This past week we have been building awareness about responsible conduct in research. As part of this goal, we have read about the Poehlman case, in which this widely respected and lauded scientist was convicted of 10 years of fraud, viewed “And the Band Played On,” a movie covering the scientific community’s response to AIDS in the 1980s, and attended lectures on ethics. I believe that such emphasis on ethical research is imperative in a field which is often not trusted by the public.
Though there are absolutely exceptions, scientific findings are often misrepresented by the media; for example, no matter how wonderful it sounds as a headline, the discovery of “the gene for [insert disorder]” is a simplification at best, an outright lie at worst. The eventual consequence of portraying science as straightforward, 100% accurate, 100% of the time must be a loss of faith in medicine. Patients begin to wonder why their illnesses reoccur, why their diagnostic tests come up inconclusive, when, as far as they know, scientists understand these conditions like the back of their own hands. Now of course, this confusion is usually out of a researcher’s control. However, scientists such as Eric Poehlman, who fabricated and manipulated data on correlations between age and lipid levels, and Robert Lanza, who in a recent stem cell study reported implications which he only proved in principle (for more information, see http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22677993&site=ehost-live&scope=site) increase distrust. These few incidents of unethical science hinder the scientific community’s ability to inform and aid the general public.
Admittedly, that scientists should assume a greater role in truthful reporting is a highly idealistic point of view, not because researchers are inherently selfish or dishonest, but because there are numerous other factors that affect one’s judgment of what results are worth publishing and what may be deemed irrelevant. The need to secure grants is a main one. I do not feel that it is fair to condemn a scientist for wanting to highlight his/her most promising results in order to continue research which may lead to widespread health benefits. In these cases, there is a foundation of good intentions compromised by the reality that, let’s face it, money is important. But, at the very least, a fear of being discredited and having one’s legitimate contributions nullified may prevent a scientist from improper conduct.
Despite this cynical view of responsible conduct I have just shared I do feel that on the whole researchers are interested in bettering the lives of others. And if these scientists are also attracted by wealth and status? We have to hope that the former motivation dominates the latter, but also recognize that if it does not, it does not make scientists evil, only human. We must know that regardless, “being human” is by no means justification for unethical conduct. And most essentially, the general public must avoid making its own irresponsible decision that an individual scientist’s act generalizes to all science and medical research.
For my first week in Dr. Kuehn’s lab, I have focused primarily on technique. So far I have learned how to extract and purify mRNA from both lung epithelial (LA-4) and RAW cells. After this step, I converted the mRNA to cDNA, which I later purified in anticipation of running a “real-time” PCR. Unfortunately, my findings are not currently accessible, however the figure above does represent how significant results may be depicted through this method. On the other hand, knowing that I have produced consistent and expected results in the trial runs I have done this week has increased my excitement for the research I will begin on Monday. I plan to investigate which genes become active when cells are exposed to Psudomonas vesicles, so that their detrimental health affects may be better understood, prevented, and eventually, cured.