Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 2 July 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/454006a
Neuroscientist: my data published without authorization are 'misleading'
Max Planck researchers charged with misusing data.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I think that fury and emotions can only cloud the issues involved in this case. Logothetis should respond by publishing the data in question (since he apparently owns it) with his version of analysis. It is sad to see that such prominent scientist refers to administrative means of settling scientific dispute.
"Although he agreed at first, Logothetis withdrew his permission when he realized that the data [...] were being used to support a theory about spontaneous brain activity." And he was in the wrong from this point on. Had this data come from published work, he would have had no say in how it was subsequently used, though he would be free to dispute any use in the literature, the same as anyone else. Peer review is not deciding beforehand and on one's own what is or is not a proper use of the data, and Logothetis' claim that the paper could 'mislead the field' is just his opinion, and, moreover, one that is somewhat patronising to his colleagues.
I read, and re-read this article and couldn't find a single reason why would Nature decide to publish this column. Apart from the fact that it includes a famous neuroscientist as a protagonist, this story describes a dispute that is much better suited for a series of articles and opinions based on these data - by both sides of the dispute (in the best case) or for a yelling and screaming session the meeting of the Society for Neuroscience (in the worst case). Nothing described here warrants this sensationalistic attitude of the writer, who is almost overtly once-sided. Researchers charged with misusing data?? Charged? By whom? Misusing? Even Dr. Logothetis himself states that the publication "will mislead the field". This is a valid scientific statement, but there is no "charge" here, and the peer-review process here was impeccable. This story should have never appeared here, and it's shocking that it did.
I think it was wrong for Shmuel and Leopold (Nature - check your spelling!) to publish the data without permission of the lab head where the data was collected. But this was handled very poorly by Logothetis. If he disagreed with their interpretation, he could have published his own take. Disagreements should be settled by scholarly discourse. Try to squelch publication of a peer-reviewed paper and soil the careers of his own students is inappropriate and not good for anyone, including him. He may be a prominent neuroscientist, but the problems are his opinion; he is not the final authority. Furious indeed!
Sadly, conflicts such as this one arise frequently between laboratory directors and their pupils. The best way to settle it is for Mr.Logothetis to publish another article with his own interpretation. The scientific community will judge.
I feel so sad for all this happening in science. Do not bring politics in science.The way this type of issues are fading the glitter and charisma of science is horrendous. To be more specific Mr.Logothetis could have played a better role to prevent all this nonsense. Scientific controversies should be tackled scientifically ,no other ways can justify such issues. They will only put another question mark on the way things work in scientific community. Please stop this! let science decide it all.
This really stinks of a smear campaign, aided and abetted by Nature, against a pair of junior scientists. As far as I can tell, the only thing disputed is their interpretation of a result. The only thing that seems to be of interest here is that a famous scientist is "furious." Well, BFD. Why Nature is uncritically acting as the soap box for the highly embarassing tantrum of a big shot might make a more interesting editorial. Thanks, oh bearded Logothetis, but I think the field of neuroscience will be able to judge the paper (and whether it is "misleading") without your help.
This sadly cuts the wings for the pioneers of science. Think about: there must be many other cases of political interest in science; therefore, published data can puzzle other labs from the science point of view, or can raise disagreements between great researchers. I think it’s a pity and it must be possible to avoid things like this. On the other hand, who claims things should be able to come with clear arguments and in this case it’s another paper with new data. Easy!
No, I do not think that this is "a campaign against some junior scientists". It looks to me that all problems were caused by the inappropriate behavior of Shmuel, who did not respect Logothetis withdrawal of the permission to use the data. It is remarkable that Shmuel informed Logothetis about the publication only some days before the paper went online and full six weeks after it had been accepted - such a behavior is highly reckless. Why didn't he contact him earlier ?? New data could have been collected based on a corrected protocol, the analysis could have been corrected and a reasonable publication might have emerged ! The whole affair could have been avoided. I cannot avoid getting the impression, that Shmuel deliberately wanted to create an impossible situation which should "force" Logothetis to accept a (perhaps) poor publication, using his name as a funder of the project. It is really sad, that something like this happens and that Logothetis who is insisting on high quality standards in scientific work is even criticized in some comments. He is totally right - assuring quality standards in current scientific work is definitely a problem of general interest !
I disagree with some of these comments. don't think Nature is doing any favors to Logothetis in giving him a "soapbox". This article exposes how inappropriately angry and vindictive he is. Yes, Shumel's behavior may not have been appropriate, but Logothetis's reaction was way out of proportion. One thing for sure: Students should think twice before joining Logothetis's lab.
What puzzles me is the behavior of the journal HBM. Should a scientific journal publish data that are deemed inappropriate and misleading by the principal investigator? Journals reject manuscripts on the basis of referee's comments, but when a should-be author criticises the study it gets published without revision? HBM should have asked the authors to address the points raised by Logothetis in the paper, and then have it re-reviewed. Scientific disputes should be settled scientifically, but unethical behavior - of Shmuel and HBM - should be exposed.
What did Shmuel do that was unethical? They asked for permission to use data they collected while working in the Logothetis lab. It is not clear that Logothetis made any contribution to the paper that rises to the level of being an author. He only retracted his permission based on the fact that he disagreed with their interpretation--this is not a valid reason to disallow someone to use their own data. The proper response is to not list yourself as an author, then publish your own interpretation. The journal went through its normal editorial and peer review process. Why should someone who is not an author saying they disagree with its conclusions stop them from publishing it? Because he's famous? I would be less inclined against Logothetis if science wasn't rife with over-controlling PIs become territorial and possesive about data generated (usually entirely) by their postdocs. The process of scientific publication has adequate mechanisms for airing disputes over the validity and interpretation of data. Accusations in "news" articles are unbecoming--leave them to hominid paleontologists. Logothetis, and this article, imply misconduct where there is evidence for none.
i posted my thoughts here: http://floatingnotes.tumblr.com/post/40888014/fmri-data-spat-html
I'm surprised that a flickering LED screen can be treated as the absence of a stimulus. Williams et al. (2004) showed that macaque V1 neurons can be entrained by the refresh rate of a monitor.
It is worthwhile to read this article about the genesis of data and evolving human faces in science. Truly Nature has transcended the boundaries with universal appeal as science is a pragmatic zone. Science alone can unravel the truth. Humans in many occasions inadvertently jeopardize not only scientific temper and growth but also damage new seedling of thoughts and deeds due to undue power dogma, prevalent in many research institutes. Sordidly this is a clear indication of declining prowess in scientific thoughts, ideas and their coherence unlike the famous “Bose-Einstein Condensation theory�, signifying the fusion of scientific coherence. Unfortunately it will create bad patches in teacher-student relationship. Wisely scientific essence will prevail upon in the 21st nano-century to nurture humane welfare. Posted by: Prabir kumar Chaudhuri Scientist, CIMAP, India
I really do not understand why Leopold engaged in this business with Shmuel. Leopold is usually considered to be a serious researcher. Of course - he worked already in the past on spontaneous fluctuations in the visual cortex. But why, for heavens sake, did he fall for Shmuel ??
I agree with Logothetis although his trainees are probably not even wrong about their conclusions. First, if Dr. Logothetis really does care, he can simply ask someone in his lab to do a simple experiment after turning off the light while fixing a pot of coffee. Such experiment should be effortless. Second, Dr. Logothetis raises a good point that physiologists should treat their data thoughtfully. Every little detail may make a difference.
Ownership of research data and individual right for scientific opinions-------- I think this non-scientific dispute reveal a true dark area in today's science – those who generated the research data are deprived of their own right for using their data and those front-line researchers are placed in a slavery situation in expressing their own scientific opinions./// Today's scientific communities are sometimes if not often organized in such a way that the "top" "researchers" controlled their "bottom" "feeders" not only in the physical sense (providing money for surviving a basic living in a research environment) but also in the spiritual sense (controlling their mind so that no deviations happen from their mainstream thought).///However, some if not many "top" "researchers" are sometimes if not very often just the champion “fund� raisers and managers. These "top" "scientists" seldom if not never work on the laboratory bench or the data-crunching computer but appears very frequently in meetings and mass media./// They are entitled the "corresponding" authors often because they facilitated the publishing of the research work (done by others) using their powerful names and good connections. Some "corresponding" authors are true "honorary" authors because their principal roles include just organizing a research or sometimes merely provided the money for the (other's)research./// However, when these corresponding authors are required to respond some scientific criticisms, their true role in a paper will be significantly down-graded. If a paper is retracted (often due to the true research-level data-centric "misconduct"), then these corresponding authors usually do not treat themselves as the principal investigators (only for the "bad" papers though)./// On the other hand, if a junior researcher tries to run a different course with opinions/interpretations disliked by these PIs, they lab heads will not only be extremely mad but also take some "legal" actions. However, do these lab heads really own the data generated by the others and thus should have a right to suppress alternative opinions/interpretations???What should a scientific journal do with such a non-scientific dispute??? Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz)
I don't really see the interpretation of the data here as the issue. The senior scientist withdrew his permission to publish the data, and the junior scientists responded by going behind his back, writing the paper and getting it accepted, only to notify him days before its publication. Does anyone here seriously think that this was a smart way of handling the situation? I always assumed it was a big no-no to take data collected in a supervisor's lab and try and publish it without them knowing, or having given permission. Yeah, a lot of these respected senior scientists have big egos- all the more reason NOT to try and pull a stunt like this.
@ John, Mico, Davis----------- I agree fully with you . If THE director is so furious, he should just write a better paper exposing the claims by his students. Though he suggests data are inappropriate, arguably, he just wanted to stop his students from publishing. Personally, I have personally observed behaviour from directors, professors, who stop their students from doing something against their (prof) own will. In fairness, both the (eventual) authors had taken the data themselves. So this prof is making noise without perhaps touching the experiment. Given that the lab was built from public funds, won't that data be public property, than his own? This is ethically unacceptable. There is one tried and tested way in science: argue on a journal page and sort it fair and square.
"What did Shmuel do that was unethical?" What he did was publish data over the objections of the PI of the lab where the data was collected. The PI is ultimately responsible for the data generated from his or her lab and IMHO should have the final say over such matters. How would Shumel feel if a flakey student in his lab took poor quality data from the Shumel lab that Shumel would have discarded and published some poor quality paper with it. Word eventually gets out where the data originated and the PI will ultimately be soiled by it. Having said that, Nikos Logothetis did not handle this well. I agree with others that his best option would have been to publish his own article opinion, not to publically attack his own students.
Logothetis is a famous enough neuroscientist for this to be newsworthy. I think Nature has reported enough of the facts for any reader to come to their own conclusion, or investigate the issue more thoroughly for themselves if they so wish.
HBM's version can be read at: http://www-bmu.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/publications/fox08pro.pdf