1

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

1 Answer 1

1

The problems you indicate should result in non-replicable results. The way this can be shown is repeat the published experiments as closely to the published protocol as humanly possible, with a correct design, carefully documented, etc. etc., and get different results. That is a publishable result.

Whether such a replication will somehow violate your confidentiality contract is something you need to discuss with a lawyer. My feeling of justice says that it should not violate that, but justice and law are two very different beasts.

Just writing down your experiences, risks ending up in a "he said, she said" situation, which is not going to resolve anything. Moreover there is the legal aspect of you signing a confidentiality contract. Anything legal needs to be discussed with a lawyer, not random persons on the internet.

2
  • I do not work anymore on the stuff. I just wonder what realistic options I had as a PhD there. Usually critical PhDs get bad ratings and the influence you have goes to zero. On the other hand everything you discover is used somehow. At the end you have built-up guilt if patients take useless drug candidates which you know will fail. The only winner is the institute, which got public founding for years and new devices. I mean, I was not manipulating stuff, BUT I was not allowed to publish things which were in contrast to other PostDocs and PhDs which is similar.
    – user75308
    Jul 25, 2018 at 9:22
  • PhD students are at the bottom of the food chain, especially in such labs, so there is very little they can do. There may be an ombudsperson in your institution you could talk to. Other than that, you could finish go to another lab and do the replications there. (Notice the institute get public funding not founding) Jul 25, 2018 at 9:30

You must log in to answer this question.