The Big FAIL

For those of you in the real world, you may not have noticed when the proverbial shit hit the fan at ScienceBlogs last week. Being on vacation, I discovered the controversy a few days late myself, when the flotsam and jetsam started hitting my twitter feed (#sbFAIL if you want to search for comments there).

ScienceBlogs, a subsidiary of SEED Media Group, provides an aggregation of 80 bloggers interested in science and associated issues: working in academia, women in science, science-based medicine, and assorted other topics. I follow a number of blogs there regularly and link to them in the blogroll in the right column.

Some of them may be changing their blog sites soon.

ScienceBlogs provided what I believed was an ideal model of an online “magazine.” Bloggers provided independent content that was fresh, interesting, and (sometimes) controversial. By virtue of the traffic this collection of individuals attracted, ScienceBlogs could get advertising to support the site and its authors. Many of these authors write under pseudonyms [can you call it a pen name in this digital age?], so they could have bias or conflicts of interest we know nothing about. Others could be Googled so we could know their issues. I mean, Google sees everything.

Seems a new blog popped up recently in the health and medicine channels. Food Frontiers turned out to be a paid blog; not ScienceBlogs paying the blogger, but Pepsico paying to post material on the site. Food Frontiers departed abruptly from the ScienceBlogs model. Many bloggers felt it compromised the reputation they had worked so hard to build for themselves and for their site.

 Many of them fled.

Some of the Sciblings (what the ScienceBloggers call themselves) wrote about the whole mess. One of my favorites was posted by Abel Pharmboy who addressed the way the whole episode could have been approached without the ensuing failure.

And failure is the only word strong enough for this fiasco. The offending blog has now been removed from ScienceBlogs (although it still lives on at the Pepsi website). Stories started circulating about behind-the-scenes issues and complaints (poor technical support and late payments), including other ethical problems with SEED magazine, the parent company. It seems the wall between advertising and content never was particularly strong. As a magazine editor myself, I know the pains we take to keep editorial control isolated from those who sell the ads. SEED allowed those barriers to break on several occasions.

I thought about presenting the ScienceBlogs model to groups to convince them to become blog aggregators. Go out on the web, find the bloggers writing about your area, and invite them to post at your site. The group can generate enough traffic to interest advertisers. Now, I would be hesitant to present ScienceBlogs as anything but a warning to others.

Once your reputation goes down the toilet, it can be almost impossible to scrape it out of the sewer.

I had once applied to write at ScienceBlogs, but they never invited me into their fold. And now I’m pretty glad about that. Could this bias what I’m writing today? Yes- but I’m telling you that. Blogger transparency in practice here.

There is still an air of chaos among the Sciblings, especially those whose choice to stay or go has not yet been made. One thing is for sure: ScienceBlogs is irrevocably changed by this episode. And probably not for the better.

Exit sign image courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Ethical Doctor Blogging

PalMD (of the White Coat Underground) tweeted a link to a 2008 post calling for a code of ethics for MD blogging. A study under review showed:

17% of the blogs include enough information for patients to identify themselves or their physicians

I occasionally blog stuff inspired by my patients. I never worry that they will identify me- if they don’t, I would be really worried! I use my real name and image, after all.

Most of the time I am blogging a condition, such as volume overload or neonatal hypertension. While these posts may have been inspired by one or more in my care, the posts reviewed the conditions; no patient data of any sort were shared!

Could my patients identify themselves from my posts? A number of parents of hypertensive neonates probably believe their child inspired me to put fingertips to keyboard, but they cannot tell from that post. Only one post comes to mind in which the patient concerned would know for sure it came about because of him: the post on Page kidneys. Given the date of the post, the few vague items presented, and the fact that this patient knows he has the honor of being the first and only patient I have treated for this condition, he would figure it out.

I do not feel this post is unethical. Only someone who knows this person’s diagnosis and that I am his doctor can identify the patient. If they already know that much about him, they will learn nothing new from the post! The pathophysiology of Page kidneys, not the patient, remains the focus of the blog.

I would never try not to moan about inappropriate or inconvenient patients in a public forum. All physicians have “war stories” that we share; this blog is not the time or place. Occasionally I write about colleagues when either (1)I do not care if they read it and know it is about them; or (2) I have no clue who it is. Either way, no ethical issues apply. These situations are like complaining about jerks in traffic.

I have to go see a patient now. I am not going to say who, where, or what, though. And this kid will never know s/he inspired my closing today!

Image above is my daughter about 20 years ago. No patients were compromised in the creation of this post.

Masks, Hot or Not

“Why do you use your real name?”

Eventually most people who read my blog ask me this question. We all read other blogs written under pseudonyms, be they  a goddess or another fictional name. Many commenters also use pseudonyms. Working behind the veil of a screen name allows people to discuss things with candor; otherwise they might not feel free to open up for fear of reprisal or embarrassment.

Within my world of academic medicine, most bloggers hide their identity, at least to some degree. Some posts, although pseudonymous, include the author’s identity, or enough clues to figure it out. Others work hard to separate their real name from their blogosphere self.

Online identity is one of the first thing a new blogger decides. My own rationale for blogging came about because of my work. In starting a new magazine for the American Society of Nephrology, I needed to learn about social media and the role it could play with traditional media. The best way to learn this stuff is to jump in and do it. It did not make sense to have an anonymous online identity when I wanted these activities to compliment stuff I do offline under my real name.

Isis has posted her rules for pseudonymous blogging:

Anyone who could fire me/prevent my career advancement knows about my blog. I write with the knowledge that they may be reading it.  Some of them do.

I never, ever, ever write about my students.  Ever.

I never write about a colleague without their knowledge.  My immediate colleagues and collaborators know about my blog. 

I never write things about another scientist that I would not say to them openly and in public.

I don't divulge top secret MRU-related stuff.

These are good rules for any blogger no matter how they handle their identity, and ones to which I generally adhere. Given these rules, I feel completely comfortable being “out” on the web. Occasionally I get snarky, but not in a way that will cause irreparable harm to myself or my relationships.

I still remember the sense of freedom I felt when I turned 40. About that age I realized that other people really could not do that much to harm me. I bring that same attitude online now. Of course, I still have enough fear to give proper attribution to the photo-art supplier… cause FWDAOTI is cool, but stealing intellectual property is not.

Photo courtesy of PhotoXpress.

My Dry Cleaner Can!

According to a recent Research! America poll:

Americans were asked whether or not they could name a living scientist. 65% said they could not, and another 18% were unable to accurately name a living scientist.

The best know living scientist was Steven Hawking, named by 7% of respondents.

Those of us who do science in the US are rarely described as scientists. As an MD, I am usually described as a physician, not a scientist. Even though I only do clinical medicine 30% of the time, most people see me as a healer, not an investigator.

Most scientists I know are introduced by their faculty appointment, not as scientists. The US population generally believes that university faculty fill their days with teaching. Unless you have experience in academia beyond obtaining a bachelor’s degree, you probably do not appreciate the role that research plays in that arena.

So why can my dry cleaner tell everyone that I am a scientist?

Well, when our new research building opened, the local paper did a supplement on the facility and all the scientists with lab space. They ran a photo and a brief description of my studies, and the woman who works the 7am shift asked me about it. She knows I am also a physician and has asked me kidney stone questions as well.

We all know the stereotypes: mad, nerdy, consumed, unfashionable. People don’t know anyone who answers these descriptions.

We need better PR.

So let’s take the advice of New Voices for Research. If you’re a scientist, introduce yourself that way. Let’s start breaking those stereotypes. The world should know us better, one person at a time.

The Toughest Loss

Yesterday the first word in my daily email from The Scientist was “renal” so I had to read on; unfortunately, the next words were “researchers faked data.”

These researchers violated their experimental protocol, resulting in 16 papers with results that may be better than they should be (according to the post, 14 have been withdrawn and the other 2 are being withdrawn). The really scary part buzzed through the comments, namely that this fraud came to light because the investigators had a falling-out. How many fake papers out there will never come to light because those involved will not “kiss and tell?” I wonder about this every time I get different results from the established paradigm. Did I do something wrong? Were their published methods incomplete? Or did they present “edited” data? Let’s face it; you can Photoshop damn near anything!

What were these “scientists” thinking?

The sanctions officially leveled in this case seem mild, at least to me; 10 years of exclusion from federal research activities for the PI and 3 years for the post-doc/junior person. They have also lost their academic positions. Perhaps the most damning punishment is that they have lost their reputations.

This group was researching novel immunosuppressant drugs for kidney transplantation. This is not my research area (and rumors about this team have apparently been circulating in the transplant immunology community for some time), but I suspect many in this world will have the same reaction I do whenever a paper is retracted: never to trust any data from these people again. Once lost, a reputation is the most difficult thing to regain. There will always be a question mark in the back of peoples’ minds, even if it is never spoken.

While various levels of supervision and the peer review process can help weed out fraud, ultimately editors (and readers) have to trust what the researcher says. If you can’t be trusted, then your research career is over.

Art courtesy of PhotoXpress.

Career Maintenance in the 21st Century

Today I heard a story on NPR’s Morning Edition about social media and applying for jobs. That resume printed on heavy bond in a matching envelope is so 20th century… and we are almost a decade into the 21st! Sending a printed job application makes you look, well, old, or at least out of touch.

Some folks have found jobs through FaceBook or Twitter, but the most popular professional networking site is LinkedIn. This site allows you to set up a resume with current and past positions, education, more detailed descriptions of interests and job responsibilites, and a short status update similar to those on FaceBook.

The fun is just beginning! You can add links to your blog or other web pages. Apps let you share travel plans, books you are reading, and PowerPoint presentations or other documents.

The real power of LinkedIn is its networking. Using your places of education and employment, email address book, and interests, the site locates people you may know. You then ask them to “join your network” which is like being a “friend” in FaceBook. You can also ask your primary network contacts (your “friends” to continue the analogy) for recommendations. These can be viewed by others on LinkedIn to support your online resume. My public view is shown below:

Those who have joined LinkedIn can generate a bare-bones resume in PDF format as well.

Once you have set up your primary network and, perhaps, joined some groups, you can then arrange “introductions” via the service. Say you want to meet someone from Company X. You can search for Company X and identify people. The service reports those who are linked to your network. Secondary links are those connected to your primary network, and tertiary networks are one more step removed. You can request introductions via these links and eventually make contact with people.

A number of companies and headhunters use the service to find contacts who may want jobs they have or may be able to suggest appropriate candidates. When you sign up you specify what you want to hear about and how you want to be contacted. I am not actively job hunting, but I get at least one inquiry a month this way.

LinkedIn has been called “FaceBook for Professionals.” It is a useful tool for job hunting and career maintenance. If you are over the age of 18, you probably need a profile!

Who Am I?

I don't mean this quesion in the literal sense. I blog & comment with my real name, and the links at right will take you to more information about me than you probably want. This is more of a rhetorical question about the many identities I have, including wife, mother, scientist, doctor, and editor.

I bring this up because there has been some discussion about attempts to "out" one of my favorite bloggers, Isis, over at ScienceBlogs. This woman has kept her real identity a secret and has some very good rules for pseudonymous bloggers. She is trying to keep her online life separate from that as a scientist and her wife/mother roles.

I came down on the other side of this issue, in part I believe, because of my "advanced age" when I started this blog. About the time I hit 40 I realized that no one could really do that much to hurt me in life. I shouldn't be evil because then I would deserve retribution, but I could generally state my mind in most professional situations with little fear of the consequences. It takes a lot of energy to maintain separate identities, and I didn't see much advantage for me to do that.

I had my first identity issue when I got married. The question was whether or not to change my last name. I had not yet published anything but an abstract in a local proceedings in an unrelated field. Part of me was violently opposed to the patriarchal supposition that I would take my husband's surname. However, I started talking with those who had already walked the path. First there was the "keep your maiden name group" who found this choice was really awkward when the kidlets came along. Did mom want to be the only one in the family with a different last name? The teachers were confused, and most women were "Mrs. Daddy's Name" when the school called, just to keep everyone from thinking they were divorced. Kids taking mom's name alone is pretty rare still, and I could not bring myself to dump a hyphenated name on my offspring. What about hyphenating my own name? One friend pointed out the difficulty that presents with forms and other documents. I had other friends who used their given name professionally and their married names personally. Talk about confusion! I have been introduced to women at parties where it took 20 minutes to figure out we shared patients! In medicine and academia, the personal and professional lives overlap substantially.

In the end, I took my husband's last name. Of course, I couldn't do anything easy. See, my birth name was Ann Pascale Hammond, but no one had ever called me Ann. Compared to a hyphenated last name, using your middle name is pure hell in this country. It is not your legally recognized name! I ended up dropping the "Ann" and becoming Pascale Hammond Lane. It was the right mix for me, even though I had to jump through a bunch of hoops for a common usage name change. I like that my family has the same last name, even though it wasn't the one I was born with.

I suspect my daughter will not change her name, but you never know. Just as I had to debate myself for a few months, Jen will have to make her own decisions. We all have to make our own decisions about who we want to be and how we will balance roles as professionals, partners, and parents.