Doubt

(Reference: JLC1, JLC2, Derek1, Derek2)

Since February 2014, Prof. Tohru Fukuyama's group has issued corrections to 11 published papers in three journals: Angewandte Chemie, Journal of the American Chemical Society, and Organic Letters. Fukuyama's former colleague, Dr. Satoshi Yokoshima (now at Nagoya U), appears as a co-author on 10 of the 11 papers.

Chemical and Engineering News intrepid reporter Beth Halford recently interviewed the two men regarding their ongoing "Correction Crisis." Readers reacted skeptically:

.@cenmag 's Bethany Halford interviews Prof. Fukuyama about NMR spectra issues. Do you buy it? http://t.co/NMvzkofYmW
— Unstable Isotope (@UnstableIsotope) April 12, 2014

[Sigh]...No, I don't.

Let's look at a few more recent correction scandals. After the Cossy group published some strange spectra, Prof. Cossy wrote a letter to the entire Organic Letters community, saying:

"I reach out here with the hope that all readers might learn from this experience as I certainly have. From now on, I will never let a student or postdoc from my group upload a manuscript and/or Supporting Information file to a journal submission site by themselves"

Succinct, supportive, reflective. Prof. Cossy even allowed the responsible lab member to speak through her, saying "I know my behavior is highly unethical. I am deeply sorry for what I have done."

When the Dorta group published a strange statement in the body of their Supporting Information, Dorta spoke to Organometallics Editor John Gladysz, claiming "...the statement [in the SI] was inappropriate." To my knowledge, Prof. Dorta has never blamed his student coauthor, Emma.

Now, let's take a look at the C&EN article. How do Fukuyama and Yokoshima address their spate of corrections?

“Almost all of our recent research accomplishments are the results of close collaboration between myself, Professor Yokoshima, and our students,” Fukuyama explains.

Team spirit! OK, I'm fine with that. Next? (emphasis mine):

“My impression is that some of my students who deleted minor peaks did not take seriously the idea that the spectroscopic data are important proof of the compounds’ purity,” Fukuyama says. “I myself have never manipulated the spectroscopic data or even dreamed that my students would do such a stupid thing.”

Wow. Did they just throw every one of their 19 coauthors (I counted!) under the bus?
Another (emphasis mine):

“It was our fault not to scrutinize every spectrum in the supporting information before sending them out for publication,” Fukuyama adds, “but my staff members and I simply believed that all of my students are honest.” As soon as they learned of the manipulations, he says, “we told our students never to do such a stupid thing. I can assure you that we will never send out manuscripts containing manipulated spectra again.”

To paraphrase the Bard - the Professor doth protest too much, methinks.

Note the "Yes, but..." structure of his argument. See how it lobs the blame squarely back on the coauthors? And the choice of language, calling one's apprentices "stupid" and essentially dishonest? Not cool.

In most scientific organizations, culture comes from the top. Even coauthor Yokoshima admits that...

“We have told our students that the NMR spectra should not contain peaks of residual solvents or impurities for publication...our comments and the limited machine time seemed to have forced them to use the ‘Delete Peak’ function.”

If your group focuses on "clean up your spectra" more than "purify your compounds better," that's a communications issue. If a professor with a large group sees nothing but perfect spectra all day, two thoughts should crop up:

1. "I must have the smartest, most efficient students in the world," or...
2. "Something's fishy here."

Even the busiest profs in the biz - traveling for international conferences, serving on NIH panels, consulting - must still see their students' work at least three times prior to publication. Group meetings, one-on-one office meetings, project round-tables, manuscript submission, reviews, galley proofs? All perfect opportunities to catch ethical errors privately before revealing them to the wider world.

Sadly, the professors don't seem to answer the real question: What went wrong here? Public shaming won't fix your lab's culture. By closing ranks and shutting out 19 potential collaborators, Fukuyama and Yokoshima invite even more scrutiny into their lab's motivations.

Update (4/12/14) - Changed the last paragraph to avoid any judgment on the interview style. I believe Ms. Halford conducted it just fine.

Friday Fun: How to Fund Your Data Analyst

Remember Amos Smith's Editorial, discussed here yesterday?

(and here, and here, and here)

I wondered, on Twitter: How many submissions does Organic Letters get in a year, anyway?

Sonja Krane, a JACS editor, set me straight:

@seearroh Journal submission statistics aren't publicly available. Sorry I can't be more helpful in this case!
— Sonja Krane (@sonjakrane) June 6, 2013

Rats, foiled again! But then, an interesting tidbit from Stu Cantrill over at Nature Chemistry
(N.B. Stu used to work at OL):

@seearroh When I was there, accept rate was getting down to 50%. I suspect now 30-40%, so look at papers published in 2012 & go from there.
— Stuart Cantrill (@stuartcantrill) June 7, 2013 

Hmm, so all I have to do is count. In 2012, Organic Letters published 24 issues, which seem to have an average article count ~80 / per.* So that's 2,000 articles / year, give or take 100. Now, let's assume Stu's lower range (30% acceptance) - that's 7,000 submissions. Back of the envelope, I'd guess an average Supporting Info section to clock in at around 40 pages nowadays.

That's 280,000 pages of SI.
Pity the poor Data Analyst.

But...what a great way to FUND this potentially burgeoning "alternative" career! A nominal fee of, say, $0.10 / SI page - price of a photocopy from way back, kids - would immediately bring $30K into the journal's coffers. A $3 "data verification" fee per manuscript brings another $21K. Not big money, but we're now into the realm of serious subsidy for someone's salary.


Readers: Would you pay $7.00 to submit your OL manuscript?

* [(Dec 21 + July 6 + Jan 6 + Apr 20) - (corrections + editorials)] = 318 articles / 4 = 79.5

Weekend Warrior...at Work

Chemists, do you work weekends? Should you?

Let me clarify: as a chemical professional, I know that I'll never work the "9-to-5" hours popular in the modern workforce. The reality ends up somewhere between forty-five and sixty hours per week. I also realize I have responsibilities to my employer that continue after I leave lab for the evening: 

1. Light email correspondence. 
2. Taking emergency phone calls. 
3. Reading through the literature to keep up with the "current art."

But when I say work weekends, I mean arriving at lab on Saturday and Sunday like you would on Monday-Friday: starting new reactions, taking TLCs, ordering supplies, reading drafts, everything. The Whole Nine Yards.

All work and no play make Homer
something something...

Yes, I was a graduate student once. I distinctly remember fourteen-hour shifts as de rigueur, with at least eight more hours over the weekend to keep momentum going. I worked this pace for the incentive of a terminal degree, with the promise of a brighter future where I'd at least get major holidays off. As a postdoc, your pace often intensifies, since you have limited time and resources to make a big enough splash that you'll be considered "marketable" to someone - someone who might offer you major holidays and two weeks' vacation. 

Maybe.

Well, the working world hasn't really panned out like I thought. Evening meetings occur more regularly, working lunches are standard, and now the work week bleeds into the weekend. Chores at home go unfinished. Family and friends are ignored. How's that old expression go? 

"All work and no play make Jack a dull boy."

Could this actually be counterproductive? Sure: tired workers make more mistakes, call in for more sick days, and generally don't feel as invested in company goals or culture. There's also the question of expectation - weekend work becomes an accepted part of your schedule, and employers will anticipate your future willingness to sacrifice personal time for career goals (Weekends? Nights? Holidays? Double shifts? Sleep under my desk? Sure!). 

I could tell you I was here this weekend, but...
Source: Abbi Perets

The irony mounts Monday morning, when the inevitable question comes up - "So, how was your weekend?" The person asking actually expects you to talk about things you did outside of work!

What's the solution? Companies could hire more employees or offer performance incentives, but the weak economy has subdued these approaches. Managers could sit with their chemists to identify where investments in equipment or sourcing could lighten their loads, but this assumes the capital exists to finance such ventures. No, I'd guess that, for the foreseeable future, the "weekend warrior" will continue to wage war...from work.

Same (Space) Science, Different (Dino) Day

"Five Acids" -  Duplicated in five papers
(PNAS, OLEB, IJC,  TL, JACS)

For those new to the Breslow #spacedino saga, Paul's collection of links back at ChemBark might be the best place to start. Long story short: a tongue-in-cheek press release proclaiming "Dinosaurs from Space!" drew much (unwanted) attention to a prebiotic homochirality review by Columbia University chemistry professor Ronald Breslow. Astute readers and blog commenters noted that the review text strikingly resembled that of earlier papers by the same author.

Well, just how similar were they? Not to incite a flame-war over "least publishable units" (LPUs), but, inspired by ChemBark's commentary on the matter, I've dug through the last six years of Breslow origin-of-life (OOL) publications, and summed up my findings below (Thanks to Paul, Stu, Chemjobber, Ash, Mark, Unity, Martyn, 'Anon,' and everyone else who provided source material for this post!)

"Transamination" - Duplicated in five papers
(TL, OL, OLEB,  IJC, JACS)

Over the last 6 years, I count nine papers that involve, in some fashion, the following topics: homochirality, prebiotic chemistry, enantiomeric amplification, meteorites, or OOL. Here's a list, with full titles, journals, and authorship:

2006 - Tet. Lett. - "Partial transfer of enantioselective chiralities from alpha-methylated amino acids, known to be of meteoric origin, into normal amino acids." Breslow, Levine
2006 - PNAS - "Amplification of enantiomeric concentrations under credible prebiotic conditions." Breslow, Levine
2008 - Org. Lett. - "Enantioselective Synthesis and Enantiomeric Amplification of Amino Acids under Prebiotic Conditions." Breslow, Levine
2009 - PNAS - "On the origin of terrestrial homochirality for nucleosides and amino acids." Breslow, Cheng
2010 - Org. Life Evol. Biosph. - "Imitating Prebiotic Homochirality on Earth." Breslow, Levine, Cheng
2010 - PNAS - "L-amino acids catalyze the formation of an excess of D-glyceraldehyde, and thus of other D sugars, under credible prebiotic conditions." Breslow, Cheng
2011 - Isr. J. Chem. - "Formation of L Amino Acids and D Sugars, and Amplification of their Enantioexcesses in Aqueous Solutions, under Simulated Prebiotic Conditions." Breslow
2011 - Tet. Lett. - "The origin of homochirality in amino acids and sugars on prebiotic earth." Breslow
2012 - JACS - "Evidence for the Likely Origin of Homochirality in Amino Acids, Sugars, and Nucleosides on Prebiotic Earth." Breslow

"Formose" - Duplicated in four papers
(OLEB, IJC, TL, JACS)

*So, for those keeping count at home, that's "Prebiotic" = 7, "Amino Acids" = 7, "Origin" = 4, "Chirality" = 4, "Sugars" = 4...and we're not yet past the titles!

(Throughout the post, I've also compared similar Figures, a task Paul and other bloggers had started tackling. I've examined each one in the context of the other eight.)

Poring over the text, many of the papers fall into similar thematic traps. First, Breslow poses a "big question" or concept (OOL, homochirality, etc.), then discusses the Murchison "carbonaceous chondritic meteorite." Breslow references the work of Cronin and Pizzarello, and discusses circularly polarized light, white dwarf stars, and synchrotron radiation. The Breslow "formose reaction" paper (Tet. Lett., 1959, 22-26) sets the stage for the D sugars, and the group's transamination / amplification work for the L-AA papers.

"Nucleosides" - Duplicated in five papers
(TL, OLEB, IJC, PNAS, JACS)

Dead-center in the most recent four papers (OLEB, TL, IJC, JACS), one finds the Morowitz equation, which explains enantiomeric amplification from tiny initial excesses of single enantiomers. Unfortunately, one also finds the most glaring piece of self-plagiarism: the kinetics paragraph. As noted by Stuart Cantrill and several others, full pages are duped among the separate articles - TL p. 4229 is identical to JACS p. 5-6, IJC from 992-993, and (almost) OELB from 20-21.

Even the dinosaur joke, that witty aside that brought all the attention to the paper in the first place, was repeated three times! (IJC, TL, JACS). This inclusion almost begs the question . . .did Breslow wish to be caught?

Obligatory dinosaur image
Source: stegosaurus.com

Nonetheless, the offending paper has been removed from the JACS website, and further editorial action likely awaits him. I remain puzzled, however. How could an academic legend, a chemical pioneer, a man whose research has launched quite a few stelllar professorships (Gellman, Schepartz, Groves, Grubbs, among others), simply reissue the same science, over and over again, in different journals? Breslow continually mentions "credible" conditions; was this because the papers were less so? There's also the puzzling publication order, from 'worst to first.' Breslow re-publishes tenuous material from TL (Impact Factor = 2.6) in JACS (I.F. = 9.0), where visibility no doubt increases? Generally, high-impact research starts out in high-impact journals, and later trickles down.

Time will tell what will happen to the #spacedino paper. My final hope would be that aspiring academics and graduate students watch the situation unfold, and take care against any similar publishing behavior.