[naturenews] from [nature.com]
[naturenews]
Published online 22 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.934
News
Research chief steps down over fake data
Peter Chen's integrity 'undamaged' by incident, says boss.
By Quirin Schiermeier
The head of research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich) will quit the post after an investigation concluded that data in publications from his group had been faked.
Chemist Peter Chen will leave his position as vice-president of research and corporate relations — the job's remit includes quality assurance in research — at the end of September. He says he was not personally involved in handling the data, but acknowledges his responsibility as head of the research group. Chen will, however, remain a full professor of physical-organic chemistry at ETH Zurich.
"We didn't advise Professor Chen to resign from his administrative position," says Ralf Eichler, president of ETH Zurich. "But we accept his decision, even though Chen's integrity as a researcher is in my opinion undamaged." Chen was not available for comment.
Radical results
Chen joined ETH Zurich in 1994 to work in one of Europe's leading chemistry departments. His research involved studying the properties of reactive hydrocarbon free radicals using a technique called zero kinetic-energy photoelectron spectroscopy.
But experiments conducted in 1999 and 2000 by members of Chen's group, who have since left ETH Zurich, were called into question shortly after others failed to reproduce the results.
The application of the spectroscopic technique to radicals was completely new at the time, says Klaus Müller-Dethlefs, director of the Photon Science Institute at the University of Manchester, UK, who first developed the method in 1984. "Results now known to be false could then easily slip through as being plausible," he says.
Earlier this year, Chen corrected1 one paper containing the disputed work that had been published in 2000 in the Journal of Chemical Physics (JCP).<>2
At the request of Chen and the executive board of ETH Zurich, a five-strong commission involving in-house and external experts, and chaired by chemist Andreas Pfaltz of the University of Basel, then investigated whether data had been deliberately falsified in that paper, and in a second JCP publication.3
Matching noise
"It is the unequivocal conclusion of the five [investigation committee] members, the two experts [who failed to reproduce the original data] and the three authors of the papers, that some data that were reported must have been fabricated," the investigation committee concluded in its confidential report dated 15 July, which Nature has obtained. The commission found identical background noise in purportedly independent spectra reported in the two papers, but it could not find a key lab notebook that should have held the raw data. They also recommended a partial or full retraction of the second JCP publication.3
All the authors of the papers, including Chen, categorically deny having been responsible for, or involved in, any unethical data manipulations. Eichler says that there is "now no legal way of finding out for sure" who was ultimately responsible for the falsifications.
"For ETH Zurich, the crucial thing is that this case has been made public," Eichler says. "The clear message for potential falsifiers is that there is absolutely nothing to gain from scientific misconduct." The fabricated data, he adds, have not damaged the field as such, and have not been used for any applications.
References
1. Gilbert, T. , Fischer, I. & Chen, P. J. Chem. Phys. 131, 019903 (2009).
2. Gilbert, T. , Fischer, I. & Chen, P. J. Chem. Phys. 113, 561-566 (2000).
3. Gilbert, T. , Pfab, R. , Fischer, I. & Chen, P. J. Chem. Phys. 112, 2575-2579 (2000).
[naturenews]
Published online 22 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/461459a
News
The elephant and the neutrino
Conservationists challenge physics observatory in Indian wildlife reserve.
By Killugudi Jayaraman
Big hurdles for India’s neutrino-detection lab.T. & P. LEESON/ARDEA.COMIndia's environment minister Jairam Ramesh will visit the site of a proposed underground neutrino laboratory next month, to try to break the impasse between physicists and environmentalists over its construction.
The US$160-million India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) was to have been completed by 2012 to study the elusive particles known as neutrinos (see Nature 450, 13; 2007). But its construction is mired in controversy over the wisdom of locating the facility in prime elephant and tiger habitat at Singara in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, 250 kilometres south of Bangalore.
The observatory applied for permission to begin construction at the Singara site in 2006; "there has been no reply to date," says project spokesman Naba Mondal, a physicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai. "All I know is we have not cleared it," says A. S. Balanathan, principal chief conservator of forest for the state of Tamil Nadu, who declined to comment further.
Last month, 11 leading physicists, including Nobel laureates Sheldon Glashow and Masatoshi Koshiba, wrote to India's prime minister Manmohan Singh urging that the project move forward. "The INO will bring more big science to India and enhance India's role as an important player in front-line science," they wrote. Meanwhile, prominent Indian conservationists are circulating and signing a letter laying out their concerns and asking that the observatory be sited elsewhere.
The Nilgiri reserve includes more than 5,500 square kilometres of continuous forest cover and six protected areas. The proposed location for the INO comes as close as 7 kilometres to the edge of one of the sanctuaries. The project involves digging out a 120-metre-long cavern at the end of a 2-kilometre-long tunnel inside a mountain. The cavern will house a magnetized iron calorimeter to detect the muons that are produced occasionally when neutrinos interact with matter.
The controversy stems from disagreements over the impact of the tunnelling and the increased human population on the fragile ecosystem. "Transporting the estimated 630,000 tonnes of debris and 147,000 tonnes of construction material would require about 156,000 truck trips through 35 kilometres of forest — and two tiger reserves," says the NBR Alliance, a group of Indian organizations concerned about the reserve. This means 468,000 hours of disturbance to animal movement routes, the alliance estimates.
The INO team "could hardly have picked a site in India more likely to damage wildlife," says John Seed, an Australian environmentalist who has researched elephant habitats in India. "As well as being home to the largest single population of Asian elephants in the world," he says, "the Nilgiri is also one of the most important tiger habitats in the country."
Mondal disputes the tally of construction debris and says that the project will limit the number of daily truck trips and restrict them to daytime. But Priya Davidar, an ecologist at Pondicherry University, says that the environmental impact assessment the project submitted to state officials is seriously flawed. Davidar is president of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, based in Washington DC, which passed its own resolution urging the Indian government not to permit construction and to look for an alternative site.
Davidar criticizes the project for limiting its search to only two sites; a better location, she says, would have been the Kolar gold mine in neighbouring Karnataka state, used for neutrino detection in 1965. But the Kolar mine is now closed and filled with water, and is not suitable for lowering heavy materials down, says Mondal. He says that after considering other sites, his team, along with the Geological Survey of India, identified Singara as "the best available site for locating the INO, based on safety, seismicity, as well as year-round accessibility".
The minister will visit on 10 October. If a construction permit is denied, INO may have to start looking for another site.
[naturenews]
Published online 22 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.934
News
Research chief steps down over fake data
Peter Chen's integrity 'undamaged' by incident, says boss.
By Quirin Schiermeier
The head of research at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich) will quit the post after an investigation concluded that data in publications from his group had been faked.
Chemist Peter Chen will leave his position as vice-president of research and corporate relations — the job's remit includes quality assurance in research — at the end of September. He says he was not personally involved in handling the data, but acknowledges his responsibility as head of the research group. Chen will, however, remain a full professor of physical-organic chemistry at ETH Zurich.
"We didn't advise Professor Chen to resign from his administrative position," says Ralf Eichler, president of ETH Zurich. "But we accept his decision, even though Chen's integrity as a researcher is in my opinion undamaged." Chen was not available for comment.
Radical results
Chen joined ETH Zurich in 1994 to work in one of Europe's leading chemistry departments. His research involved studying the properties of reactive hydrocarbon free radicals using a technique called zero kinetic-energy photoelectron spectroscopy.
But experiments conducted in 1999 and 2000 by members of Chen's group, who have since left ETH Zurich, were called into question shortly after others failed to reproduce the results.
The application of the spectroscopic technique to radicals was completely new at the time, says Klaus Müller-Dethlefs, director of the Photon Science Institute at the University of Manchester, UK, who first developed the method in 1984. "Results now known to be false could then easily slip through as being plausible," he says.
Earlier this year, Chen corrected1 one paper containing the disputed work that had been published in 2000 in the Journal of Chemical Physics (JCP).<>2
At the request of Chen and the executive board of ETH Zurich, a five-strong commission involving in-house and external experts, and chaired by chemist Andreas Pfaltz of the University of Basel, then investigated whether data had been deliberately falsified in that paper, and in a second JCP publication.3
Matching noise
"It is the unequivocal conclusion of the five [investigation committee] members, the two experts [who failed to reproduce the original data] and the three authors of the papers, that some data that were reported must have been fabricated," the investigation committee concluded in its confidential report dated 15 July, which Nature has obtained. The commission found identical background noise in purportedly independent spectra reported in the two papers, but it could not find a key lab notebook that should have held the raw data. They also recommended a partial or full retraction of the second JCP publication.3
All the authors of the papers, including Chen, categorically deny having been responsible for, or involved in, any unethical data manipulations. Eichler says that there is "now no legal way of finding out for sure" who was ultimately responsible for the falsifications.
"For ETH Zurich, the crucial thing is that this case has been made public," Eichler says. "The clear message for potential falsifiers is that there is absolutely nothing to gain from scientific misconduct." The fabricated data, he adds, have not damaged the field as such, and have not been used for any applications.
References
1. Gilbert, T. , Fischer, I. & Chen, P. J. Chem. Phys. 131, 019903 (2009).
2. Gilbert, T. , Fischer, I. & Chen, P. J. Chem. Phys. 113, 561-566 (2000).
3. Gilbert, T. , Pfab, R. , Fischer, I. & Chen, P. J. Chem. Phys. 112, 2575-2579 (2000).
[naturenews]
Published online 22 September 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/461459a
News
The elephant and the neutrino
Conservationists challenge physics observatory in Indian wildlife reserve.
By Killugudi Jayaraman
Big hurdles for India’s neutrino-detection lab.T. & P. LEESON/ARDEA.COMIndia's environment minister Jairam Ramesh will visit the site of a proposed underground neutrino laboratory next month, to try to break the impasse between physicists and environmentalists over its construction.
The US$160-million India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) was to have been completed by 2012 to study the elusive particles known as neutrinos (see Nature 450, 13; 2007). But its construction is mired in controversy over the wisdom of locating the facility in prime elephant and tiger habitat at Singara in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, 250 kilometres south of Bangalore.
The observatory applied for permission to begin construction at the Singara site in 2006; "there has been no reply to date," says project spokesman Naba Mondal, a physicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai. "All I know is we have not cleared it," says A. S. Balanathan, principal chief conservator of forest for the state of Tamil Nadu, who declined to comment further.
Last month, 11 leading physicists, including Nobel laureates Sheldon Glashow and Masatoshi Koshiba, wrote to India's prime minister Manmohan Singh urging that the project move forward. "The INO will bring more big science to India and enhance India's role as an important player in front-line science," they wrote. Meanwhile, prominent Indian conservationists are circulating and signing a letter laying out their concerns and asking that the observatory be sited elsewhere.
The Nilgiri reserve includes more than 5,500 square kilometres of continuous forest cover and six protected areas. The proposed location for the INO comes as close as 7 kilometres to the edge of one of the sanctuaries. The project involves digging out a 120-metre-long cavern at the end of a 2-kilometre-long tunnel inside a mountain. The cavern will house a magnetized iron calorimeter to detect the muons that are produced occasionally when neutrinos interact with matter.
The controversy stems from disagreements over the impact of the tunnelling and the increased human population on the fragile ecosystem. "Transporting the estimated 630,000 tonnes of debris and 147,000 tonnes of construction material would require about 156,000 truck trips through 35 kilometres of forest — and two tiger reserves," says the NBR Alliance, a group of Indian organizations concerned about the reserve. This means 468,000 hours of disturbance to animal movement routes, the alliance estimates.
The INO team "could hardly have picked a site in India more likely to damage wildlife," says John Seed, an Australian environmentalist who has researched elephant habitats in India. "As well as being home to the largest single population of Asian elephants in the world," he says, "the Nilgiri is also one of the most important tiger habitats in the country."
Mondal disputes the tally of construction debris and says that the project will limit the number of daily truck trips and restrict them to daytime. But Priya Davidar, an ecologist at Pondicherry University, says that the environmental impact assessment the project submitted to state officials is seriously flawed. Davidar is president of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation, based in Washington DC, which passed its own resolution urging the Indian government not to permit construction and to look for an alternative site.
Davidar criticizes the project for limiting its search to only two sites; a better location, she says, would have been the Kolar gold mine in neighbouring Karnataka state, used for neutrino detection in 1965. But the Kolar mine is now closed and filled with water, and is not suitable for lowering heavy materials down, says Mondal. He says that after considering other sites, his team, along with the Geological Survey of India, identified Singara as "the best available site for locating the INO, based on safety, seismicity, as well as year-round accessibility".
The minister will visit on 10 October. If a construction permit is denied, INO may have to start looking for another site.
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます