nothing new...

89 points by denzil_correa 13y ago

So, what are the criteria of "scientifically valid" theses these days? I would have preferred a statement like, "After discarding all parts which relied upon the fabricated data, the resulting thesis is still acceptable to the committee as a doctoral thesis." However, I feel bad about all the Ph.D.'s out there who may feel they have to defend the integrity of their work. (Mine is in pure math; fabricated data is not a big worry for us :D )

jonlucc 13y ago
I was very surprised by the response from the institution. I wonder what the backlash will be with regard to those grants (NIH and AHA). Should this invalidate those grants?
- mbreese 13y ago
  In a world where grant funding is extremely limited, yes. Funding agencies are looking for any reason to reject a grant. I think the only reason to not retract the grant(s) would be the difficulty / practicality of doing so. Nonetheless, this guy's PhD is practically worthless in this country. He will be unemployable and unfundable.

cup 13y ago

Of all the experiments Ive ever performed western blots are probably my most hated and for that I empathise with the doctor. Theres something particularly painful about performing an experiment that consistently fails and has a significant number of variables which forces you to repeat the experiment under various conditions to determine whether you genuinly have noo result or the experiment failed. Ive spent 6 months doing western blots trying to workout whether the protein i was interested in was actually not expressed or whether something was wrong. It turned out that the commercial antibodies I was using had failed. Theres enough pressure in research to destroy ones confidencce and self esteem and I genuinly understand that urge to sometimes just turn a blind eye or pretend I saw something I didnt. At the end of the day though you have to be honest with yourself and decide which road you will travel. Im glad they didn't strip him of his PhD. The public humiliation will warrant enough misfortune for the scientist and hopefully he will learn from his mistakes.

AmVess 13y ago
He faked data in his graduate thesis, in applications for National Institutes of Health and American Heart Association grant, and in two published papers, so his behavior is part of a rather inexcusable pattern. Doctorate work is supposed to be difficult, and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement. The only responsible course of action they could have taken was to strip him of his credentials. They didn't do that, so one must naturally question every single doctorate they hand out. Perhaps it doesn't matter to some that they hand out PhD's in the bottom of Cracker Jack boxes, but this is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly.
- Leszek 13y ago
  > and that's part of why it is the pinnacle of academic achievement. Absolutely not. A doctorate is an apprenticeship in research, and the thesis produced is your "final test" as an apprentice. It's supposed to be the start of your academic career, not its pinnacle.
  - Millennium 13y ago
    This. It's a baseline, not the pinnacle. But if you can't even make the baseline properly, are you really fit to have the degree?
    - jonlucc 13y ago
      I think not. They awarded him a degree based on data he presented to them. They found out it was falsified, and in my opinion, that should invalidate the degree they awarded (and probably his grants).
    - mildtrepidation 13y ago
      Having falsified data doesn't prove outright that he's not qualified for the degree, but in my opinion it does prove that he doesn't deserve it. Unless there is absolutely no code or expectation of ethics in his chosen field, I don't see how this result makes sense. Rewarding such a lack of integrity is a terrible precedent to set. We know this is not the only time people have done something like this, and now people who do this, have done it, or may do it can all see that they may not have as much to worry about since we're now in the practice of shrugging and looking away rather than enforcing any reasonable code of conduct... even the ones that already exist.

droid_w 13y ago

IMO, The question whether the scientist gets to keep his PhD is secondary. The more important question is how do we make sure that we base our research on sound results.

skj 13y ago
By punishing those who would fake them. For instance, retracting degrees based on falsified work. This university has substantially lowered the reputation conferred by their degree by allowing this person to keep his.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- checker659 13y ago
  You must be a wife beater too. You know, spank your spouse if she/he does something wrong.
  - gaiaseyes 13y ago
    I think, by your comment, you are not a scientist. As a scientist, there is absolutely nothing more despicable than intentionally and continuously publishing fraudulent data. This is the highest ethical standard in our field. Falsifying data is like an MD intentionally killing a patient because they couldn't handle the stress/demands of treating them any longer (yes, this is a drastic analogy, but I want you to understand the severity of what this man did). It is exceptionally unfortunately that this is perpetrated by scientists who are established in their fields but when this occurs as a graduate student, when the university is still accountable for the research and when you are still training to become an independent scientist the degree should never be granted and should be revoked. A PhD is awarded for the contributions made to scientific discovery, whether the data is negative or positive (to the hypothesis). Doctoral training in the US has requirements for ethics training. This student demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a blatant disregard for scientific ethics. He also falsified his data, so he made no real contribution to scientific discovery. He has failed to meet two of the most basic requirements for a doctoral degree. As someone who recently finished her own PhD, this is utterly disgusting. There is enough incorrect information in scientific literature as is from well conducted, controlled research because of the human error of data analysis and the fact that we simply don't know everything yet. We don't need it to be intentionally polluted by individuals who cannot or will not bear the rigors of research.

imahboob 13y ago

Working on a journal of negative results for two years, this does not surprise me...

hkmurakami 13y ago

>Aggarwal is now working at Bristol-Myers Squibb. I wonder what action, if any, his employer will take.

cincinnatus 13y ago
He's fast-tracked for management no doubt.

Fuxy 13y ago

This is what happens when your PHD is dependent on how important you graduate thesis is. I understand the urge to make it difficult but when PHD's are dependent on papers people will do whatever it takes and we get a lot of fake scientific papers because people want the degree. You should be doing research because you are genuinely interested in the results not to get a piece of paper you can show your family and friends to show them how smart you are. Worst of all the fake research dilutes the value of research papers in general making you question all your assumptions and the papers they come from.

jonlucc 13y ago
I agree completely, and there is also a profit motive. PhD candidates typically make paltry pay, but have often racked up a good amount of debt that was delayed during their PhD work. In order to get a job that can actually make those years of study and work economically viable, they have to have first authorship on huge papers. At least that's the case in biology right now.
- hluska 13y ago
  That's a tragic (bad word, but it's early) amount of pressure to put on someone in their mid twenties...
drd 13y ago
Unfortunately, there is a chain of dependencies that forces some people to do the wrong things. For example, the number of papers you publish is a major factor among others: - in receiving grants, - in hiring you as a researcher by universities, - in getting your papers accepted by journals. All these force you to write papers in bulk. But, how many original papers you can write based on a set of data, analysis, and results?

bayesianhorse 13y ago

Faking data is a very bayesian thing to do...

bayesianhorse 13y ago
I should have put some "irony" markers around that... Mathmatical humor is difficult...

bdg 13y ago

Situations like this reminds me of my favorite part of Brave New World: > Not so much like drops of water, though water, it is true, can wear holes in the hardest granite; rather, drops of liquid sealing-wax, drops that adhere, incrust, incorporate themselves with what they fall on, till finally the rock is all one scarlet blob. This doesn't wear a hole into what a PhD is and erode away the foundation. It smothers it in something else, and slowly but surely we're not left with a rock, but one soft blob of wax -- totally different from what a PhD is, but slowly enough that we still pretend we're dealing with what it was.

auctiontheory 13y ago

"Nitin Aggarwal" is a very common name - 332 hits on LinkedIn. With his ill-gotten PhD in hand, he will very likely be able to continue his research career while "hiding in plain view."

pavel_lishin 13y ago
Conversely, if any of those other Aggarwals have a Ph.D., they might have a rather hard time doing research or becoming employed.

smoyer 13y ago

So if I claim to have a degree from MCW, who would ever find out I'm lying? I'm also wondering if Bristol-Myers Squibb considers the ability to fake data a plus or a minus ... I guess it's a plus before you're caught and a minus afterwards?

valugi 13y ago

All scientists "massage" their data arguing that pure data is too random. Nothing new...