In an insightful memoir, 'Kangaroo Dreams', Tuan V. Nguyen, a distinguished professor of predictive medicine and director of the Center for Health Technologies at the University of Technology Sydney, shares his unique perspective on medical research. Nguyen's personal journey, marked by his escape from Vietnam as a 'boat person' and a new life in Australia, is intertwined with a thoughtful examination of contemporary medical research. We delve into his experiences and insights, particularly regarding corrections, biases, and humility in science.
The Nature Paper and the Power of Doubts
Nguyen's experience with a 1994 Nature paper, which was later corrected in 1997 due to sample contamination, highlights the importance of humility and critical thinking. Despite the initial excitement over the findings, Nguyen's 'nagging unease' led to a thorough investigation, ultimately revealing a lab member's contamination. This incident underscores the need for junior scientists to voice reservations and seek rigorous validation, especially when results seem unusually strong.
Cultural Norms and Professional Discourse
Nguyen's cultural background, where respect for teachers and senior colleagues is an ethical obligation, influenced his initial reluctance to voice doubts. He emphasizes the importance of junior scientists expressing reservations directly, even if it means challenging senior colleagues. This cultural norm, combined with limited experience and the expectation of independent validation, shaped his response to the initial doubts.
The Experiment on Bias in Peer Review
Nguyen conducted an experiment to validate his suspicion of bias against papers authored by people with Vietnamese names. By submitting similar manuscripts with varying authorship, he observed that manuscripts from his Vietnamese lab received unfair and patronizing reviews. This experiment, though not formal, supports broader discussions on unconscious bias in peer review, particularly for authors from lower-resource countries.
Addressing Bias in Developing Nations
Nguyen acknowledges the role of Retraction Watch in uncovering misconduct and safeguarding research integrity. However, he suggests that sustained emphasis on particular regions may unintentionally reinforce stereotypes. He advises highlighting issues across diverse settings to ensure a balanced understanding of research integrity challenges, including predatory journals and questionable research practices in economically advanced countries.
Narcissism in Science
Nguyen discusses the dangers of narcissism in science, emphasizing the need for academics to approach potential collaborators, detractors, and mentees with caution. For collaborators, he suggests reviewing their track record for equity and ethical conduct. For detractors, maintaining professionalism and focusing on data is crucial. For mentees, early and thoughtful mentoring, setting clear expectations, and modeling humility are essential.
Weeding Out Problem Personalities
Nguyen advocates for a focus on systems and institutional culture rather than labeling individuals. He suggests strengthening anonymous reporting channels, providing research ethics training, and incorporating broader feedback into promotion decisions. Professional societies and funding agencies can play a role by recognizing and rewarding behaviors that promote collegiality and mentorship.
Teaching Humility in Scientific Training
Nguyen believes that humility should be taught as a professional skill essential to scientific rigor. In his cultural background, modesty is a norm, but humility may be interpreted as weakness in other settings. He emphasizes the importance of humility in recognizing uncertainty, fallibility, and the contributions of others, ultimately strengthening scientific outcomes and research culture.
