blog

One of the first and most important things a neophyte scientist learns–or at least, is taught–is the importance of keeping a comprehensive and accurate record. We all know it’s a good thing, and yet I’d wager most of us struggle with it. Who hasn’t scribbled a calculation or a measurement on a handy paper towel, with all the intentions of taping it in or copying it to our notebook, only for it to go missing somewhere twixt lab and office? Or for it to turn up, months later, made illegible by a mix of coffee rings and Coomassie stains?

Everything should be recorded. The practicalities of this, however, together with the effort involved in keeping a proper index, often mean that some things, often things that seem of only minor consequence, go unrecorded. And this is a real pain when you come to write the paper and realize you can’t remember whether you cloned your fragment using NotI or KpnI; or both; or perhaps it was EcoRV…

Electronic notebooks and other wild ideas might help, but there’s nothing quite like having to trawl through random pieces of scribbled-on tissue while writing up Materials and Methods to bring home the importance of a well-kept notebook.

Unless it’s a Nature retraction.

In my trawl through the F1000 database for retracted papers, I stumbled across this comment:

Unfortunately, however, a proper data notebook is not available as evidence to support our findings, which constitutes non-adherence to ethical standards in scientific research.

Note there is no suggestion of fraud or other shenanigans, and indeed, “There are several independent papers supporting” the findings (also see this one and here.) But,

In accordance with the recommendations from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, K.T. therefore wishes to retract this paper.

A harsh lesson. Supervisors and students should learn it well.