Woes of Research

Publish or Perish

In the world of research, scientists would do anything to get a paper published and be seen by the world. Successful researches are featured in high-status journals and websites, making the author/s more likely to be given research grants and have a higher place in the research world.  Some do it with integrity and honesty, whilst others would fabricate, falsify, plagiarize, and sabotage their way through it. Cases of research misconduct are not uncommon, in fact, a survey done by Daniele Fanelli in 2009 revealed that 14% of the sample of scientists he asked knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

Cancer Research, Sabotaged.

One of the most infamous cases of research misconduct was the cancer lab sabotage that happened in 2010 in the University of Michigan. Heather Ames, a graduate student, was conducting basic cancer research that involved the use of cell cultures and western blots.  One day, Ames saw that her cell cultures were not arranged properly and that her western blots had extra antibodies and had staining all over it.  Because of this, Ames started to do her western blots in her boyfriend’s house, to see if the issues will occur again, but it did not. Because of this, she began to suspect that her research was getting sabotaged and tampered. Days later, another problem in her samples arose, and it’s about the cell cultures again, Ames saw that the cells “were just dripping of the plate”, looking like it was mixed with something corrosive. Ames, trying to find telltale signs of yet another potential sabotage, stumbled upon her growth medium. As she sniffed the bottle, the smell of alcohol was prevalent. Because of these evidences, she e-mailed her lab supervisor, Theo Ross and said, "I just found pretty convincing evidence that somebody is trying to sabotage my experiments.” Ross came over the lab and sniffed the bottle of culture medium, and certainly, it had an overpowering smell of alcohol.  Because of this, Ross talked to the university’s higher officials. Ultimately, he got the university’s police force to conduct an investigation on the issue. Officers eventually installed cameras in the lab, one camera

pointing at Ames’ cell cultures and another pointing at her western blots. Only days after the installation, Ames saw that her medium was again mixed with alcohol. Ames told Ross about it so that they can review the tape. After looking at the footage, they saw that Vipul Bhrigu, Ames’ colleague and lab-mate and was a post-doctoral student at the time, was the one interfering with her samples. The footage showed Bhrigu pulling out the culture media that Ames would use for the day and returning to the fridge where the medium was located whilst holding a spray bottle of ethanol.  Vipul Bhrigu was taken to the police station and later confessed that he had been sabotaging Ames’ experiments for months. Bhrigu was eventually banned from partaking in federally-funded research for three years and was sentenced to psychological evaluation, to probation, and to to pay $30,000 in compensation to the University of Michigan.  

(footage of Bhrigu spraying ethanol into Ames' culture medium)

Ethical Violations

When we look deeper in Bhrigu's case, we can say that he violated two research ethics. Firstly, he violated the ethic of respect towards his colleagues, sabotaging Ames' samples. And Secodly, he violated the ethics of responsible mentoring. Although Ames and Bhrigu were both students, Bhrigu was a postdoc student and Ames was only a graduate student looking to get her PhD. 

HOW CAN THIS BE AVOIDED

This kind research misconduct can be prevented through having sufficient security in labs and other working areas. If there were security cameras around Ross' lab in the first place, it would have made anyone who has the intent to sabotage any research, scared and would not continue in doing it. But looking at Vipul Bhrigu, and what he should have done, he could have avoided this if he had thought of the greater good that research would bring rather than dragging other researchers down. Moreover, Bhrigu must learn to have better research competency, in line to what he said in a later interview, admitting that he did the sabotaging because Ames was far ahead of him. If he had in himself the drive and professional competence, this would have not happened. 

References:

- [Vipul Bhrigu Bhrigu at a doctorate ceremony at the University of Toledo]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2017, from   https://cienciamisterio.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/brigu.jpg
- [Picture of Heather Ames]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://doximity-     res.cloudinary.com/image/upload/t_public_profile_photo_320x320/v1437574975/p76oz0xavo7rr6jexw0p.jpg
- [Publish or Perish comic]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://media-             exp2.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAM4AAAAJDU2YWJkMzQyLTM5MzMtNDJkMy1iM2Q5LTM0Ym       EwMmNiMWE1NQ.png
- Bragg, B. (n.d.). [Cartoon from a New York Times article entitled "A Crim in The Cancer Lab" regarding the sabotaging       incident by Vipul Bhrigu]. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/sunday/a-     crime-in-the-cancer-lab.html
- Maher, B. (2010, September 29). Research integrity: Sabotage! Retrieved December 14, 2017, from     https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467516a.html
- Maher, B. (2011, April 27). Lab sabotage deemed research misconduct (with exclusive surveillance video). Retrieved       December 14, 2017, from http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/04/lab_sabotage_deemed_research_m_1.html
- Ross, T. (2017, January 28). Opinion | A Crime in the Cancer Lab. Retrieved December 14, 2017, from     https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/sunday/a-crime-in-the-cancer-lab.html

Authors and Their Contributions