On 16 October 2023, the doctorate student Vivek Maradia submitted a notification of suspected research misconduct against Damien Weber, director of the Center for Proton Therapy (CPT) at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in Switzerland, and his own thesis supervisor at the ETH Zurich, the physics professor Anthony Lomax.
The main accusation was institutionalised authorship extortion, described by Maradia as “the coercive tactics employed by supervisors who mandate the inclusion of Dr. Weber to secure their support and job stability, ultimately eroding the principles of research integrity.”
The notification was addressed to ETH Zurich Rector Günther Dissertori and PSI Director (and ETH board member) Christian Rüegg. To further prove his point, Maradia supplied a list of 94 “papers published within the last five years, where Dr. Weber seemingly made no contributions, yet the primary authors were compelled to include him as a co-author.”
The PSI is described as “the largest research institute for natural and engineering sciences in Switzerland”. It is a huge physics institute, with its own particle accelerators. Some of PSI proton technology is used for cancer therapy, which is where the radiation oncologist Weber comes in. He has a medical doctorate but no PhD, and he is not really a particle physicist. But his massive publication record at PSI proves he must be one. Because even if PSI “is part of the ETH Domain”, the ETH guidelines on authorships and research ethics do not apply to PSI.
As Maradia explained to me:
“Up until 2012, all authorship rules were duly adhered to. However, since Dr. Damien Weber assumed the position of department head in 2012, he has mandated that all CPT employees include him as a co-author without making any substantial contribution. A thorough examination of publications from CPT since 2012 will reveal Dr. Weber listed as a co-author in all of them.”
Maradia has graduated in February 2023, his ETH thesis is titled “Ultra-fast treatment delivery to enhance the potential of proton therapy“. He was looking forward to going to USA. He was not afraid.
After placing his research misconduct notification against Weber and Lomax, Maradia wrote in a follow-up email from 20 October 2023 to Rüegg and PSI deputy director and Chief of Staff Thierry Strässle:
“Throughout my 3.5 years of pursuing my PhD, I have never had a single meeting with Dr. Weber to discuss any of my work. This holds true not only for myself but also for my fellow PhD candidates, Post Docs, and others. Dr. Weber has not played any role in our research endeavors during this time.
In our department, CPT, it is required to obtain the signatures of our line manager, Tony Lomax, and Dr. Weber on the Scientific Publication Application form before submitting any paper. To secure Dr. Weber’s signature, it is obligatory to list him as a co-author. As a result, we find ourselves in a position where we have to include him as a co-author.”
The dossier, available to me, has many attachments. Even if Weber rarely put his authorship instructions in writing, and Lomax is said to have enforced them only orally, there is enough evidence.
The alpha males of physics
Two sets of events for Women in STEM: the theoretical physicist Alessandro Strumia, soon likely ex-CERN affiliated, decried feminist conspiracies and the discrimination against males like himself, in a workshop talk on gender. Right after, the Nobel Prize for physics was finally after 55 years given to a woman. Thing is: one of the other…
On 12 July 2023, Maradia informed Weber and his colleagues that Nature Physics invited him to submit a review, following his proposal. He was asked by the editor of Nature Physics to “assemble a team of 3-8 co-authors from diverse backgrounds, including accelerator and medical physics, different age groups, and various institutes“, specifically Maradia was asked not to “select too many individuals from PSI“. Here is Weber’s reply to Maradia from 13 July 2023 (typos Weber’s):
“One needs to make Sure That the List of co-authors Is Well balanced, internally and externally and That co-authors will deliver some Interesting & relevant sections for this paper. The Reputation and visibility of PSI dictates a number of requirements.
As such I will ultimately décide on the names that will qualify for co-authorship for this paper”
Weber decided that he will decide who will be authors on Maradia’s review. And who won’t.
New JACS EiC Erick Carreira: “correct your work-ethic immediately”
Erick Carreira’s letter to Guido, from 1996. You all saw it probably at some point, and now it’s being discussed again.
As reminder, Weber is a medical doctor. He may be a radiation oncologist who uses the particle emitting technology, but his scientific understanding of radiation physics must be very limited, like that of a restaurant chef towards agronomy. Maradia even supplied evidence for Weber’s lack of expertise for his PhD research – some barely annotated manuscripts and occasional incompetent questions for studies on which Weber was of course listed as co-author. In one case of a particle physics paper Maradia et al 2023, the whistleblower wrote in his report:
“Rudolf Doelling (from GFA) has played a substantial role in the experiments. However, he declined to be listed as a co-author solely because I am including Dr. Weber as a co-author. According to him it is against research integrity.
Ultimately, and primarily to avoid any potential issues on me with Dr. Weber, Dr. Rudolf reached a compromise and allowed Dr. Weber’s inclusion in the paper.
How is it fair to include Dr. Weber?
This is my best work. Yet I can’t sleep thinking that I am encouraging scientific misconduct by including Dr. Weber as a co-author.”
Weber’s declared contribution in that paper: “D.C.W. managed the funding and reviewed the article.” As Maradia wrote:
“Throughout my 3.5 years of pursuing my Ph.D., I never had a single meeting with Dr. Weber to discuss my doctoral work, and this seems to be the case for most Ph.D. candidates and postdoctoral researchers in the CPT department.”
On 18 October 2023, Maradia also contacted the PSI ombudsperson for research integrity, the emeritus professor Roland Horisberger. Maradia summed up what Horisberger told him in a later email:
- “If I, as a reader of the paper, observe that the head of the department is not listed as a co-author, I assume that the Head lacks interest in this research, leading me to conclude that it is not a significant project.”
- “My daughter, who is pursuing her PhD, is also compelled to include the head of the department as a co-author without any contribution. Since she is complying with this practice, it is suggested that you do the same.”
- “For me, my primary concern revolves around the manipulation of data. Misconduct in terms of research integrity, in the narrower sense, cannot be conclusively established.”
Faced with this summary, Horisberger protested in an email to Maradia:
“!!!! Incorrect summary of my comments !!!!!
My daughter has a PhD title in Medicine since many years. She is working as an medical doctor (Oberarzt) in the Triemli Hospital. Please be more careful with the statements you are doing.”
Judging from Horisberger’s reaction, the only inaccuracy in Maradia’s summary was the PhD status of the Ombudsman’s daughter. And this unbiased ethics expert’s last sentence clearly sounds like a threat against the whistleblower. As it happens, emeritus professor Horisberger is an award-winning particle physicist and teaches research integrity courses at PSI.
The investigation took around a month. On 22 November 2023, PSI deputy director Strässle sent Maradia his final report. Here it is:
Key passage:
“In the view of the ombudsperson for research integrity and after evaluating the statements made by Prof. Weber on the 10 selected publications, there is no inadmissible co-authorship in the publications listed by you (i.e. also not in Nature Physics, 19, 1437-1444 (2023), …). This applies in particular in view of the fact that publications of ZPT are produced in a medical environment in which, as is well known, specific co-authorship regulations accepted in the scientific community are applied in practice. Misconduct from the point of view of research integrity in the narrower sense cannot be established. […]
In summary, after examining the allegations you have made, we conclude that there has been no breach of research integrity. At this point, we kindly ask you not to unjustifiably raise serious allegations of a suspected violation of research integrity.”
Strässle’s claims are not just ethically wrong, but also factually, and he very likely knew he was making stuff up as he wrote it. Especially for the “medical environment”, there are very specific recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on authorships, quote:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Weber tags none of that except point 3, and that only in rather a different way from how that recommendation was meant. Maradia even sent the ICMJE recommendations to Strässle. His reply from 24 November 2023:
“…having considered your further information (emails below), I remain of the view that misconduct from the point of view of research integrity in the narrower sense cannot be established.”
Please Don’t Steal My Work, by Maria Toft
“…my suspicion is that academia is much more haunted by power abuse and structures of fear than most other systems. […] these conditions put a pressure on otherwise morally functioning human beings and suddenly “research theft” and power abuse become part of the invisible academic culture.” – Maria Toft
Maradia sought advice. He wrote to Elsevier, wondering if there was a “rule within the medical field that requires the inclusion of the head of the institute as a co-author, irrespective of any contribution to the research?” The Executive Editor at The Lancet, Stuart Spencer replied to him on 27 November 2023 with a link to the ICMJE guidelines:
“Absolutely NOT ! I attach the ICMJE guidelines for authorship and that would not include a head of department who had no intellectual role in the paper. Authors should have contributed to all 4 conditions.“
Lancet‘s Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton, Deputy Editor Sabine Kleinert, Senior Executive Editor Helen Frankish were of the same opinion, and so was David Collingridge, Publishing Director of The Lancet Group. Also Liza Grammel, Journal Manager of the International Journal of Particle Therapy, referred Maradia to ICMJE guidelines. FOUR Senior Editors of Nature Medicine referred him to Springer Nature authorship guidelines, and recommended not to automatically include the head of institute as author.
On 26 November 2023, ETH biology lecturer Hugo Stocker informed Maradia about the “ETH Zurich Guidelines on scientific integrity (Integrity Guidelines)“, issued on January 2022. Those stipulate:
“The author of a scientific publication is a person who fulfils all three of the following criteria by
- makes a significant contribution to the research work through personal performance in the planning, implementation, control or evaluation of the research work
- is involved in the preparation of the manuscript and
- approves the final version of the manuscript.
Persons who only partially meet these three criteria for authorship must be listed in the publication under “Acknowledgements”.”
Predatory authors, by Wolfgang Dreybrodt
“Publishing in natural sciences proceeds under structures similar to the mafia. Professors exploit the creativity of their subordinates. Predatory authorship increases the number of authors. This leads to a loss of scientific quality and destroys trust in science.”
If anything, Weber may have, with enough good will, deserve an acknowledgement. Never an authorship. Also Gerald Achermann, head of research ethics at ETH, wrote to Maradia:
“The relevant authorship rules that are binding for all disciplines are indicated in the “Research Integrity at PSI. Guidelines for good scientific practice” https://www.psi.ch/en/integrity/documents, respectively in the “ETH Guidelines on research integrity (Integrity Guidelines, RSETHZ 414)”
https://rechtssammlung.sp.ethz.ch/Dokumente/414en.pdf.
Both guidelines clearly state, that a significant contribution is needed for authorship (please see Art. 14 of the ETH Integrity Guidelines). Art. 14 is stating:5 Authorship does not result from the mere function of a person. The provision of instruments or infrastructure, financial participation or a position of authority is not a significant contribution to a manuscript and does not entitle a person to be an author. It follows that honorary authorship is not permissible.
Art. 15 Contributions and order of authors
1 The contributions of the individual authors to a publication should be declared as transparently as possible.
I wish you a fruitful discussion with your co-authors. Should you need any further advice, you may contact at PSI (as you are referring to Proton Therapy): Helmut Schift, Research Integrity Consultant, https://www.psi.ch/en/integrity/contacts or the PSI ombudsperson Prof. Horisberger https://www.psi.ch/en/integrity/ombudspersons“
Maradia did write to Horisberger again – Silence. Strässle replied that his report stands.
The PSI decision was set in stone. Their rules are different from the rest.
The decadence of German medical doctorate
Germany is a country where a doctorate still invites respect and even deference, in certain circles at least. Here, the prefix “Dr.” even becomes official part of your name, while your professorial thesis advisor is reverentially called “Doktorvater”- doctoral father (there is no appropriate term for female supervisors, which makes the concept even more embarrassing these days).…
The conflict did not end there. On 8 December 2023, Maradia informed Weber and Lomax that he submitted an abstract for the IPAC 2024 (15th International Particle Accelerator Conference in USA). On 20 December 2023, the internationally renowned expert in particle physics Dr med Weber, ordered Maradia to retract that submission because he was not included as co-author:
“As per regulation for abstract submission, all co-authors have to approve the final version. As I have not done so, please recall the submission and confirm that you have done so.”
Maradia replied reminding Weber and Lomax how they removed his own name from a conference abstract the year before, which he claimed was based on his own original idea and one year of his work.
On 11 January 2024, PSI’s HR-manager Adina Keller wrote to Maradia “You asked for a meeting with Professor Weber” on 16 January. Maradia replied that he never requested such a meeting with Weber, that he was anyway unavailable on that day, and that “If Dr. Weber would like to have an in-person meeting; research integrity officer should be in the meeting and not the HR.”
On 12 January 2024, Weber barged in with this email:
“Good morning
It so happens that the ‘investigation’ is terminated and the results clear cut
As such, the question arises on how we will manage the email send to half of CPT with false accusation, smearing my name. It is thus an HR issue.
Either we do this with or without you.
Be aware that the ‘invitation’ is a request to see you, opting out is not an alternative.
Hopefully you will have the decency to show up but I trust you will always be more comfortable to discredited people electronically.”
In his next email, Weber grimly announced: “I will manage this without you”.
On 15 January 2024, Maradia informed Lomax, Weber and Keller that he must fly to India because his mother was dying. He announced to quit his employment at PSI by the end of March.
Keller replied right away with:
“Damien, Tony and I have spoken briefly and as there are disagreements at PSI and you now also have to worry about your mother, we are releasing you from work with immediate effect until you leave. So you can take care of your family!“
How nice of them, no? In the attachment was a “release from work” letter (below), signed by Weber and Keller.
Despite his employment ending on 31 March 2024, Maradia was “as of today” blocked from entering the campus and even from access to his emails. He was ordered to destroy all “copies of electronic business data”, i.e his own research. Much worse and legally baseless: in the same letter, PSI explicitly threatened to sue Maradia should he ever talk to anyone about his PSI experience.
Needless to say, the threat was empty. Maradia’s PhD thesis received several awards, and he is doing postdoc in Stanford now.
In that PhD dissertation, Maradia’s thanks his mentor Lomax:
“Prof. Dr. Tony Lomax has been a constant support and has been more of a colleague than a boss, which made my time at PSI smooth. Apart from his constant personal and professional support, his open-mindedness and compassionate heart always inspired me and are worthy of admiration.”
I contacted all parties involved. Lomax never replied to the accusation that he forced Maradia and other junior researchers at PSI to include Weber as co-author. Nobody else replied. It is pathetic how all these full professors and wealthy Swiss academic alpha males tremble and cower in fear of one man, Damien Weber. They did very disreputable things against students they were supposed to protect, and it is not even clear why. It’s not like their jobs, salaries or pensions were in any danger. They are not even medical peers of Weber’s. I won’t call these men chickens, because chickens are actually quite brave.
Michael HotTiger of Zurich, patron of biomedical ethics
University of Zurich and its Unispital has so much trouble with their medical professors right now. I wish to help.
I did get one reply. It was almost sad in it passive-aggressive helplessness. On 12 March 2024, Oliver Treuthardt, Head Legal PSI, wrote tom me:
“The allegations made do not correspond in any way to the facts and do not reflect the actual events. We therefore reject the allegations made.
For reasons of data protection and labour law, we are unable to provide any further information. We thank you for your understanding and trust that you will also respect the personal rights of the wrongly accused persons.”
Funny how their “wrongly accused” directors have such overarching “personal rights”, but their PhD students have no rights at all. Neither the PSI lawyer Treuthardt nor anyone at PSI ever answered my emails again. Except once, forbidding me to use a picture of Weber’s which PSI specifically made publicly available for media coverage of his proton radiotherapy research. The PSI lawyer wrote (translated): “The use of the image contradicts our terms of use”. By which he admitted that Weber indeed had no input in Maradia’s work 😉
All my emails were duly received and read. But the mighty big boys of PSI never replied to deny the authenticity of the PSI documents and emails available to me. They also never replied to explain on which Swiss law their nasty threat against Maradia was based, which they issued when his mother was dying.
As I learned, there is an investigation going on at ETH. Problem is, Weber is not affiliated with ETH, but with University of Bern and University of Zürich. And the latter can’t be trusted with ethics at all. Adriano Aguzzi‘s excesses with fudged data and even with a fake PhD degree went unpunished, without any consequences whatsoever:
Aguzzi and the Lowlifes
The prion researcher Adriano Aguzzi used to describe his Pubpeer critics as “lowlifes”, and himself as a victim of a lynch mob. But after Elisabeth Bik helped him find even more mistakes in his papers, Aguzzi changed his stance.
Weber continues publishing on particle physics with his PSI subordinates. But maybe this time this alpha male bit off more than he can swallow.
I thank all my donors for supporting my journalism. You can be one of them!
Make a one-time donation:
I thank all my donors for supporting my journalism. You can be one of them!
Make a monthly donation:
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthly
For Better Science 
This cheesy shitshow from Switzerland by no means can be considered an exception. How could we forget the ‘no action policy’ of ETH Zürich towards the mega-cheater Olivier Voinnet.
At any rate, many kudos to Dr. Maradia for his courage fighting theese dishonest Switzers, moreover as a foreign PhD student.
LikeLike
Dr. Maradia, what a legend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Proud to see the courage that a PhD student demonstrated in going against the wrongdoings of the bigwigs in the department. The bigwigs think they own their students, but sometimes they are proven wrong in thinking that. This incident is a perfect example of it. Hats off!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a “wonderful” story illustrating the scientific business nowadays, from head of a department up to a journal editor through a director and a rector. Particularly interesting are the following words:
“If I, as a reader of the paper, observe that the head of the department is not listed as a co-author, I assume that the Head lacks interest in this research, leading me to conclude that it is not a significant project.”
Does this mean that a Head of department is subscribed to an authorship of any paper out of this department? And also to citations from other fellow (d)Heads? In this way we get the highly cited researchers.
Dr. Maradia took a very wise decision first to defend his PhD thesis and after that to ring the bell. The regular followers of the blog know what happens otherwise.
LikeLike
The institutes leaderships are always provided with authorship with minimum contribution to the manuscript, as they are contributing to the management of entire institute. This is a norm in academy. There is not a single institute that I know, that this is not a norm.
LikeLike
Fact is that this is not true.
Another fact is that you hide your identity because you know you shitpost.
For all I know, you can be DC Weber.
LikeLike
This is only true for a minority of institutes, but not for the Paul Scherrer Institute as I know it. Except, as it seems, at the CPT department. And the text implies that even within CPT the authorship rules were adhered to until Damien Weber took over.
LikeLike
To be fair, Weber’s CPT brings a lot of money to PSI – those proton radiation therapies are extremely expensive. I am sure the patients the CPT treats are not just Swiss residents on bog-standard health insurance, but also wealthy Arabs, Chinese and russians.
Of course this doesn’t justify the institutionalised authorship extortion, and besides, it is not like Weber is the only radiation oncologist on Earth. It is not Weber who brings in value, but the PSI Ring Cyclotron. By the PSI logic, they should name “Ring Cyclotron” as co-author on each paper.
LikeLike
“I licked your paper, its mine now” it is just fantastic. Good one.
LikeLike