In the cases you list, it is clearly recognized that the fault lies
with the investigator and not the method. In most of the cases where
serious problems have been identified in published models the authors
have stonewalled by saying that the method failed them.
"The methods of crystallography are so weak that we could not detect
(for years) that our program was swapping F+ and F-."
"The scattering of X-rays by bulk solvent is a contentious topic."
"We should have pointed out that the B factors of the peptide are
higher then those of the protein."
It appears that the problems occurred because these authors were not
following established procedures in this field. They are, as near as
I can tell, somehow immune from the consequences of their errors.
Usually the paper isn't even retracted, when the model is clearly
wrong. They can dump blame on the technique and escape personal
responsibility. This is what upsets so many of us.
It would be so refreshing to read in one of these responses "We
were under a great deal of pressure to get our results out before our
competitors and cut corners that we shouldn't have, and that choice
resulted in our failure to detect the obvious errors in our model."
If we did see papers retracted, if we did see nonrenewal of grants,
if we did see people get fired, if we did see prison time (when the
line between carelessness and fraud is crossed), then we could be
comforted that there is practical incentive to perform quality work.
Dale Tronrud
Edwin Pozharski wrote:
Mischa,
I don't think that the field of nanotechnology crumbled when allegations
against Jan Hendrik Schon (21 papers withdrawn, 15 in Science/Nature)
turned out to be true. I don't think that nobody trusts biologists
anymore because of Eric Poehlman (17 falsified grants, 10 papers with
fabricated data, 12 month in prison). We are still excited to hear
about stem cell research despite of what Hwang Woo-suk did or didn't
do. What recent events demonstrate is that in macromolecular
crystallography (and in science in general) mistakes, deliberate or not,
will be discovered. Ed.
Mischa Machius wrote:
Due to these recent, highly publicized irregularities and ample
(snide) remarks I hear about them from non-crystallographers, I am
wondering if the trust in macromolecular crystallography is beginning
to erode. It is often very difficult even for experts to distinguish
fake or wishful thinking from reality. Non-crystallographers will have
no chance at all and will consequently not rely on our results as much
as we are convinced they could and should. If that is indeed the case,
something needs to be done, and rather sooner than later. Best - MM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mischa Machius, PhD
Associate Professor
UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.; ND10.214A
Dallas, TX 75390-8816; U.S.A.
Tel: +1 214 645 6381
Fax: +1 214 645 6353
