My understanding of the “case” so far is that Hellinga made an allegation of misconduct against Dwyer pertaining specifically to the Novo-TIM expression/purification/kinetics experiments and that this allegation was not sustained by the initial investigation. However, we don’t know the details of why the allegation was not sustained and can only infer that Dwyer was not found to have done anything that was grounds for a formal investigation.

As I understand the process, as a condition of their acceptance of federal funding Duke would be compelled to investigate any reasonable and credible allegation of research misconduct made against any of their employees. I would think that the very public statments documenting the insufficiency of the Hellinga-Dwyer retractions would constitute grounds for another initial investigation focussing on issues that were apparently unresolved or un touched upon by the original investigation of Dwyer.

Duke are now in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, an investigation of Hellinga seems inevitable if not already ongoing. On the other hand as I have said repeatedly, Hellinga is probably entitled (as was Dwyer) to have the intial investigation treated confidentially. Unfortunately by not commenting on the matter Duke are creating the perception that nothing is being done.

The petition is not dated? When was it submitted? My best guess is that Duke will respond in a week or so with some more lukeward assurances that they are aware of these concerns but will not comment further on the matter to preserve the confidentiality of everyone involved.

Has this matter been picked up on by the local press? The more widely-known it becomes, the harder it will be for Duke to sweep it under the table.

The dating would be done on the signature pages and via the notary. I believe the petition had just recently been submitted when I posted it. Local press coverage wouldn’t be as meaningful as national media or academic publications such as The Chronicle of Higher Education. On the other hand, local coverage could lead to the story getting picked up nationally. Still, it’s a tough story to sell in an elevator speech, especially for a lay audience, unless you focus on behavior rather than science. - writedit

Thanks for your insights and commentary. At this point, given the obvious gaps in Homme’s scientific explanations coupled and the ethical issues raised in the published analyses of this scandal, I think that it is perfectly reasonable for students other than Dwyer to request a misconduct investigation. In fact, considering the faculty’s apparent inaction, doing so is arguably students’ obligation to their (former) peer, to their graduate program, and to their field. Neither Hellinga, nor Dwyer, nor Duke Biochem. benefit from leaving this issue unresolved.

1. There arose logistical inpracticalities in the gathering of alumni signatures
2. Graduate students theoretically had the most to lose by signing, thus their position carried more significance that that of alumni

It is important to mention that this was a completely student-led effort. Professors were not asked to sign the petition, nor was it circulated among them. The signers of the petition did NOT sign as proxies for their laboratories or PI’s.

I am told that the petition was written and distributed without the knowledge of Mary Dwyer. It seems that scrupulous efforts were made by the signers to avoid Dwyer while the petition was circulating.

There are ~55 students currently in the Duke Biochem. Dept. If one subtracts the Hellinga graduate students, Hellinga’s wife Lorena Beese’s students, and students who have either of those professors on their thesis committees, ~45 eligible students remain. So 18 represents close to 1/3 of the eligible population. I am told that few students without Ph.D. candidacy signed the petition. If one substracts students who have not taken their candidacy exams from the pool of eligible signers, the petiton represents ~1/2 of the remaining students.

In my opinion, a majority “vote” of students was in no way required to add legitimacy to the petition. That 18 current students were willing to sign was unexpected, and was an indication of the bravery and ethical conviction of our program’s student community.

A final note: I did not provide WriteEdit with a copy of the petition, although I am not unhappy to see it published on this blog.

I will confirm that noblesse d’epee did not send me the petition, but I appreciate these additional details. Again, I am so very impressed with these students and their decision to act on their convictions. One would hope the faculty will independently register their concern with the administration in solidarity with the students. - writedit

That I don’t know: I did not receive any of the names/signatures involved. If someone lets me know off-line, I can post whether faculty lent their support as well. It sounds like a student-led initiative, which is quite gutsy since I suspect many must have Hellinga or his wife on their committees. On the other hand, the students are also the ones who will pay the greatest price if Duke does not act, so have significant motivation for making their collective voice heard (faculty should be quite concerned about the potential misconduct, of course, but do not have to interact with the parties under discussion in order to secure their degrees … and such turning a blind eye seems more common than we all thought per the ORI report).

As you will see, the petition asks “that Duke University determine whether Professor Homme W. Hellinga:

1. Published Dr. Mary Dwyer’s data, despite her objections, with the effect of “manipulating research procedures and data so as to bias results”

2. Pursued “baseless and malicious, or reckless” research misconduct charges against Dr. Dwyer”

Hats off to these students and the stand they have taken here.

yes but what if breaking down the right wing wackaloon theocratic hegemony for a generation through blogging were to work?