RE: Berkeley lab found research fabricated

For your information, the R&D group I was worked in that required a mandatory "REVIEW" processes to ensure quality of the paper. The bosses often use it to comment on my English and added tutorial sentences to the paper. The bottom line was to delay or hold the publication until their names appeared on the paper. Talking about Ruth's input, the "only the firstly couple of authors count", again, some even suggested me that the rank of authors should be sorting by last names in alphabetically order. Go figure!

Casper

-----Original Message-----
From: Flanigan, Floyd [mailto:Floyd.Flanigan@FERNALD.GOV]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Flanigan, Floyd; 'RuthWeiner@aol.com'; 'Jack_Earley@RL.GOV'; 'faseiler@NMIA.COM'; 'elb@BECHTELJACOBS.ORG'
Cc: 'radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu'; 'jalvarez@nxs.net'; 'jalvarez@auxier.com'; 'Gjnewton1937@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Berkeley lab found research fabricated

Typo.....I mean Floyd.....Did I mention my degree is NOT in English?

-----Original Message-----
From: Flanigan, Floyd
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:35 AM
To: 'RuthWeiner@aol.com'; Flanigan, Floyd; Jack_Earley@RL.GOV; faseiler@NMIA.COM; elb@BECHTELJACOBS.ORG
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; jalvarez@nxs.net; jalvarez@auxier.com; Gjnewton1937@aol.com
Subject: RE: Berkeley lab found research fabricated

I agree completely, Ruth. My lengthy comments on the subject were mostly fascicious due to the apparent uproar over what seems as yet unresolved.

Floyf

-----Original Message-----
From: RuthWeiner@aol.com [mailto:RuthWeiner@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:53 AM
To: Floyd.Flanigan@fernald.gov; Jack_Earley@RL.GOV; faseiler@NMIA.COM; elb@BECHTELJACOBS.ORG
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; jalvarez@nxs.net; jalvarez@auxier.com; Gjnewton1937@aol.com
Subject: Re: Berkeley lab found research fabricated

My 2 1/2 cents;

1. In the research groups I have worked in, it is common practice to put everyone's name on group publications, thereby ensuring that everyone gets the credit that he or she deserves. Only the firsty couple of authors "count" anyway. One can always have one's name removed. Since publication matters, though, I have always leaned toward generosity in including names of co-authors (if they wanted them included). Also, I think enough of my colleagues that I am not suspicious of their work.

2. Was this deliberate "fabrication" or a false positive result enhanced by preliminary hype? I recall the (perhaps somewhat apocryphal) story of the physician specializing in transplants who painted the fur of some of his mice with black magic marker in order to show a genetic transplant. Now that was (or would have been) fabrication. The descriptions I have read on RADSAFE of the Berkeley claim sound more like premature enthusiasm about a very questionable result that was later shown to be spurious. Spurious results happen. Excessive enthusiasm about a spurious result is embarrassing to the institution, not to speak of the investigator, but it isn't really fabrication. But perhaps I don't know the whole story.

Ruth

Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com