I'm with Bill on this one.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, one must still keep in mind that the
accused, including all authors on the manscript for this structure, have yet to
be 'convicted' in any legal sense. I hope the investigation is swift, thorough
and leads to clear conclusions and satisfactory actions.
It is beyond me why/how the situation would have developed, how the review
process failed and how the journal failed in its editorial responsibility, but
it did.
Consequently, there are many ethical and scientific credibility issues to be
sorted. Public excoriation of all those involved, while seemingly justified
because our sensibilities have been assaulted, begins to approach mob justice.
The discussion threads have led to some good ideas concerning raw data
archiving, let's keep pursuing these issues within the community and improve
the current state of the art.
Tom Hurley
Indiana University School of Medicine
________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board on behalf of William Scott
Sent: Thu 8/16/2007 8:13 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The importance of USING our validation tools
No one knows definitively if this was fabricated.
Well, at least one person does.
But I agree, it is important to keep in mind that the proper venue for
determining guilt or innocence in the case of fraud is the court system.
Until fairly recently, the idea of presumed innocence and the right to
cross-examine accusers and witnesses has been considered fundamental to
civil society.
The case certainly sounds compelling, but this is all the more reason to
adhere to these ideals.
Bill Scott
