Από το πρωί σήμερα γίνεται ακρόαση φορέων.
Εχω παρακολουθήσει επί πολλά χρόνια αντίστοιχες συνεδριάσεις. Η εμπειρία μου ήταν ότι, κατά τεκμήριο, οι βουλευτές υποστήριζαν τις θέσεις των συνδικαλιστικών οργανώσεων.
Το κλίμα σήμερα ήταν τελείως διαφορετικό. Και αυτό ήθελα να το καταγράψω. Γιατί θα πρέπει να προβληματίσει (τους συνδικαλιστές).
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Το πρόβλημα της λογοκλοπής στην Κίνα
Η Κίνα κάνει μια μεγάλη προσπάθεια να ανταγωνιστεί της ΗΠΑ και την Ευρώπη στην έρευνα. Ο έντονος ανταγωνισμός μεταξύ των ερευνητών έχει οδηγήσει και σε ανεπιθύμητα φαινόμενα, όπως προκύπττει από την παρακάτω είδηση.
When professors in China need to author research papers to get promoted, many turn to people like Lu Keqian.
Working on his laptop in a cramped spare bedroom, the former schoolteacher ghostwrites for professors, students, government offices — anyone willing to pay his fee, typically about 300 yuan ($45).
"My opinion is that writing papers for someone else is not wrong," he said. "There will always be a time when one needs help from others. Even our great leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping needed help writing."
Ghostwriting, plagiarizing or faking results is so rampant in Chinese academia that some experts worry it could hinder China's efforts to become a leader in science.
The communist government views science as critical to China's modernization, and the latest calls for government spending on science and technology to grow by 8 percent to 163 billion yuan ($24 billion) this year.
State-run media recently exulted over reports that China publishes more papers in international journals than any except the U.S. But not all the research stands up to scrutiny. In December, a British journal retracted 70 papers from a Chinese university, all by the same two lead scientists, saying the work had been fabricated.
"Academic fraud, misconduct and ethical violations are very common in China," said professor Rao Yi, dean of the life sciences school at Peking University in the capital. "It is a big problem."
Critics blame weak penalties and a system that bases faculty promotions and bonuses on number, rather than quality, of papers published.
Dan Ben-Canaan is familiar with plagiarism.
The Israeli professor has been teaching for nine years at Heilongjiang University in the northeastern city of Harbin. A colleague approached him in 2008 for a paper he wrote about the kidnapping and murder of a Jewish musician in Harbin in 1933 during the Japanese occupation.
"He had the audacity to present it as his own paper at a conference that I organized," Ben-Canaan said. "Without any shame!"
In a separate case, he gave material he had written to a researcher at the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He said he was shocked to receive a book by the academic that was mostly a copy and translation of the material Ben-Canaan had provided — without any attribution.
The pressure to publish has created a ghostwriting boom. Nearly 1 billion yuan (more than $145 million) was spent on academic papers in China last year, up fivefold from 2007, a study by Wuhan University professor Shen Yang showed.
One company providing such a service is Lu's, in Liuzhou, a southern industrial city. His Lu Ke Academic Center boasts a network of 20 to 30 graduate students and professors whose specialties range from computer technology to military affairs.
Lu, a 58-year-old Communist Party member, is approached by clients through Internet chat programs. Most are college professors seeking promotions and students seeking help on theses. Once, 10 students from the same college class put in a collective request for him to write their papers, he said.
"Doing everything on your own, independently, should be possible in theory, but in reality it is quite difficult and one will always need some help," Lu said. "This is how I see it. I don't know if it is right."
Even in the business of selling research papers, there are cheats. Among the papers bought and sold in 2007, more than 70 percent were plagiarized, the Wuhan study found.
Early last year, Internet users found that the deputy principal of Anhui Agricultural University had committed plagiarism in as many as 20 papers. The university removed him from his post but allowed him to continue teaching.
In June, the principal of a traditional Chinese medicine university in the city of Guangzhou was accused of plagiarizing at least 40 percent of his doctoral thesis from another paper.
And in March, the state-run China Youth Daily reported a 1997 medical paper had been plagiarized repeatedly over the past decade. At least 25 people from 16 organizations copied from the work, and more doctors are expected to be named as the investigation by two students using plagiarism-detecting software continues, the report said.
Fang Shimin, an independent investigator of fraud, said he and his volunteers expose about a hundred cases every year, publicizing them on a Web site titled "New Threads."
"The most common ones are plagiarism and exaggerating academic achievement," Fang said.
The papers retracted by the British journal came from researchers at Jinggangshan University in southeastern China. The editors are checking other papers from the same institution, and say more retractions are expected. Calls and e-mails sent to Zhong Hua and Liu Tao, the two researchers named as lead authors of the papers, were unanswered. Other researchers contacted at the university too did not respond.
The journal, Acta Crystallographica Section E, publishes discoveries of new crystal structures, much of it from legitimate Chinese research.
"Chinese authors have submitted thousands of high quality structures to Acta E, which represent an important contribution to science," wrote Peter Strickland, managing editor of Journals of the International Union of Crystallography, which owns Acta E, in an e-mail. He said it was the first time fraudulent papers had been found in any of the journals.
Richard P. Suttmeier, an expert in Chinese science policy at the University of Oregon, said the problems can be traced to China's efforts to modernize its science system in the 1980s and early 1990s when research accountability and evaluation were still weak.
In trying to find ready measures of achievement, China emulated Western practices and began to focus on high-quality publications, but with mixed results, he said.
The problems could hurt the country's ambition of becoming a global leader in research, Suttmeier said.
"I suspect there will be less appetite for non-Chinese scientists to collaborate with Chinese colleagues who are operating in a culture of misconduct," he said.
Last month the Education Ministry released guidelines for forming a 35-member watchdog committee. Also, in a faxed reply to questions, it said it has asked universities to get tough.
Rao, the Peking University dean, remains skeptical.
Government ministries are happy to fund research but not to police it, he said. "The authorities don't want to be the bad guy."
When professors in China need to author research papers to get promoted, many turn to people like Lu Keqian.
Working on his laptop in a cramped spare bedroom, the former schoolteacher ghostwrites for professors, students, government offices — anyone willing to pay his fee, typically about 300 yuan ($45).
"My opinion is that writing papers for someone else is not wrong," he said. "There will always be a time when one needs help from others. Even our great leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping needed help writing."
Ghostwriting, plagiarizing or faking results is so rampant in Chinese academia that some experts worry it could hinder China's efforts to become a leader in science.
The communist government views science as critical to China's modernization, and the latest calls for government spending on science and technology to grow by 8 percent to 163 billion yuan ($24 billion) this year.
State-run media recently exulted over reports that China publishes more papers in international journals than any except the U.S. But not all the research stands up to scrutiny. In December, a British journal retracted 70 papers from a Chinese university, all by the same two lead scientists, saying the work had been fabricated.
"Academic fraud, misconduct and ethical violations are very common in China," said professor Rao Yi, dean of the life sciences school at Peking University in the capital. "It is a big problem."
Critics blame weak penalties and a system that bases faculty promotions and bonuses on number, rather than quality, of papers published.
Dan Ben-Canaan is familiar with plagiarism.
The Israeli professor has been teaching for nine years at Heilongjiang University in the northeastern city of Harbin. A colleague approached him in 2008 for a paper he wrote about the kidnapping and murder of a Jewish musician in Harbin in 1933 during the Japanese occupation.
"He had the audacity to present it as his own paper at a conference that I organized," Ben-Canaan said. "Without any shame!"
In a separate case, he gave material he had written to a researcher at the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He said he was shocked to receive a book by the academic that was mostly a copy and translation of the material Ben-Canaan had provided — without any attribution.
The pressure to publish has created a ghostwriting boom. Nearly 1 billion yuan (more than $145 million) was spent on academic papers in China last year, up fivefold from 2007, a study by Wuhan University professor Shen Yang showed.
One company providing such a service is Lu's, in Liuzhou, a southern industrial city. His Lu Ke Academic Center boasts a network of 20 to 30 graduate students and professors whose specialties range from computer technology to military affairs.
Lu, a 58-year-old Communist Party member, is approached by clients through Internet chat programs. Most are college professors seeking promotions and students seeking help on theses. Once, 10 students from the same college class put in a collective request for him to write their papers, he said.
"Doing everything on your own, independently, should be possible in theory, but in reality it is quite difficult and one will always need some help," Lu said. "This is how I see it. I don't know if it is right."
Even in the business of selling research papers, there are cheats. Among the papers bought and sold in 2007, more than 70 percent were plagiarized, the Wuhan study found.
Early last year, Internet users found that the deputy principal of Anhui Agricultural University had committed plagiarism in as many as 20 papers. The university removed him from his post but allowed him to continue teaching.
In June, the principal of a traditional Chinese medicine university in the city of Guangzhou was accused of plagiarizing at least 40 percent of his doctoral thesis from another paper.
And in March, the state-run China Youth Daily reported a 1997 medical paper had been plagiarized repeatedly over the past decade. At least 25 people from 16 organizations copied from the work, and more doctors are expected to be named as the investigation by two students using plagiarism-detecting software continues, the report said.
Fang Shimin, an independent investigator of fraud, said he and his volunteers expose about a hundred cases every year, publicizing them on a Web site titled "New Threads."
"The most common ones are plagiarism and exaggerating academic achievement," Fang said.
The papers retracted by the British journal came from researchers at Jinggangshan University in southeastern China. The editors are checking other papers from the same institution, and say more retractions are expected. Calls and e-mails sent to Zhong Hua and Liu Tao, the two researchers named as lead authors of the papers, were unanswered. Other researchers contacted at the university too did not respond.
The journal, Acta Crystallographica Section E, publishes discoveries of new crystal structures, much of it from legitimate Chinese research.
"Chinese authors have submitted thousands of high quality structures to Acta E, which represent an important contribution to science," wrote Peter Strickland, managing editor of Journals of the International Union of Crystallography, which owns Acta E, in an e-mail. He said it was the first time fraudulent papers had been found in any of the journals.
Richard P. Suttmeier, an expert in Chinese science policy at the University of Oregon, said the problems can be traced to China's efforts to modernize its science system in the 1980s and early 1990s when research accountability and evaluation were still weak.
In trying to find ready measures of achievement, China emulated Western practices and began to focus on high-quality publications, but with mixed results, he said.
The problems could hurt the country's ambition of becoming a global leader in research, Suttmeier said.
"I suspect there will be less appetite for non-Chinese scientists to collaborate with Chinese colleagues who are operating in a culture of misconduct," he said.
Last month the Education Ministry released guidelines for forming a 35-member watchdog committee. Also, in a faxed reply to questions, it said it has asked universities to get tough.
Rao, the Peking University dean, remains skeptical.
Government ministries are happy to fund research but not to police it, he said. "The authorities don't want to be the bad guy."
Η Στατιστική και η Δικαιοσύνη
Ανανέωση: (15/4/10). Nurse Lucia de Berk not guilty of murdering seven patients
Nurse Lucia de Berk has been formally found not guilty of murdering seven patients and attempting to murder three more, ending one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in Dutch legal history.
De Berk, who always maintained her innocence, was jailed for life in 2004.
The case against her was largely based on statistical evidence and claims that a baby had been poisoned.
That supposed murder, later disputed by toxicologists, led prosecutors to state that other patients had also been killed by her.
Είναι αναρίθμητες οι περιπτώσεις που η Στατιστική έχει παίξει καθοριστικό ρόλο (θετικό ή αρνητικό) στην απονομή της δικαιοσύνης.
Το τελευταίο παράδειγμα είναι αυτό της Ολλανδής νοσοκόμας Lucia de Berk, που καταδικάστηκε σε ισόβια πριν έξι χρόνια ως υπεύθυνη για τον θάνατο επτά ασθενών στα νοσοκομεία που δούλευε.
Στην καταδίκη της, συνέβαλε ένας καθηγητής νομικής που (ισχυριζόταν ότι) ήξερε Στατιστική. Στην αναμενόμενη αθώωσή της καθοριστικό ρόλο έχει παίξει ένας πραγματικός στατιστικός, ο καθηγητής Richard Gill, που εκμηδένισε όλα τα επιχειρήματα που είχαν προβληθεί. Του αξίζουν συγχαρητήρια. Οχι μόνο γιατί έθεσε την πραγματική επιστήμη στην υπηρεσία της κοινωνίας, αλλά και γιατί πήρε πάνω του την διόρθωση μια τρομερής αδικίας.
Το πλήρες άρθρο στον σημερινό Guardian.
Lucia de Berk is a Dutch nurse who has spent six years of a life sentence in jail for murdering seven people in a killing spree that never happened. She will hear about her appeal on Wednesday, and there is now little doubt that she will be cleared. The statistical errors in the evidence against her were so crass that they can be explained in one newspaper column. So will the people who jailed her apologise?
The case against Lucia was built on a suspicious pattern: there were nine incidents on a ward where she worked and Lucia was present during all of them. This could be suspicious but it could be a random cluster, best illustrated by the "Texas sharpshooter" phenomenon: imagine I am firing a thousand machinegun bullets into the side of a barn. I remove my blindfold, find three bullets very close together and paint a target around them. Then I announce that I am an Olympic standard rifleman.
This is plainly foolish. All across the world, nurses are working on wards where patients die, and it is inevitable that on one ward, in one hospital, in one town, in one country, somewhere in the world, you will find one nurse who seems to be on a lot when patients die. It's very unlikely that one particular prespecified person will win the lottery but inevitable someone will win: we don't suspect the winner of rigging the balls.
And did the idea that there was a killer on the loose make any sense, statistically, for the hospital as a whole? There were six deaths over three years on one ward where Lucia supposedly did her murdering. In the three preceding years, before she arrived, there were seven deaths. So the death rate on this ward went down at the precise moment that a serial killer moved in.
Even more bizarre was the staggering foolishness by some statistical experts used in the court. One, Henk Elffers, a professor of law, combined individual statistical tests by taking p-values – a mathematical expression of statistical significance – and multiplying them together. This bit is for the nerds: you do not just multiply p-values together, you weave them with a clever tool, like maybe 'Fisher's method for combination of independent p-values'. If you multiply p-values together, then chance incidents will rapidly appear to be vanishingly unlikely. Let's say you worked in 20 hospitals, each with a pattern of incidents that is purely random noise: let's say p=0.5. If you multiply those harmless p-values, of entirely chance findings, you end up with a final p-value of p < 0.000001, falsely implying that the outcome is extremely highly statistically significant. By this reasoning, if you change hospitals a lot, you automatically become a suspect.
One statistician — Richard Gill — has held the Dutch courts' feet to the fire, writing endless papers on these laughable statistical flaws (qurl.com/gill). Alongside the illusory patterns he has identified, there was one firm piece of forensic evidence. Some traces of the drug digoxin were found in one baby who died. The baby had previously been prescribed digoxin, months previously. Three court toxicologists now say the digoxin was not the cause of death.
Even the Dutch state prosecution now accepts Lucia should be acquitted and there was no evidence of any unnatural deaths, though her convictions for stealing two books from the hospital library – a charge she denies – will be upheld. Now living with her partner while awaiting judgment, Lucia is penniless, denied benefits, and paralysed down one side following a stroke she had in 2006 in the week she was told her conviction would be upheld.
Watch what the Dutch legal system does next because it owes her a great deal.
Nurse Lucia de Berk has been formally found not guilty of murdering seven patients and attempting to murder three more, ending one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in Dutch legal history.
De Berk, who always maintained her innocence, was jailed for life in 2004.
The case against her was largely based on statistical evidence and claims that a baby had been poisoned.
That supposed murder, later disputed by toxicologists, led prosecutors to state that other patients had also been killed by her.
Είναι αναρίθμητες οι περιπτώσεις που η Στατιστική έχει παίξει καθοριστικό ρόλο (θετικό ή αρνητικό) στην απονομή της δικαιοσύνης.
Το τελευταίο παράδειγμα είναι αυτό της Ολλανδής νοσοκόμας Lucia de Berk, που καταδικάστηκε σε ισόβια πριν έξι χρόνια ως υπεύθυνη για τον θάνατο επτά ασθενών στα νοσοκομεία που δούλευε.
Στην καταδίκη της, συνέβαλε ένας καθηγητής νομικής που (ισχυριζόταν ότι) ήξερε Στατιστική. Στην αναμενόμενη αθώωσή της καθοριστικό ρόλο έχει παίξει ένας πραγματικός στατιστικός, ο καθηγητής Richard Gill, που εκμηδένισε όλα τα επιχειρήματα που είχαν προβληθεί. Του αξίζουν συγχαρητήρια. Οχι μόνο γιατί έθεσε την πραγματική επιστήμη στην υπηρεσία της κοινωνίας, αλλά και γιατί πήρε πάνω του την διόρθωση μια τρομερής αδικίας.
Το πλήρες άρθρο στον σημερινό Guardian.
Lucia de Berk is a Dutch nurse who has spent six years of a life sentence in jail for murdering seven people in a killing spree that never happened. She will hear about her appeal on Wednesday, and there is now little doubt that she will be cleared. The statistical errors in the evidence against her were so crass that they can be explained in one newspaper column. So will the people who jailed her apologise?
The case against Lucia was built on a suspicious pattern: there were nine incidents on a ward where she worked and Lucia was present during all of them. This could be suspicious but it could be a random cluster, best illustrated by the "Texas sharpshooter" phenomenon: imagine I am firing a thousand machinegun bullets into the side of a barn. I remove my blindfold, find three bullets very close together and paint a target around them. Then I announce that I am an Olympic standard rifleman.
This is plainly foolish. All across the world, nurses are working on wards where patients die, and it is inevitable that on one ward, in one hospital, in one town, in one country, somewhere in the world, you will find one nurse who seems to be on a lot when patients die. It's very unlikely that one particular prespecified person will win the lottery but inevitable someone will win: we don't suspect the winner of rigging the balls.
And did the idea that there was a killer on the loose make any sense, statistically, for the hospital as a whole? There were six deaths over three years on one ward where Lucia supposedly did her murdering. In the three preceding years, before she arrived, there were seven deaths. So the death rate on this ward went down at the precise moment that a serial killer moved in.
Even more bizarre was the staggering foolishness by some statistical experts used in the court. One, Henk Elffers, a professor of law, combined individual statistical tests by taking p-values – a mathematical expression of statistical significance – and multiplying them together. This bit is for the nerds: you do not just multiply p-values together, you weave them with a clever tool, like maybe 'Fisher's method for combination of independent p-values'. If you multiply p-values together, then chance incidents will rapidly appear to be vanishingly unlikely. Let's say you worked in 20 hospitals, each with a pattern of incidents that is purely random noise: let's say p=0.5. If you multiply those harmless p-values, of entirely chance findings, you end up with a final p-value of p < 0.000001, falsely implying that the outcome is extremely highly statistically significant. By this reasoning, if you change hospitals a lot, you automatically become a suspect.
One statistician — Richard Gill — has held the Dutch courts' feet to the fire, writing endless papers on these laughable statistical flaws (qurl.com/gill). Alongside the illusory patterns he has identified, there was one firm piece of forensic evidence. Some traces of the drug digoxin were found in one baby who died. The baby had previously been prescribed digoxin, months previously. Three court toxicologists now say the digoxin was not the cause of death.
Even the Dutch state prosecution now accepts Lucia should be acquitted and there was no evidence of any unnatural deaths, though her convictions for stealing two books from the hospital library – a charge she denies – will be upheld. Now living with her partner while awaiting judgment, Lucia is penniless, denied benefits, and paralysed down one side following a stroke she had in 2006 in the week she was told her conviction would be upheld.
Watch what the Dutch legal system does next because it owes her a great deal.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Η παραίτηση του επικεφαλής έρευνας στο ETH της Ζυρίχης
H παρακάτω είδηση, αν και υπέπεσε στην αντίληψή μου με κάποια καθυστέρηση, μου προκάλεσε το ενδιαφέρον γιατό δείχνει πόσο σοβαρά παίρνουν υπόψη τους τα σοβαρά εκπαιδευτικά ιδρύματα τα θέματα ακαδημημαϊκής τάξης.
Ακολουθεί μια πρόχειρη μετάφραση των κυριοτέρων σημείων της είδησης και το πρωτότυπο.
Στο ETH της Ζυρίχης υπάρχουν υποψίες ότι τα επιστημονικά δεδομένα μπορεί να έχουν πλαστογραφηθεί σε δύο δημοσιεύσεις και μια διδακτορική διατριβή το 1999 και το 2000. Κατόπιν αιτήματος του τότε επικεφαλής της ομάδας Peter Chen, νυν αντιπροέδρου Έρευνας και Εταιρικών Σχέσεων του Πανεπιστημίου, η εκτελεστική επιτροπή όρισε μια ομάδα εμπειρογνωμόνων. Η επιτροπή κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι τα στοιχεία είχαν όντως πλαστογραφηθεί. Ωστόσο, δεν είναι απόλυτα σίγουρο ποιος ήταν υπεύθυνος για την πλαστογραφία. Παρ 'όλα αυτά, από σεβασμό προς το ETH της Ζυρίχης και τη λειτουργία του ως επικεφαλής της έρευνας, ο Peter Chen παραδέχτηκε την ευθύνη του και αποφάσισε να παραιτηθεί από τη θέση του Αντιπροέδρου του πανεπιστημίου, στο τέλος του Σεπτεμβρίου 2009. Τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνας επηρέασαν σημαντικά τον τομέα της βασικής έρευνας στη χημεία στο ETH της Ζυρίχης και δημοσιεύθηκαν το 2000 από μέλη της ομάδας με τότε επικεφαλής τον Peter Chen. Ο Chen είναι Καθηγητής της Φυσικής-Οργανικής Χημείας από το 1994 και αντιπρόεδρος Έρευνας και Εταιρικών Σχέσεων του ETH από το 2007.
Αφού δημοσιεύτηκαν τα αποτελέσματα όμως, άλλες ερευνητικές ομάδες που εργάζονται στον ίδιο τομέα οδηγήθηκαν σε αποτελέσματα σημαντικά διαφορετικά. Ακολούθως, η ομάδα του Peter Chen ασχολήθηκε το να βρει εξηγήσεις για τις ασυμφωνίες σε συνδυασμό με την ομάδα ενός πρώην μεταδιδακτορικού ερευνητή του.
Η Επιτροπή επιβεβαιώνει την πλαστογράφηση των δεδομένων. Δεν ήταν μόνο η προσπάθεια για την αναπαραγωγή των τιμών που μετρώνται ανεπιτυχής, αλλά και η αναζήτηση για άλλες εξηγήσεις για τις ανακολουθίες. Ο Peter Chen άρχισε να υποπτεύεται ανέντιμο παιχνίδι. Ζήτησε από την εκτελεστική επιτροπή του ETH να ορίσει ένα επιστημονικό συμβούλιο έρευνας για να διευκρινιστούν οι παρατυπίες στις αρχές του Ιανουαρίου του 2009. Ταυτόχρονα, ο ίδιος και οι συν-συγγραφείς του απέσυραν την αρχική δημοσίευση.
Σύμφωνα με τη νομική υποχρέωσή της να παρακολουθήσει κάθε χειροπιαστή υποψία για ανάρμοστη συμπεριφορά στον τομέα της έρευνας, η εκτελεστική επιτροπή ανέθεσε σε πέντε διεθνούς κύρους καθηγητές (τρεις εξωτερικού και δύο από το ETH) το έργο αυτό. Η Επιτροπή εξέτασε εξονυχιστικά τις συγκεκριμένες αυτές μελέτες επανέλαβε τις διαδικασίες που χρησιμοποιούνται κατά τη χρονική στιγμή όπου ήταν δυνατόν και ζήτησε στοιχεία από τους συγγραφείς που ενεπλάκησαν στα πειράματα: τους διδακτορικούς και μεταδιδακτορικούς φοιτητές εκείνη την περίοδο και τον Peter Chen. Η επιτροπή κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι ορισμένα από τα στοιχεία στα οποία βασίζονταν οι δημοσιεύσεις και η διδακτορική διατριβή είχαν πλαστογραφηθεί.
< Επιπλέον, τα συναφή βιβλία εργαστηρίου και τα περισσότερα από τα ανεπεξέργαστα δεδομένα για τα πειράματα λείπουν, πράγμα πολύ παράξενο. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι ο τρόπος που αποκτήθηκαν υπό αμφισβήτηση δεδομένα δεν μπορεί πλέον να εντοπιστεί με ακρίβεια. Εν πάση περιπτώσει, η Επιτροπή αποφάσισε ότι η δεύτερη δημοσίευση και τη διδακτορική διατριβή θα έπρεπε επίσης να αποσυρθούν.
Όλοι όσοι εμπλέκονται στα πειράματα αρνούνται κατηγορηματικά ότι έχουν διαπράξει τις πλαστογραφίες: παρόλα αυτά, όλοι συμφωνούν ότι τα δεδομένα έχουν πλαστογραφηθεί. Κατά συνέπεια, η δεύτερη δημοσίευση με τα αμφίβολα δεδομένα αποσύρθηκε. Όλοι λοιπόν οι ερευνητές έχουν μερίδιο ατομικής ευθύνης για την ακρίβεια των δεδομένων. Επιπλέον, ο συντάκτης της διδακτορικής διατριβής απέσυρε αρχικά με δική του πρωτοβουλία, αλλά ανακάλεσε την απόσυρση αργότερα. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η Εκτελεστική Επιτροπή του ETH Ζυρίχης ανέβαλε την προγραμματισμένη δημοσίευση της έκθεσης της Επιτροπής προς το παρόν για νομικούς λόγους. Η Εκτελεστική Επιτροπή διεξήγαγε περαιτέρω έρευνες και είδε τα έγγραφα για να σχηματίσει τη δική της γνώμη.
"Η Επιτροπή επέλυσε το ζήτημα αντικειμενικά και είμαι ευγνώμων προς αυτούς εις το όνομα του ETH Ζυρίχης ", είπε ο Πρόεδρος του ETH Ralph Eichler και συνέχισε «Δυστυχώς, δεν υπάρχει τώρα καμία νομική οδός για να φανεί με σιγουριά ποιος ήταν υπεύθυνος για τις πλαστογραφίες»
Για τον ίδιο τον Peter Chen η κατάσταση είναι ξεκάθαρη: ως επικεφαλής της ερευνητικής ομάδας το συγκεκριμένο διάστημα αναγνωρίζει την ευθύνη που του αναλογεί. Ως τωρινός αντιπρόεδρος υπεύθυνος για τη διασφάλιση της ποιότητας στην έρευνα, όμως, αισθάνεται ιδιαίτερα θιγμένος και θεωρεί ότι έχει υπονομευτεί η δυνατότητά του να ενεργήσει. Σε ό,τι αφορά την άριστη φήμη του ETH της Ζυρίχης, αποφάσισε να παραιτηθεί από τη θέση του Αντιπροέδρου για την Έρευνα και τις Εταιρικές Σχέσεις στο τέλος του Σεπτέμβρη του 2009.
Η Εκτελεστική Επιτροπή λυπάται πολύ γι’ αυτή την εξέλιξη. «Ο Peter Chen είναι ένας εντυπωσιακός ερευνητής και ένα μέλος της επιτροπής μας που χαίρει μεγάλης εκτίμησης,» τονίζει ο Ralph Eichler. «Λυπούμεθα πολύ που χάνουμε έναν εξαίρετο ηγέτη στον τομέα του, αλλά είμαστε χαρούμενοι που θα παραμείνει ανάμεσά μας σαν ένας συνάδελφος που αποτελεί πρότυπο, ένας εξέχων επιστήμονας και πανεπιστημιακός καθηγητής».
Το σύστημα έρευνας έχει χτιστεί με βάση το σεβασμό στα πραγματικά γεγονότα,την ειλικρίνεια και την εμπιστοσύνη, και το ETH της Ζυρίχης κάνει ότι μπορεί στο πλαίσιο της δικαιοδοσίας του για να περιφρουρήσει αυτές τις αξίες ως απόλυτη προϋπόθεση για την έρευνα. «Η αντιεπιστημονική συμπεριφορά θέτει σε κίνδυνο τον πυρήνα της έρευνας και θα πρέπει να επισείει συνέπειες», λέει ο Ralph Eichler. «Έτσι έχουν τα πράγματα εδώ και το όλο θέμα δείχνει ότι οι υπάρχοντες μηχανισμοί ελέγχου για την έρευνα πραγματικά λειτουργούν».
ETH Zurich's head of research resigns
At ETH Zurich, there are suspicions that scientific data may have been falsified in two publications and a doctoral thesis in 1999 and 2000. At the request of the then group leader Peter Chen, now Vice President Research and Corporate Relations, the Executive Board appointed a panel of experts. It concluded that data had indeed been falsified. However, it is not known for absolute certain who was responsible for the falsifications. Nevertheless, out of respect for ETH Zurich and the function as head of research, Peter Chen has acknowledged his responsibility and decided to step down as Vice President at the end of September 2009.
The research projects affected hail from the field of basic research in chemistry at ETH Zurich and were published in 2000 by members of the team then headed by Peter Chen. He has been Full Professor of Physical-Organic Chemistry since 1994 and Vice-President Research and Corporate Relations since 2007. More specifically, the matter concerns results relating to the spectroscopic structural clarification of hydrocarbon radicals: short-lived chemical compounds that are formed during combustion processes, for instance.
Special techniques are needed to reproduce such molecules spectroscopically. The experiments were conducted with the so-called “zero-kinetic-energy photoelectron spectroscopy” method, a high-resolution version of photoelectron spectroscopy. The method can be used, amongst other things, to analyze highly reactive or instable compounds. The measurements include electrons that break away from the molecule under examination after it has absorbed light. The spectra determined as a result can then be used to analyze the geometric structure and dynamics of the compounds.
After the projects were published, however, other research groups working in the same field obtained significantly different results. Subsequently, Peter Chen’s group set about seeking an explanation for the discrepancies in conjunction with a former post-doctoral researcher’s group. The discrepancies initially involved the ionization energy of alkyl radicals. Ionization energy means any energy needed to separate the least stable electron from an atom in its basic state.
Commission confirms falsification of data
Not only was the attempt to reproduce the values measured unsuccessful, but also the search for other explanations for the inconsistencies. Peter Chen began to suspect foul play. He called upon the Executive Board of ETH Zurich to appoint a scientific board of inquiry to clarify the irregularities at the beginning of January 2009. At the same time, he and his co-authors withdrew an initial publication.
In keeping with its legal obligation to pursue any concrete suspicion of misconduct in research, the Executive Board entrusted five internationally renowned professors (three external ones and two from ETH Zurich) with the task. The commission scrutinized the studies in question, repeated the processes used at the time where possible and interviewed the three authors involved in the experiments: the doctoral and post-doctoral students at the time and Peter Chen.
The commission concluded that some of the data the publications and the doctoral thesis were based on had been falsified. For instance, certain diagrams involving representations of the measured spectra often contained identical patterns from static, i.e. technically unavoidable signals without any discernable information content. The fact that some of the noise patterns recur in an identical fashion is virtually impossible, which suggests they were added to the diagrams afterwards. Moreover, re-measurements revealed that some of the lines apparently measured within the spectra actually did not exist, i.e. did not show up in the repetition of the experiments. What is more, the relevant lab books and most of the raw data for the experiments are missing, which is very odd. This means that how the questionable data was obtained can no longer be reproduced accurately. At any rate, the commission decided that the second publication and the doctoral thesis would also have to be withdrawn.
All of the people involved in the experiments categorically deny having carried out the falsifications; however, they all agree that the data was falsified. Consequently, the second publication with the dubious data was withdrawn. The researchers are thus fulfilling their individual responsibility for the accuracy of data. Furthermore, the author of the doctoral thesis initially withdrew it of his own accord, but retracted the withdrawal later. In this context, the Executive Board of ETH Zurich has postponed the planned publication of the commission’s report for the time being for legal reasons.
The Executive Board conducted further talks and viewed documents to form its own opinion. “The commission resolved the matter objectively and I am much obliged to them in the name of ETH Zurich”, says ETH President Ralph Eichler. “Unfortunately, there is now no legal way of finding out for sure who was responsible for the falsifications”, he continues.
For Peter Chen himself, it is clear: as the head of the research group at the time, he acknowledges his responsibility. As the current vice-president responsible for quality assurance in research, however, he feels especially affected and considers his ability to act compromised. With regard to ETH Zurich’s excellent reputation, he has decided to step down as Vice President Research and Corporate Relations at the end of September 2009.
The Executive Board deeply regrets this development. “Peter Chen is an impressive researcher and a highly valued member of our board in every respect”, stresses Ralph Eichler. “We very much regret to lose such an accomplished leader, but we are happy that he’ll remain in our midst as a model colleague, outstanding scientist and professor.”
The research system is built on adherence of the facts, honesty and trust, and ETH Zurich does everything in its power to safeguard these values as an absolute prerequisite for research. “Scientific misconduct jeopardizes the very core of research and must carry consequences”, says Ralph Eichler. “This has been the case here and the matter also shows that the established control mechanisms for research really do work.”
Ακολουθεί μια πρόχειρη μετάφραση των κυριοτέρων σημείων της είδησης και το πρωτότυπο.
Στο ETH της Ζυρίχης υπάρχουν υποψίες ότι τα επιστημονικά δεδομένα μπορεί να έχουν πλαστογραφηθεί σε δύο δημοσιεύσεις και μια διδακτορική διατριβή το 1999 και το 2000. Κατόπιν αιτήματος του τότε επικεφαλής της ομάδας Peter Chen, νυν αντιπροέδρου Έρευνας και Εταιρικών Σχέσεων του Πανεπιστημίου, η εκτελεστική επιτροπή όρισε μια ομάδα εμπειρογνωμόνων. Η επιτροπή κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι τα στοιχεία είχαν όντως πλαστογραφηθεί. Ωστόσο, δεν είναι απόλυτα σίγουρο ποιος ήταν υπεύθυνος για την πλαστογραφία. Παρ 'όλα αυτά, από σεβασμό προς το ETH της Ζυρίχης και τη λειτουργία του ως επικεφαλής της έρευνας, ο Peter Chen παραδέχτηκε την ευθύνη του και αποφάσισε να παραιτηθεί από τη θέση του Αντιπροέδρου του πανεπιστημίου, στο τέλος του Σεπτεμβρίου 2009. Τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνας επηρέασαν σημαντικά τον τομέα της βασικής έρευνας στη χημεία στο ETH της Ζυρίχης και δημοσιεύθηκαν το 2000 από μέλη της ομάδας με τότε επικεφαλής τον Peter Chen. Ο Chen είναι Καθηγητής της Φυσικής-Οργανικής Χημείας από το 1994 και αντιπρόεδρος Έρευνας και Εταιρικών Σχέσεων του ETH από το 2007.
Αφού δημοσιεύτηκαν τα αποτελέσματα όμως, άλλες ερευνητικές ομάδες που εργάζονται στον ίδιο τομέα οδηγήθηκαν σε αποτελέσματα σημαντικά διαφορετικά. Ακολούθως, η ομάδα του Peter Chen ασχολήθηκε το να βρει εξηγήσεις για τις ασυμφωνίες σε συνδυασμό με την ομάδα ενός πρώην μεταδιδακτορικού ερευνητή του.
Η Επιτροπή επιβεβαιώνει την πλαστογράφηση των δεδομένων. Δεν ήταν μόνο η προσπάθεια για την αναπαραγωγή των τιμών που μετρώνται ανεπιτυχής, αλλά και η αναζήτηση για άλλες εξηγήσεις για τις ανακολουθίες. Ο Peter Chen άρχισε να υποπτεύεται ανέντιμο παιχνίδι. Ζήτησε από την εκτελεστική επιτροπή του ETH να ορίσει ένα επιστημονικό συμβούλιο έρευνας για να διευκρινιστούν οι παρατυπίες στις αρχές του Ιανουαρίου του 2009. Ταυτόχρονα, ο ίδιος και οι συν-συγγραφείς του απέσυραν την αρχική δημοσίευση.
Σύμφωνα με τη νομική υποχρέωσή της να παρακολουθήσει κάθε χειροπιαστή υποψία για ανάρμοστη συμπεριφορά στον τομέα της έρευνας, η εκτελεστική επιτροπή ανέθεσε σε πέντε διεθνούς κύρους καθηγητές (τρεις εξωτερικού και δύο από το ETH) το έργο αυτό. Η Επιτροπή εξέτασε εξονυχιστικά τις συγκεκριμένες αυτές μελέτες επανέλαβε τις διαδικασίες που χρησιμοποιούνται κατά τη χρονική στιγμή όπου ήταν δυνατόν και ζήτησε στοιχεία από τους συγγραφείς που ενεπλάκησαν στα πειράματα: τους διδακτορικούς και μεταδιδακτορικούς φοιτητές εκείνη την περίοδο και τον Peter Chen. Η επιτροπή κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα ότι ορισμένα από τα στοιχεία στα οποία βασίζονταν οι δημοσιεύσεις και η διδακτορική διατριβή είχαν πλαστογραφηθεί.
< Επιπλέον, τα συναφή βιβλία εργαστηρίου και τα περισσότερα από τα ανεπεξέργαστα δεδομένα για τα πειράματα λείπουν, πράγμα πολύ παράξενο. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι ο τρόπος που αποκτήθηκαν υπό αμφισβήτηση δεδομένα δεν μπορεί πλέον να εντοπιστεί με ακρίβεια. Εν πάση περιπτώσει, η Επιτροπή αποφάσισε ότι η δεύτερη δημοσίευση και τη διδακτορική διατριβή θα έπρεπε επίσης να αποσυρθούν.
Όλοι όσοι εμπλέκονται στα πειράματα αρνούνται κατηγορηματικά ότι έχουν διαπράξει τις πλαστογραφίες: παρόλα αυτά, όλοι συμφωνούν ότι τα δεδομένα έχουν πλαστογραφηθεί. Κατά συνέπεια, η δεύτερη δημοσίευση με τα αμφίβολα δεδομένα αποσύρθηκε. Όλοι λοιπόν οι ερευνητές έχουν μερίδιο ατομικής ευθύνης για την ακρίβεια των δεδομένων. Επιπλέον, ο συντάκτης της διδακτορικής διατριβής απέσυρε αρχικά με δική του πρωτοβουλία, αλλά ανακάλεσε την απόσυρση αργότερα. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η Εκτελεστική Επιτροπή του ETH Ζυρίχης ανέβαλε την προγραμματισμένη δημοσίευση της έκθεσης της Επιτροπής προς το παρόν για νομικούς λόγους. Η Εκτελεστική Επιτροπή διεξήγαγε περαιτέρω έρευνες και είδε τα έγγραφα για να σχηματίσει τη δική της γνώμη.
"Η Επιτροπή επέλυσε το ζήτημα αντικειμενικά και είμαι ευγνώμων προς αυτούς εις το όνομα του ETH Ζυρίχης ", είπε ο Πρόεδρος του ETH Ralph Eichler και συνέχισε «Δυστυχώς, δεν υπάρχει τώρα καμία νομική οδός για να φανεί με σιγουριά ποιος ήταν υπεύθυνος για τις πλαστογραφίες»
Για τον ίδιο τον Peter Chen η κατάσταση είναι ξεκάθαρη: ως επικεφαλής της ερευνητικής ομάδας το συγκεκριμένο διάστημα αναγνωρίζει την ευθύνη που του αναλογεί. Ως τωρινός αντιπρόεδρος υπεύθυνος για τη διασφάλιση της ποιότητας στην έρευνα, όμως, αισθάνεται ιδιαίτερα θιγμένος και θεωρεί ότι έχει υπονομευτεί η δυνατότητά του να ενεργήσει. Σε ό,τι αφορά την άριστη φήμη του ETH της Ζυρίχης, αποφάσισε να παραιτηθεί από τη θέση του Αντιπροέδρου για την Έρευνα και τις Εταιρικές Σχέσεις στο τέλος του Σεπτέμβρη του 2009.
Η Εκτελεστική Επιτροπή λυπάται πολύ γι’ αυτή την εξέλιξη. «Ο Peter Chen είναι ένας εντυπωσιακός ερευνητής και ένα μέλος της επιτροπής μας που χαίρει μεγάλης εκτίμησης,» τονίζει ο Ralph Eichler. «Λυπούμεθα πολύ που χάνουμε έναν εξαίρετο ηγέτη στον τομέα του, αλλά είμαστε χαρούμενοι που θα παραμείνει ανάμεσά μας σαν ένας συνάδελφος που αποτελεί πρότυπο, ένας εξέχων επιστήμονας και πανεπιστημιακός καθηγητής».
Το σύστημα έρευνας έχει χτιστεί με βάση το σεβασμό στα πραγματικά γεγονότα,την ειλικρίνεια και την εμπιστοσύνη, και το ETH της Ζυρίχης κάνει ότι μπορεί στο πλαίσιο της δικαιοδοσίας του για να περιφρουρήσει αυτές τις αξίες ως απόλυτη προϋπόθεση για την έρευνα. «Η αντιεπιστημονική συμπεριφορά θέτει σε κίνδυνο τον πυρήνα της έρευνας και θα πρέπει να επισείει συνέπειες», λέει ο Ralph Eichler. «Έτσι έχουν τα πράγματα εδώ και το όλο θέμα δείχνει ότι οι υπάρχοντες μηχανισμοί ελέγχου για την έρευνα πραγματικά λειτουργούν».
ETH Zurich's head of research resigns
At ETH Zurich, there are suspicions that scientific data may have been falsified in two publications and a doctoral thesis in 1999 and 2000. At the request of the then group leader Peter Chen, now Vice President Research and Corporate Relations, the Executive Board appointed a panel of experts. It concluded that data had indeed been falsified. However, it is not known for absolute certain who was responsible for the falsifications. Nevertheless, out of respect for ETH Zurich and the function as head of research, Peter Chen has acknowledged his responsibility and decided to step down as Vice President at the end of September 2009.
The research projects affected hail from the field of basic research in chemistry at ETH Zurich and were published in 2000 by members of the team then headed by Peter Chen. He has been Full Professor of Physical-Organic Chemistry since 1994 and Vice-President Research and Corporate Relations since 2007. More specifically, the matter concerns results relating to the spectroscopic structural clarification of hydrocarbon radicals: short-lived chemical compounds that are formed during combustion processes, for instance.
Special techniques are needed to reproduce such molecules spectroscopically. The experiments were conducted with the so-called “zero-kinetic-energy photoelectron spectroscopy” method, a high-resolution version of photoelectron spectroscopy. The method can be used, amongst other things, to analyze highly reactive or instable compounds. The measurements include electrons that break away from the molecule under examination after it has absorbed light. The spectra determined as a result can then be used to analyze the geometric structure and dynamics of the compounds.
After the projects were published, however, other research groups working in the same field obtained significantly different results. Subsequently, Peter Chen’s group set about seeking an explanation for the discrepancies in conjunction with a former post-doctoral researcher’s group. The discrepancies initially involved the ionization energy of alkyl radicals. Ionization energy means any energy needed to separate the least stable electron from an atom in its basic state.
Commission confirms falsification of data
Not only was the attempt to reproduce the values measured unsuccessful, but also the search for other explanations for the inconsistencies. Peter Chen began to suspect foul play. He called upon the Executive Board of ETH Zurich to appoint a scientific board of inquiry to clarify the irregularities at the beginning of January 2009. At the same time, he and his co-authors withdrew an initial publication.
In keeping with its legal obligation to pursue any concrete suspicion of misconduct in research, the Executive Board entrusted five internationally renowned professors (three external ones and two from ETH Zurich) with the task. The commission scrutinized the studies in question, repeated the processes used at the time where possible and interviewed the three authors involved in the experiments: the doctoral and post-doctoral students at the time and Peter Chen.
The commission concluded that some of the data the publications and the doctoral thesis were based on had been falsified. For instance, certain diagrams involving representations of the measured spectra often contained identical patterns from static, i.e. technically unavoidable signals without any discernable information content. The fact that some of the noise patterns recur in an identical fashion is virtually impossible, which suggests they were added to the diagrams afterwards. Moreover, re-measurements revealed that some of the lines apparently measured within the spectra actually did not exist, i.e. did not show up in the repetition of the experiments. What is more, the relevant lab books and most of the raw data for the experiments are missing, which is very odd. This means that how the questionable data was obtained can no longer be reproduced accurately. At any rate, the commission decided that the second publication and the doctoral thesis would also have to be withdrawn.
All of the people involved in the experiments categorically deny having carried out the falsifications; however, they all agree that the data was falsified. Consequently, the second publication with the dubious data was withdrawn. The researchers are thus fulfilling their individual responsibility for the accuracy of data. Furthermore, the author of the doctoral thesis initially withdrew it of his own accord, but retracted the withdrawal later. In this context, the Executive Board of ETH Zurich has postponed the planned publication of the commission’s report for the time being for legal reasons.
The Executive Board conducted further talks and viewed documents to form its own opinion. “The commission resolved the matter objectively and I am much obliged to them in the name of ETH Zurich”, says ETH President Ralph Eichler. “Unfortunately, there is now no legal way of finding out for sure who was responsible for the falsifications”, he continues.
For Peter Chen himself, it is clear: as the head of the research group at the time, he acknowledges his responsibility. As the current vice-president responsible for quality assurance in research, however, he feels especially affected and considers his ability to act compromised. With regard to ETH Zurich’s excellent reputation, he has decided to step down as Vice President Research and Corporate Relations at the end of September 2009.
The Executive Board deeply regrets this development. “Peter Chen is an impressive researcher and a highly valued member of our board in every respect”, stresses Ralph Eichler. “We very much regret to lose such an accomplished leader, but we are happy that he’ll remain in our midst as a model colleague, outstanding scientist and professor.”
The research system is built on adherence of the facts, honesty and trust, and ETH Zurich does everything in its power to safeguard these values as an absolute prerequisite for research. “Scientific misconduct jeopardizes the very core of research and must carry consequences”, says Ralph Eichler. “This has been the case here and the matter also shows that the established control mechanisms for research really do work.”
Η θέση των ΗΠΑ στην Ερευνα με βάση τις αναφορές
| FIELD RANKINGS FOR BY RELATIVE CITATION IMPACT |
SOURCE: Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators, January 1999–December 2009 |
The data above were extracted from the Essential Science Indicators database of Thomson Reuters. The database, currently covering the period January 1999 through December 2009, surveys only journal articles (original research reports and review articles) indexed by Thomson Reuters. Articles are assigned to a category based on the journals in which they were published and the journal-to-category field definition scheme used by Thomson Reuters. Both articles tabulated and citation counts to those articles are for the period indicated.
The United States ranks 1st in output, 1st in citations received, and 2nd – behind Switzerland - in citations per paper (among nations publishing 50,000 or more papers during the period) across the science and social science fields surveyed in Essential Science Indicators. The table above ranks fields for the United States by relative citation impact, that is, citations per paper for the United States United States
Η θέση της Σουηδίας στην Ερευνα με βάση τις αναφορές
| FIELD RANKINGS FOR BY RELATIVE CITATION IMPACT |
SOURCE: Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators, January 1999–December 2009 |
The data above were extracted from the Essential Science Indicators database of Thomson Reuters. The database, currently covering the period January 1999 through December 2009, surveys only journal articles (original research reports and review articles) indexed by Thomson Reuters. Articles are assigned to a category based on the journals in which they were published and the journal-to-category field definition scheme used by Thomson Reuters. Both articles tabulated and citation counts to those articles are for the period indicated.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Η θέση της Ισπανίας στην Ερευνα με βάση τις αναφορές
| FIELD RANKINGS FOR BY RELATIVE CITATION IMPACT |
SOURCE: Thomson Reuters Essential Science Indicators, January 1999–December 2009 |
The data above were extracted from the Essential Science Indicators database of Thomson Reuters. The database, currently covering the period January 1999 through December 2009, surveys only journal articles (original research reports and review articles) indexed by Thomson Reuters. Articles are assigned to a category based on the journals in which they were published and the journal-to-category field definition scheme used by Thomson Reuters. Both articles tabulated and citation counts to those articles are for the period indicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
