Chapter 9 - Comments from Institutions
Scientific correspondence about capping and particle movement on cell surfaces. This file names major institutes that are aware of scientific misrepresentation by their staff. It summarizes their responses when they are asked whether or not staff are permitted to falsify the scientific literature and it shows the inadequacy of those responses.
9.1 Institutions
9.2 Cambridge University
9.3 Academic Freedom and Responsibility
9.4 The MRC, Prof. W. Gratzer
9.5 The MRC, Sir Aaron Klug
9.6 The MRC, Sir Dai Rees
9.7 What does it all Mean?
Summary
I say not this, as disapproving the use of Universities: but .... must let you see ..... the way, what things would be amended in them; amongst which the frequency of insignificant Speech is one. (Hobbes: Leviathan)
9.1 Institutions
The institutions of science appoint gatekeepers to maintain standards and it is to them that one should turn with concerns. In fact, the leading workers in cell motility are also powerful gatekeepers and conflicts of interest between the two roles seem likely. To a large extent, these gatekeepers will determine the position of their own institutions. Only in the unlikely event of other senior figures being willing to risk conflict with them, could an institute not support one of its own gatekeepers. In these circumstances, the utility of approaching the institute seems doubtful but, at the same time, they must have the opportunity to show their mettle. Accordingly, approaches have been made, the organisations contacted being largely British, including the University of Cambridge, its Biochemistry Department, the MRC and its Institutions. Each was asked to intervene by asking their staff to explain how, during their reported studies of cell motility and capping, they came to reject the wave model.
Cambridge and the MRC were also asked for copies of their institutional codes of practice with particular regard to the publication of false or misleading statements in the scientific literature. Both bodies reported that they have no such code or formal procedure for investigating complaints, simply leaving such matters to their respective senior officers. Later, a copy of an investigative procedure from the MRC was received via the British cabinet office, so it may subsequently have begun to develop a process for investigating complaints. No codification of proper practice, or definition of malpractice, has been received from either body. In other words, neither is willing to state explicitly that they prohibit falsification of the scientific literature.
"Pursuing Academic Excellence." (Mission Statement, Cambridge University)The new Professor and Head of the Biochemistry Department, Prof. R. N. Perham, passed the letter to Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh, and they repeated their unwillingness to comment on the wave model. The Vice-Chancellor of the University, Sir David Williams, stated that he looked into the matter but feels it is, "in essence, a difference of opinion on a scientific matter between (myself) and (my) former colleagues"; on such a matter he feels he cannot intervene. Sir David is quite right when he says there is an underlying difference of opinion on a scientific matter here. However, it is hard to see why he feels, as he seems to, that reporting three as two is not false but somehow a fair expression of that opinion. Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh are entitled to their ideas but they have not reported them, instead they have misrepresented the facts to accommodate unexpressed beliefs. They are not entitled to their own facts and, although both men knew of three published models, both reported that there were two. This is not fair opinion.
Sir David was asked for a copy of the University's code of practice, with particular regard to the publication of false or misleading statements in the scientific literature, and for a statement of its procedures for investigating complaints. He replied that the University has neither a code of practice nor formal procedures for investigating complaints. Many Universities have a person known as the University Visitor who functions as a court of last resort for disputes but it seems Cambridge has no such office. Responsibility for the ethical conduct of the University's affairs is simply that of the Vice- Chancellor, who has the power to initiate ad hoc investigations in "serious matters". It is unclear what Sir David would investigate but evidently, in his opinion, this particular falsehood is not "serious".
He was reminded that Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh had omitted to acknowledge the wave model from the very Department in which that work was done, clearly implying they felt it was wrong. The distinction between a difference of opinion and a disregard was explained to Sir David, one leading to scientific debate, the other preventing it. How could these actions amount to a difference of opinion with the wave model rather than a disregard of it? However, in all subsequent correspondence, Sir David declined to add to what he had already said.
These replies seem most unsatisfactory. It is true that there are matters of opinion involved but scientific opinions are not infinitely flexible, certain standards of reasoning and reporting should be respected. Sir David seems to suggest that reporting three as two is an opinion but this is clearly not so, it is a falsehood and such reporting is prohibited by every relevant code of practice known to this author. Cambridge's lack of such a code is a major concern, the University tells nobody what types of behaviour it considers acceptable or unacceptable, or the type of standard it seeks to maintain. Another disturbing feature of the replies is that they do not seem intended to resolve the problem being raised. This problem could be resolved easily by Drs. Metcalfe and Hesketh explaining how they dismissed the wave model. Rather than asking them to pursue this simple course, the Vice-Chancellor's comments have the impact of legitimising their malpractice and further neglecting the issues. Sir David, and through him Cambridge University, effectively condone disregard of alternative views and false reporting, even though that is a clear breach of accepted scientific logic and ethics. Ignoring the issues is a behavioral theme that recurs again and again.
Despite accepting that he is responsible for ethical matters within the University, Sir David gives only a bare statement of his judgement and simply declines to give any account at all of the reasoning behind it. His responsibility for ethical matters, makes his position partly analogous to the police and partly to a judge. Police have a clear and explicit duty to investigate complaints, while judges are not permitted merely to hand down verdicts and walk away, they must explain the basis for a judgement in relation the facts of the case and the law. It is unclear what investigation, if any, Sir David carried out. In addition, he gives his opinion without explanation and apparently without following any law because the University has no code of practice for him to follow. If he is pursuing some personal code, then interested parties should know what it is but he gives no elaboration.
Discussions about appropriate behaviour in such circumstances are bound up with the idea of academic freedom and its associated responsibilities. Although Cambridge has never recorded its policies some other institutions may have. In Britain some relevant things were said by the University of Bath in 1988, when its senate approved a paper on academic freedom, which it describes as reflecting, "the concepts involved in recognized discussions of the subject." The paper defines a number of specific freedoms associated with academic freedom and defines responsibilities associated with them. Two paragraphs are quoted here and the numbering system from the Bath paper is retained. The first refers to members of the University.
2.2.1 Freedom
Within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.Corresponding responsibilities
To support the same freedom for those of differing views.The wave model is an unpopular view in Cambridge but neither the University, nor former colleagues, support the freedom to advance this opinion with which they disagree.
Later, the Bath paper presents the following freedom.
2.3.3 Freedom
To select one's area of research, subject to constraints on the resources available; to publish subject to academic judgement.Corresponding responsibility
To maintain high standards of scholarship and to be responsive to reasoned discussion.Staff at Cambridge failed to acknowledge an alternative view they are unable to rebut. This is a poor standard of scholarship. Replying, "no comment," to the inevitable questions, seems a denial of the responsibility to respond to reasoned discussion.
American Universities often publicise their codes of conduct and many can be downloaded from the Internet. In all cases they are emphatic that scientists have an overriding responsibility to the truth. Even so, at Cambridge, scientists have knowingly reported a field falsely and the University brushes aside complaints and refuses to disclose the basis for its view. Cambridge may take some different view of academic rights and responsibilities, if so, that is their prerogative but it is also a matter of public interest. It is a recognised general principle that codes of practice, statements of rights and responsibilities and similar documents, should be open and available to those affected by them. Cambridge should disclose its general stance.
Prof. W. Gratzer was the head of the unit in which Dr. Bray worked. Previously, no reply at all had been received from Dr. Bray and the letter to his director actually produced the replies mentioned earlier. Later, Prof. Gratzer was sent a copy of an early draft of this book under the title "Cap That!". He replied, saying he was no longer responsible for the Laboratory and felt he had no further "personal concern with the argument."
Sir Aaron Klug was the Head of the MRC Laboratory in Cambridge in which Drs. Koch and Bretscher work. He retired from this post in 1995, being succeeded by Dr. Richard Henderson. Sir Aaron expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for workers to review every possibility in every paper they write and that such matters were often dealt with at conferences or in reviews. These comments seem to sidestep the issue rather than address it. The complaint is not the failure to cite the wave model in every paper Sir Aaron's colleagues write, it is that they have never, ever, in any medium, recorded or explained its rejection. Indeed, they have not acknowledged that they reject it, although this is plainly the case. They have not even acknowledged its existence. Sir Aaron added that
so far I have not come across any critical experiments which really prove one model or the other, and that is what people should be doing rather than exchanging views about theoretical knowledge.In fact, reports are published as if the cytoskeletal model were decisively established and as if only the flow model needed to be eliminated, this can hardly be justified if no critical experiments have been published. Sir Aaron is right about the importance of critical experiments but these are rare and one should not ignore those experimental results that are available. Science is normally seen as an interplay between theory and experiment - which experiment is critical, emerges only as a result of this dialogue between theory and lesser experiments. His colleagues effectively refuse to take part in such dialogue and he seems to condone that refusal. In Britain, the MRC controls much funding and many important experimental facilities. Thus, it is in a position to determine the experiments that are performed, but it does not possess an equivalent reign over theory. The paradoxical consequence of Sir Aaron's emphasis upon experiment, if accepted, would be to extend this control into the domain of theory, a potentially damaging outcome.
It is not true that only experimental scientists, doing experiments in a field, are able to develop useful lines of theory. In the development of any science, there are times when theory lags behind experiment. When experiment is unguided by theory, it becomes haphazard or repetitious, and it is impossible to know which experiments are "critical." At such times, the development of conceptual schema that are consistent with existing data becomes more important than the execution of "critical" experiments. Permitting experimentalist cliques to monopolise debate during such periods is likely to be especially harmful. As Asch puts it, in the introduction to his (1987) edition, "busyness is no substitute for serious analysis."
It was pointed out to Sir Aaron, that his colleagues had not explained at all, on the record, the reasoning behind their rejection of the wave model. That a search through the scientific abstracting organs for reviews dealing with this issue revealed none. That this author had not been invited to any conference dealing on the matter, nor had conference proceedings been published, explaining this reasoning. He replied that he had "expressed (his) opinions and (was) not prepared to intervene further with (his) colleagues."
The Chairman of the MRC, was Sir Dai Rees. He was also senior author of the article by Couchman, Lenn and Rees (1985), which includes photographs of waves on fibroblasts. He was asked to look into the matter and ask his colleagues to explain their rejection of the wave model. Sir Dai sent the following reply, quoted in full. It refers to Dr. Bretscher's letter repeated in section 8.5.
1st November 1991
Dear Dr. Hewitt,I write in reply to your letter of the 22nd of September concerning wave models.I have now had the opportunity to look into the matters raised in your letter and have seen the relevant correspondence. Dr. Mark Bretscher's letter to you of the 19th. of July seems to me to crystallise very well the essence of the problem, namely that yours is but one of a number of models proposed about capping and particle movement on amoeboid cells and that the field is therefore in a state of flux. The difficulties in securing hard evidence for any of the theories mean that conflicting views are inevitable. As Dr. Bretscher points out, it is not so much a case of your work being rejected by others, simply that you are no longer in the field to fight your corner actively.Biology is by definition a fast moving science and all researchers, no matter how talented, have to accept that what is fact today is likely to be superseded by tomorrow's breakthrough. I am sorry that I cannot be of more help.
Yours Sincerely
D A ReesThis letter seems to be asserting that the wave model has not been "rejected" but it has been "superseded" by some later "breakthrough". This is very difficult to follow and implies that a distinction can be drawn between models being "superseded" and "rejected." No scientific philosopher seems to make such a distinction and Popper uses the words more or less synonymously. Both words attach a value of 0 to the probability of the wave model being correct and hence mean the same thing. A reply to Sir Dai, to be archived on the associated internet site, asked for the MRC's code of practice and its procedure for investigating complaints. His response is given below.
10 December 1991
Dear Dr. Hewitt,Thank you for your letter of 17 November. Having read the points you raise I am not persuaded to change the views I set out in my letter to you of 1 November, nor indeed, do I think it would be fruitful for me to pursue the matter further.
Yours Sincerely
D A ReesBecause of its implications and influence, the capping field is important. Obviously, it would be right and best for the scientific arguments from the area to be presented openly but they have not been. Requests for the MRC's code of practice and procedures for investigating complaint were repeated and subsequent letters to Sir Dai were replied to by Dr. D. McLaren. She states that the MRC's code of conduct in respect of false or misleading publication is that complaints are investigated by the head of a scientist's unit (Sir Aaron Klug or Prof. Gratzer) or finally by the head of the MRC (Sir Dai Rees). Sir Aaron and Sir Dai, at least, feel the replies quoted are a "judgement" on the matter.
Four specific questions were asked. Two concerned the existence or otherwise of a written code of practice and procedure for the investigation of complaints. Dr. McLaren indicated the MRC has no such written code. The other two were :-
- Do you agree that the omission of all reference to the wave model in the work of Drs. Bretscher, Bray and Koch is likely to be misleading?
- Do you accept that scientists have a duty to review all reasonable interpretations in relation to their work?
In reply Dr. McLaren states "We all regret that you have felt slighted by the lack of citation of your research but it is the normal process of the development of scientific concepts to allow full and free debate in which all participants risk their own reputations and careers if they get this wrong. We trust to the expertise of the scientific community that this eventually leads to a consensus about the truth." The italics were added.
In the present context the question is not whether the MRC allows its staff to engage in full and free debate, but whether this is required. Is engaging in partial scientific debate allowed? Is misleading the reader allowed? Is falsifying the field allowed? Implicitly, Dr. McLaren seems to be claiming that debate on capping has been full, that all views have been freely given and that all sides have been allowed to be heard. If that is the claim the MRC is making, it is simply absurd.
Full and free debate doubtless leads to the best consensus about the truth but the consensus arrived at when debate is partial and censored will be very dubious. Truth will not be discerned when only one (or two) sides of a debate are allowed to be heard. Its letters suggest the MRC subscribes to the traditional, and much criticised belief that the scientific process is a "self- correcting mode." (The quote is from Phillip Handler, then President of the US National Academy of Sciences, addressing the congressional subcommittee on scientific fraud - see Broad and Wade (1982).) The idea of a self-correcting mode is that scientists cannot commit wrong acts because the system will automatically find them out. The idea is long defunct and it has been demonstrated that scientists can and do commit fraud, while the system does little or nothing about it. (See Broad and Wade, (1982), Kohn (1986))
The MRC declines to enter into further correspondence on the matter. Dr. McLaren justifies this refusal thus, "one would normally expect such differences of opinion ... to be dealt with through normal scientific debate." In reality, the MRC's staff have not dealt with it by normal debate and, in fact, refuse to do so. That very failure and refusal are the reason for the complaint.
The MRC is an agency of the government charged with a responsibility for the proper allocation of government funds committed to medical research. Accordingly I sent a copy of version 1.1 of this book (entitled "Cap That!") to Sir David Madel, M.P. for South Beds., my present residence. He obtained from the cabinet office, a more detailed and up to date summary of the MRC's procedure for investigating complaints. It is striking that it was necessary to go to such lengths to obtain even this little documentation which should plainly be public. The procedure runs to three pages and will be quoted in full in the internet site associated with this work. It again states that investigations are carried out by the head of the institute concerned and the head of the MRC but gives no indication of the code of practice under which the investigations are carried out. In particular, it remains very unclear whether the MRC would regard falsification of the scientific literature, when perpetrated by senior members of its staff, as malpractice.
Examining the MRC procedure for investigating complaints does give some indication of the view taken by Sir Dai and Sir Aaron. Section 1.2 of the code includes the following instructions to the investigator, "if the allegation is frivolous or without substance, it will be dismissed and the complainant informed in writing of the reasons for so doing." Dismissed that is, without proceeding to a formal investigation. So far as this author can tell, this is the level of investigation the complaints described in "A Habit of Lies" reached. It seems therefore that Sir Aaron and Sir Dai took the view that the complaints described here were either frivolous or without substance.
Recently the MRC has published a new malpractice policy on the internet. Most of this nineteen page document describes the conduct of investigations and only a few lines define misconduct itself which is, "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting results of research and deliberate, dangerous or negligent deviations from accepted practice in carrying out research." This is taken from American practice and sounds fine at first sight. Still, senior MRC figures have held that ignoring alternative theories is not a departure from accepted research practice and that reporting three as two is not false! Moreover the new policy preserves the freedom of MRC directors not to conduct investigations at all and they are given no duty to explain such decisions to complainants. "If the director decides that an assessment (that is an investigation) is not warranted he/she will record his/her justification of that decision and inform the complainant and respondent of this outcome." The brackets were added. That sentence needs to be read carefully. Note, that the director must record his reasons, presumably in some internal MRC document, but the complainant need only be informed that no investigation will take place! This might undermine the reader's confidence somewhat and malpractice investigation will be discussed further in Chapter 15.
Sir Aaron Klug is a Nobel prize-winner, former head of one of this country's great research institutes and later President of the Royal Society. Sir Dai Rees was likewise head of a major research institute and agency, while Sir David Williams is a distinguished lawyer as well as head of one of Europe's great seats of learning. Clearly their views should be heard with respect but one must reiterate, Sir Karl Popper articulated what is now the orthodox view of scientific logic. All three distinguished heads of academia appear to reject that orthodoxy and Sir Aaron does so explicitly, though without explaining how he believes science does work. Whatever his beliefs may be, they seem to comprise an unspoken heterodoxy possessing a noteworthy influence at the highest levels.
In their public pronouncements these institutions will doubtless continue to declare themselves committed to truth and quality but in capping three has been regularly and knowingly reported as two. This falsehood is serious enough to invalidate published scientific conclusions and mislead other workers into following fruitless lines of enquiry. It is hard to understand what makes this particular falsehood acceptable and a waste of research funds seems an inevitable consequence.
Rather than examining issues, the MRC states that, "we trust to the expertise of the scientific community that this eventually leads to a consensus about the truth." Trust is the right word because the MRC seems neither to prohibit staff from falsehood, nor willingly examine the possibility if a complaint is made. The fact is that there are deficiencies in decisions arrived at by consensus, (chapters 13 & 15) and it may be the MRC is unaware of them. More likely, it is itself subject to the pressures that produce those failings.
The situation in science seems to be what sociologists describe as normlessness or anomie, (dealt with further in section 12.13). There are no universally accepted norms of conduct. If "rules" are applied, they are those of the scientific administrator concerned and subject to his whim. His rules may or may not be what society would consider reasonable but they are hidden from the people affected by them. Thus the rules are inconsistent and applied erratically. Both the rules and their application are likely to reflect administrative expediency. In effect, there are no rules at all.
Sir Dai Rees and Sir Aaron Klug feel they have given a "judgement" but this is not so. A judgement refers to the law relevant to the ruling and explains its interpretation given the facts in question. The MRC has behaved as if its code of practice is solely its own concern. As for its "judgements", they are trite and without foundation, yet held up as final and infallible. These "judgements" do no more than dismiss a serious complaint as frivolous.
On one point the MRC is right, this matter should have been dealt with in normal scientific debate. Holding this opinion is all very well but the MRC fails to place any expectation on staff that they actually do so. In fact neither the MRC nor the University of Cambridge, have any requirement that staff report research accurately. They have no rules to ban false reporting and even the most blatant fabrication is not actually prohibited. The absence of such rules could develop, indeed seemingly has developed, into a licence to disregard responsibility.
It is agreed that such matters should have been dealt with in the normal course of scientific debate. Accordingly, "A Habit of Lies" now turns to the forum in which this inadequate debate has taken place, scientific journals. Although many journals have published papers on capping, the issues have been raised with the editors of just two. They are, in readership, the world's leading scientific journals, Nature and Science.
This Chapter has :-
- Summarised correspondence with the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council.
- Noted that both institutions seem to feel the issues raised in this book are frivolous.
- Observed that neither institution has a written code of practice.
- Reported that neither institution had a formal procedure for investigating complaints (although the MRC may have developed one since).
- Suggested that this amounts to normlessness or anomie.
© Copyright John A Hewitt.
For contact information, see copyright page.
Last Modified 21 October 2005