Inadvertent errors during figure preparation and foolish we

Pubpeer has been purging the literature successfully. While some of the posts can be genuine human errors, most of them seem intentional manipulation of the data. For example, if the same western blot is copied as it is, it can happen during copy-pasting of figures, wherein the clipboard was not flushed properly. This is a benefit of doubt that many authors have cherished when spotted. Imagine another scenario, wherein the duplicated images were distinctly compressed/stretched, contrast–tuned, flipped or captured with different exposure times of the same blot to make them look different. The most common phrase the authors cite is “inadvertently duplicated during figure preparation”. Chutzpah !  These are clear cases of data manipulation and should ideally follow retraction of articles, not the erratum, no matter whether it alters the conclusion of the article (another common response of authors) or not. The reason is the loss of credibility. These are “within-article” manipulations, which might just be the tip of an iceberg. If authors do not shy to manipulate the same image in the very same article, cross-article copying of figures or including manipulated unpublished images stored in the gel-docs might be widespread. So, why should one trust the other figures of the article?

The problem of duplicated western blots is the outcome of journals’ flawed policies that lacked the requirement of original complete blot images to be uploaded as supplementary data. Interestingly, this has been selectively asked only for genomics/high-throughput datasets because that adds to citation of the paper and boosts journal impact factor. The good news is that some journals are taking the matter seriously for the new submissions at-least. Before publishing they are now scrutinising the figures thoroughly. It would be great if they can do the same with the published articles too, leaving aside their conflict of interests and brand reputation. If not, hail Pubpeer.

Legacy of founding directors and the haphazard floating of IISERs

It is highly inspiring how a few intellectuals created IISc way back in early 1900s. Stories of how Jamsetji Tata, Swami Vivekanand, Morris Travers (founding director) and Sir William Ramsay discussed and planned the formation of institute are heard by many of us. Reputation and performance of IISc and its alumini over 100 years speaks loudly about its success. Having seen couple of founding directors myself, I am convinced that the founding directors (a Nobel laureate in this case) mark significant impact on the long term success of institutes. Placing of system and scientific/administrative standards by the founding director not only inspires the future leaders, but also sets up a culture (or a pressure) of keeping the reputation and success at par. The subsequent directors ofcourse have nontrivial roles in the success of an institute, however fixing the gold standard at the beginning itself has an early-mover advantage since good institutes attracts the good people (rich gets richer phenomenon). To add up, there are few other examples where the legacy of founding directors is undeniable. Late Prof. PM Bhargava of CCMB, Prof. Lalji Singh of CDFD, Prof. GN Rao of LV Prasad eye institute, Prof. Samir Brahmchari of IGIB (transformed CBT to IGIB) and a few others are known for their vision and leadership abilities.

When several IISER/NISERs/IITs/NITs were floated way back a decade ago, various voices were heard. Some strongly supported the move, others labelled the move as experiment deemed to be doomed. Personally, the news was very refreshing to myself, particularly when I see how government realized the importance of science education and research for nation’s future after a void of almost half a century. I had been critical about many things in newly set up IISERs, though many of those problems existed in many other established institutes. A more specific criticism of IISERs came to me naturally over the time. One thing, which is deeply appreciated about IISERs, is the undergrad/postgrad education tied with the research. A simple re-look at this statement would remind you  atypical ‘university’ job, which is now rebranded. The obvious motivation for these new brand universities is the efforts and planning needed to correct the existing universities. Ignore the mess created, and rather create the fresh ones, only to be messed systematically again. In my view, the founding directors of IISERs/NISERs/IITs/NITs were rather uninspiring individuals. I am not questioning their scientific credentials when I do not have any knowledge and experience in the areas these professors worked upon and were awarded the Bhatnagar awards, madly celebrated as Indian Nobel prize. My view is solely based on a key leadership quality: the ability to inspire others. One reason of not having inspiring leaders placed in these institutions could be the haphazard set up of >20 such institutes in a rather short time. Several top appointments made in haste opens up a window for genuine errors as well as for nepotism. In contrast, a single such setup attracts many eyes to ensure the quality of top positions, the scientists, the students and the fundamental infrastructure. I am not predicting that IISER model has failed or will fail, but it is clear that a few of them will do well while most will remain mediocre, and perhaps, none of them will match IISc. Perhaps a better approach could have been a sequential time bound plan of setting up these institutes with utter care and focus.

The warden award

Some academic institutions present ‘warden award’ on every 5th of Sept, though deceptively announced as the best teacher award. I know an example, where the stark correlation of best teacher also being the hostel warden will break the binomial test to smithers. The criteria for the award are non-existent and are likely influenced by a few people’s opinion. It’s not about individuals accepting the self-pleasing orgasms, the idea of this award is outdated, childish, and is based on fallacious presumptions. The popularly cited motivation behind this award is to boost morale of the youngsters for teaching (the fundamental job that they are anyway supposed to do). Chutzpah! A well-deserved award can be the one for an extra significant mile above one’s responsibility, not the routine job you are being paid for. An award motivates one, but has power to demotivate the group. The award can demotivate the intrinsically motivated individuals due to continued ignorance and insensitivity. Awards of this form spread the emotions of inequality and unfairness in a group. An informal praise in a peer-to-peer environment should work better than ceremonial awards. And, ofcourse, like others this award can also be gamed by learning the past patterns and logistics: be a hostel warden, get adopted by deans, and give good marks to all students etc. Is this the motivation the administrators look for? To create crackheads out of teachers? To make it worse, the award has age limit: an expiry date after which you should not be the best teacher. After this age limit, the rationale of motivating the employee is disposable. I would argue that the people on later side of age need more of such motivation, otherwise what explains the outsourcing of their teaching job to the post-docs and the junior faculty?

In the end, why the teaching is being considered as individualistic job, while theres is involvement of several individuals in many of the courses. Moreover, you can't be good at teaching unless some taught your students the prerequisites. The team nature of teaching is least appreciated and in fact being discouraged by recognizing individuals.

Are these stubborn and uneducated ideas really inescapable?

(Interesting reads in the context:
https://www.alfiekohn.org/punished-rewards/
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-dirty-laundry-of-employee-award-programs-evidence-from-the-field)