Lately our lab has had some contact with a junior professor at a different university. He did his postdoc in a BigName lab, and he was reasonably successful there (i.e. several publications in respectable if not BigShot journals).
Here are a few things he has said, during casual conversations, about his postdoc advisor (whom we will call Dr. Big):
"Well, I'm not sure you can believe a lot of the data out of Dr. Big's lab."
"Lots of Dr. Big's data looks good when he presents at conferences, but you know, he just lies."
"If we were to be honest about author contributions, Dr. Big's contribution would be listed as 'wrote a lot of angry emails'. Or maybe 'landlord'."
Now, I am perfectly aware that such PIs exist. This professor is not the only person I've heard be so vindictive about a previous (or current) advisor.
However, the other people who are willing to say such things about their (ex-)advisors are usually either very good friends of mine, or drunk, or both.
It seems to me like Jr Prof is being more than a little stupid about the effect of his words. While it may cause me to doubt Dr. Big, it certainly causes me to doubt Jr Prof's ability to keep his trap shut. I'm not advocating for a code of silence, but don't statements like these come across as a wee bit intemperate, even if true? Accusing Dr. Big of lying is a serious stab at his scientific integrity.
Then again, if everyone only says polite things about their ex-advisors, we will continue to have jerks, and even liars, running the show. Perhaps more transparency would make science a better place. I don't think Jr Prof is going about it quite the right way. But then, I don't know what the right way is.
15 years ago
2 comments:
Well, junior professor is shooting himself in the foot with these comments. If the data looks good at conferences, and if it is really suspect then one assumes that the same can be said of junior professor's work in that lab. So if Junior Prof has publications with Dr. Big, what do his commments imply about the quality and integrity of those papers? Or was he the first and only member of Dr. Big's group to produce quality data?
Yeah, I think Jr Prof (who is mostly a modeler) thinks his and one or two other postdoc's data are good, but that several people in the lab, plus Dr. Big, are in the habit of papering over problems.
This is not the first time I've heard significant criticism of Dr. Big, but never anything as harsh as this. I agree, it's stupid to destroy the reputation of the guy you need to write you recommendations!
Post a Comment