Posted by
Bill Oliver-3 on
Oct 09, 2008; 2:33pm
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Ana-alarming-amount-of-image-manipulation-tp592857p1314821.html
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Turner, Scott wrote:
> While I agree that a certain amount of image processing should be allowed and in fact ought to be expected, the news story reported here actually misrepresents the conclusions of the University of Minnesota's ethics panel. It is not simply that image brightness and contrast were changed; according to the conclusions of the panel (attached below) there were manipulations of images that could be construed as falsification of data. These included "elimination of bands on blots, altered orientation of bands, introduction of lanes not included in the original figure, and covering objects or image density in certain lanes."
>
Having been playing this game in the forensics arena for a couple of decades, I note the wiggle words are pertinent. Of course it is possible to "construe" something as falsification of data. I know expert witnesses that will "construe" anything you want for $400/hr.
Further, they are "construing" malpractice in a circular manner -- by their own definitions. If you define changing brightness as "unethical" then changing brightness is "unethical." It's not a matter of some absolute.
Let me give you an illustration from my primary specialty -- Forensic Pathology. I apologize for the length of this, but I think it's important when faced with these kinds of appeals to authority.
So, here's the story:
A young man in Bay County, FL was caught joyriding in a stolen car. He was convicted of car theft and was sentenced to a penal boot camp with the idea that a little discipline would put him on the right track.
One of the first things that the guards do when a young offender comes to one of these camps is make them exercise. It wears them out and determines issues of authority. The standard exercise regimen is the old Army standard of as many situps as one can do in two minutes, as many pushups as one can do in two minutes, and a two-mile run.
The young man did the situps and pushups, and ran about 1.5 miles. He then stopped and refused to run any more. The guards coerced him into running another lap, at which point he stopped and refused to run again. The guards again attempted to coerce him, but he collapsed. At the hospital he was found to be suffering from rhabdomyolysis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and multiorgan failure. He died.
At autopsy, he was found to have many sickled cells, and was found on evaluation to have sickle cell trait. The Medical Examiner called it an exertional sickle cell trait death (a well-documented cause of death among young recruits in the military and in young athletes in training).
The NAACP and black caucus claimed that this was a race-based death due to beating (though, oddly, some of the guards were also black), and filed a complaint with the State Attorney General (who was running for governor). A well-known TV pathologist flown in by Fox News opined that exertional sickle cell trait deaths did not exist. Another expert opined a cause that had no previous example in history.
The Governor directed the Medical Examiner Commission (MEC) to review the cases done by this Medical Examiner and look for evidence of malpractice.
The MEC reviewed 700 of the Medical Examiner's cases and found 35 examples of "negligence," including such things as typing "2cm" instead of "2 cm" in a report, and the failure to measure the size of the base of a bullet (which is, in fact, a bad thing for a ME to do). Further, at least three of the errors of omission were things that were explicitly stated in the state guidelines as things MEs should *not* do. The MEC claimed to use standards that did not exist, but were created ad hoc for the purpose of removing this particular Medical Examiner.
Most important, however, after reviewing *700* cases of Dr. Siebert's the MEC could find *no* errors in diagnosis. However, they claimed that this was unimportant, and that this kind of "negligence" was unacceptable.
On the basis of these ad hoc criteria, the MEC "construed" ethical violations and, at the order of the Governor, moved to fire the medical examiner. The political basis for this was so egregious that the National Association of Medical Examiners wrote to the MEC that:
"As an organization, we believe that Dr. Siebert has met [the NAME] autopsy standards, and he continues to be a NAME member in good standing. By continuing to imply that Dr. Siebert does not meet the aforementioned nonexistent "NAME guidelines" or the NAME Autopsy Standards, the MEC is dishonestly misrepresenting the facts. Furthermore, as these errors have not been publicly acknowledged by the MEC, the MEC is discrediting not only Dr. Siebert but NAME itself. Since the MEC apparently believes that falsely invoking the imprimatur of the National Association of Medical Examiners in this fashion is acceptable, the Executive Committee of NAME demands that the MEC officially acknowledge and make public retraction of the inconsistencies noted above..."
Of course, Dr. Siebert was still fired, and the guards were put on trial for manslaughter. The medical testimony by the prosecution experts was so self-contradictory and the support for Dr. Siebert's diagnosis was so strong that the prosecution ended up asking the jury to *ignore* the medical testimony altogether. After 90 minutes the jury found the guards not guilty. The NAACP still insisted that Dr. Siebert be fired, and he was. He now has a very successfull practice in his original home state of New Jersey.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Anderson_controversyand
http://www.billoblog.com/?p=271Accordingly, I think that folk should be very careful about these kinds of appeals to authority. Just because a committee holds a finding, it doesn't mean that it's valid. Just as it was telling that out of 700 cases, there were no errors in diagnosis, I think it is telling that out of all the frou frou in this case, nothing was changed that affected any of the conclusions. Somehow that gets lost in these kinds of inquisitions.
Remember, when a commission decides to get you on the basis of process -- in any field of endeavor -- there are *no* innocents. There are only the untargeted.
If one wants to cast stones at people for doing image processing, I think that one big criterion is whether or not it substantively affects the conclusion. In this case it did not.
There's an old principle in law of "no harm, no foul." That's not such a bad rule to use elsewhere. There is no allegation of "harm," and in the absence of that, then "foul" is pretty much in the eye of the inquisitor.
billo