Posted by
Turner, Scott on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Re-Ana-alarming-amount-of-image-manipulation-tp592857p1317010.html
I was not making "appeals to authority" (I don't know anything about the
qualifications of the committee at U of Minnesota) but simply making the
point that the news article gave a misleading impression of the
committee's findings. If the committee had determined that image
contrast and brightness were the only adjustments made to the images
then I think we could and perhaps should be outraged. If other
manipulations were made, then that opens another area of debate. As
Rosemary pointed out, two images were determined by the committee to be
identical except for their orientation (one rotated and flipped relative
to the other). This is fairly obvious when looking at figures 5c and 6b
in the paper. Though this may not have been intentional, it is clearly
more egregious then simply omitting a space between the numeral "2" and
the unit "cm".
Scott Turner
Scientist II
Schering-Plough Biopharma
Palo Alto, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:
[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 07:33 AM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Re: An alarming amount of image manipulation - time to fight
back
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
*********************************************************************
This message and any attachments are solely for the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information
included in this message is prohibited -- Please
immediately and permanently delete.