I wonder a bit whether I should have behaved differently. I worked in a institute. They developed "drug candidates" for a disease. At the end of my PhD I definitely proofed that the binding mechanism is unspecific and the binding coefficients are low (for the whole class of candidates). I was, by the way, not allowed to publish that stuff and PostDocs working there started to get angry in meetings acting like I do crap. I noticed that experiments from other PhDs were manipulated as well:
- Small sample size (1-3 mice)
- Repeat until you see what you want
- General problems with positive controls
Later, I left for PostDoc and had to sign a confidentialiatity contract. Now one of the besaid drug (candidates) is going into human patient test trials, and I suspect that they take something which will not do anything (good). A subsequent PhD published parts of what I was forbidden. In the initial manuscript a friend send me, my name was missing, than I got one of the last positions, for "previous work". I guess, they got afraid, that I may read it later somewhere. Of course all the initial PostDocs which opposed, were in the author list :D
Actually, during that time I started to write a Review which illustrates all the contradictions in that field in general, knowingly that no higher IF journal will ever take it. I also noticed that many groups in the field are doing similiar fake science and even publish sometimes high (Nature, ..). I once wrote to the journal that one paper is based on a wrong experimental setup without any further answer.
Question:
- Is it worth it to write a Review when you actually work in industry and have no institute email anymore
- What should you do, if you know that you will lose your job and others their founding if you whistle blow?
- Against this idea speaks the fact that you cannot really proof manipulated setups
- .. and institutes tend to roll over single persons