May 16, 2008
Research Gone Wrong
From Nature comes a sad tale of the retraction of two high-profile biochemistry papers, a process that turned a Duke University professor against one of his graduate students.
In February, Homme W. Hellinga retracted articles that he had published in Science and the Journal of Molecular Biology claiming to use a computer program to design a highly active enzyme, one of biochemistry’s tough problems. Mary A. Dwyer, then a graduate student in Mr. Hellinga’s laboratory, had performed much of the work described in the two articles, but she told Nature that at the time of publication, “I felt like we weren’t quite there yet.”
Another scientist, John P. Richard, a chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo, tried to repeat the work but could not, turning up what looked like problems with Mr. Hellinga’s experiments. After Mr. Richard contacted Mr. Hellinga, the Duke professor contacted Ms. Dwyer last fall, after she had moved to another department at Duke to do postdoctoral research.
She told Nature that Mr. Hellinga said, “I find it really hard to believe that you didn’t make this up.” She defended herself, showing him data from her laboratory notebooks. But Mr. Hellinga referred her to the dean’s office, which conducted an inquiry into potential research misconduct.
In February, the papers were retracted and Ms. Dwyer was cleared of the charge, but scientists expressed concern over what really had happened — as well as outrage at the way Mr. Hellinga had treated his student.
And Nature agrees. In an editorial the journal opines, “As Dwyer’s adviser, Hellinga was responsible for training her. If she made mistakes, they are ultimately his responsibility.”
Read the whole sad story with an online subscription to Nature.
Lila Guterman | Posted on Friday May 16, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Why Solitaire (Might) Make Professors Better
Next: Bush 'Appeasement' Comments Outrageous, Says Steve Gimbel
Hellinga knows the truth. And it smells. Smells bad. Smells real bad.
— Susan P. May 16, 09:29 AM #
Isn’t it nice to see a story out of Duke that’s not about the lacrosse team?
— Laxmi May 16, 09:50 AM #
As the push for impact ratings increases, so does the increase in dishonest submissions. Science must abandon this counter-productive approach to evaluating research and researchers as it promotes dishonesty, demotes taking chances in risky research areas, and ultimately slows the scientific process as scientists abandon areas that are not in vogue, but still very very important.
— malcolm mccallum May 16, 10:33 AM #
Is there a patent involved? The reason I ask is because there are a lot of shenanigans when it comes to assigning patents for biotechnology; any number of feints can be employed to later position oneself with proprietary knowledge that can result in a very lucrative piece of a groundbreaking patent that leads to a billion dollar biotech industry. This has a billion dollars written all over it.
— original marcii May 16, 06:18 PM #
Hellinga is a crass embarrassment to Duke’s Biochemistry Department. His outrageous mistreatment of his student Mary Dwyer and his breathtakingly unethical approach to his recent retractions have confirmed what many here at Duke long knew: Prof. Hellinga is a malign influence upon the educational program to which he purports to contribute.
I fear that the widespread coverage of Hellinga’s sleaze will cause collateral damage to the reputation of Duke Biochemistry. The public should know that Hellinga’s behavior and science are not representative of our program. When faced with the choice between publishing questionable data and delaying publication in order to perform rigorous control experiments, the vast majority of our faculty, post-docs, and students choose the latter. There is no “culture of corruption” here. If anything is corrupted, it is Homme W. Hellinga. As is appropriate for rubbish, his exit from Duke Biochemistry should be rapid and unceremonious.
Despite his supremely arrogant aspirations, Hellinga may never be as famous as Charles Darwin. But all is not lost. Hellinga has furnished a superb case-study for research ethics courses the world over. That shall be his legacy.
Ph.D. Candidate, Duke Biochemistry
— Noblesse d'epee May 16, 11:22 PM #
Lets make up something and get rid of em
— dan brown May 18, 08:30 AM #