Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews

Two Postdocs Accused of Misconduct

Postdocs at two US research institutions are accused of misrepresenting scientific findings.

By | October 17, 2011

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, SAMIR

Duke University postdoc Shamarendra Sanyal was found guilty of research misconduct by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), according to the Federal Register notice published earlier this month (October 7), by falsifying data on a grant application for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.  The research—on how mouse airway cells behaved during inflammation—was not submitted for publication.  Sanyal agreed to disciplinary actions, which include the supervision of any research supported by the US Public Health Service.

In an unrelated case of scientific misconduct, Nicola Solomon University of Michigan Medical School was charged with neglecting to sequence genetic clones of homeobox genes in the mouse, that would confirm their identity and integrity, and for not discussing this omission with the corresponding author.  In addition, when the corresponding author included text describing that the clones had been fully sequenced, Solomon neglected to correct the error. Last week (October 12), Solomon settled her case with no admission of guilt, but has agreed to two years of supervision.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

October 17, 2011

Misconduct is human.  There is no justification for it.

What is admirable is that publishers, editors, peers... who are honest and objective, do not shrink from exposing it when it occurs.  That does far more good than the misconduct does harm.

It adds credence to the work of those who believe science is worth being honest about, and reporting responsibly rather than exploited for benefit of those who would sell out, rather than compete with integrity.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

October 17, 2011

Misconduct is human.  There is no justification for it.

What is admirable is that publishers, editors, peers... who are honest and objective, do not shrink from exposing it when it occurs.  That does far more good than the misconduct does harm.

It adds credence to the work of those who believe science is worth being honest about, and reporting responsibly rather than exploited for benefit of those who would sell out, rather than compete with integrity.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

October 17, 2011

Misconduct is human.  There is no justification for it.

What is admirable is that publishers, editors, peers... who are honest and objective, do not shrink from exposing it when it occurs.  That does far more good than the misconduct does harm.

It adds credence to the work of those who believe science is worth being honest about, and reporting responsibly rather than exploited for benefit of those who would sell out, rather than compete with integrity.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
Life Technologies