Cold irons bound
| 30 September, 2010 | Richard P. Grant |
9
|
|
Just before the fascinating article on Francis Crick’s correspondence in today’s Nature, there’s a feature by Brendan Maher on sabotage in the laboratory. Vipul Bhrigu, erstwhile postdoc at the University of Michigan, narrowly escaped a jail sentence after pleading guilty to sabotaging a PhD student’s experiments.
What’s interesting in this case, perhaps more so than in instances of fraud, is the involvement of the criminal justice system. Society has a number of ways of punishing wrong-doers (prison, fines, community service), but when the punishment has been completed, we don’t (or we shouldn’t, at least), keep punishing the ex-offender. We speak in terms of a ‘debt’ being repaid to society.
So if somebody like Bhrigu paid a fine, did his community service, served his time or whatever, should they not then be allowed back into science? After all, it’s not as if they’ve been convicted of paedophilia, and shouldn’t we assume that once society has extracted its dues, they should be free to start again?
Poll time. What do you think?
[poll id=”11″]
|
|
previous post
On the matter of “paying the debt to society,” keeping a person who has been guilty of fraud or of sabotaging the work of another, as was the case here, out of science is not punishment. Science is a calling. The enterprise depends on trust and collegiality, and those who violate these very basic and fundamental values have demonstrated a lack of the personal integrity needed to be a good scientist. While a person convicted of having sex with children may not spend the remainder of his or her life in jail, neither would they be given a job as a teacher or allowed to be in the position of having access to children. Now while one could argue about what is major or minor, I think the situation is analogous with fraud or sabotage.
Did I really just see “or whatever” written?
We do take certain rights away from convicted felons, and a career in science is hardly a fundamental human right. I consider the trust my colleagues place in my judgment a privilege.
‘whatever’ in the sense I used it is equivalent to ‘etc.’ Probably a trans-Atlantic thing. We take rights away from felons (isn’t ‘convicted felon’ tautologous?): we’re talking about after the punishment is meted out.
So what you, and Ellen and Bob, are saying is that we do keep punishing people subsequently, even for a lapse of judgement?
When an embezzler gets out of prison, are they welcomed back into employment at a bank?
No.
If a judge takes bribes, is convicted and serves his time, does he get to be a judge again?
No.
If the offense had nothing to do with the conduct of science and was minor, then it would not matter. Similarly, if someone is convicted of DUI or assault in a bar fight, they could keep working at a bank.
But what this person did was precisely about the conduct of science. What he did is, in science, unforgivable. Period.
PS – The paedophilia example is a poor one. That has nothing to do with the conduct of science, and there is a living example. Check the man who discovered prions. He left the USA, but he is and was a good scientist. His work has affected the lives of millions of people, and it was and is solid.
It is not correct to wrap up responses in a Binary (Yes/No) responses. Both, the offence and the punishment are on a continuos scale. When one reacts to such debates, it invariably involves personal prejudices, preferences and value systems. Cited examples often rely on extremes of the ends of offence or punishment.Thus, what we obtain are positions – not neutral viewpoints. A young collegian caught it a cybercrime is helping the Police Department now to catch professional hackers. Should he be appoined as an employee in that division? Would you employ him in your Company? Would you consent if he asks for hand of your daughter? Moral of story is we decide on a case to case basis from time to time. There is no scope for inductive logic to make a ruleout of instances. Camoflague has been admired as a survival technique in evolutionary Biology; but disdained in Criminology as Cheating, Deceipt or Fraud!
Yes, I think that others should be allowed to continue to work on science. Science is continually moving forward, having as many minds working together is an important aspect of scientific advancements. However, I would be very wary of his intentions as a scientist.
I have not read Nature’s article yet but I definitely don’t know if I would want him working for me if he sabatoshed a PhD student’s experiment. The only trouble with his current scientific standing is that he’ll be looked at as a Sabotager.
This is a great question, one we’ve been debating over the years at The Scientist. For a history of our coverage over whether scientists can return to science after being convicted of fraud, see the following articles:
Opinion: Erase science’s blacklist (by a scientist found guilty of misconduct): http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57557/
Life After Fraud, the story of scientists who have stayed in science after being found guilty of misconduct: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55772/
And an accompanying editorial, Fairness for Fraudsters: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/55779/
Thanks! Alison McCook, News Editor