medp1128: Email from Prof. Saw Seang Mei dated Jan 5, 2011 regarding team assisstance

From: Saw Seang Mei
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2011 12:25 PM
To: Yan Jun
Cc: Asha Das; Reshma Taneja; Wong Wai-Shiu Fred; Vivian Poh Pei Jun; Liu Hern Choon, Eugene; Tan Thian Beng Bryan; Lim Geok Fen, Joyce; Chen Fui Lin; Soong Tuck Wah
Subject: FW: A response

Hi Yan Jun,

Thanks for your explanation.

Our team will assist and meet you,

Best, Seang Mei

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:19 PM
To: Saw Seang Mei
Cc: Asha Das; Reshma Taneja
Subject: A response

Dear Prof. Saw Seang Mei,

Thank you for your attention to the LAPSE OF CONTRACT (Ref. 035396). I certainly respect you and A/P Reshma Taneja’s (PI) decision; however, I do not accept it.

I believe that PI’s decision is unfounded. I would like to request a cross-examination with PI in presence of a third party for PI to prove my “insufficient progress in the research project”.

My points are as follows:

1. I was not allowed to carry out independent research in the lab, so my job is to follow PI’s orders. What I can offer to the lab are reproducible data, and I cannot guarantee whether experiments work out or not. Unless PI proves that I have technical problems, I have little to do with “scientific output” for her publications.

2. For over a year, I had been ordered to repeat a single experiment---to monitor and compare the expression of a gene (DEC-1) in two cell lines treated with cisplatin at various times. The similar results had already published(1) in 2007.

Despite my finding is different from PI’s previous reports (1, 2), my data are quiet reproducible. I also explained the difference and the possible problems associated with the PI’s previous reports, in an e-mail sent to PI on September 7^th, 2010.

3. When it comes to “defined conclusion” and “publishable data”, we have to take methodology into consideration. Conventional PCR has already proved very variable and is generally not used for quantitation of gene expression. For a number of times, my request to use real time PCR for quantitative purpose was turned down by PI. I believe that my data are quiet” publishable” and have reached “a defined conclusion” to the best of the technology of conventional PCR.

4. When it comes to productivity, I am uncertain by what criteria experiments have been assigned to lab members in a reasonable period of time.

5. I believe that PI has problems with experimental designs and data interpretations, and her judgment on research progress can be wrong. To prove this point, I would like to question PI’s publications(2, 3) in presence of a third party. I understand this request sounds silly since a PI is normally more knowledgeable than a RA. However, PIs are knowledgeable in general terms and may not be so for specific techniques.

Science is a fair game, so I hope my request can be granted.

Thanks again for your attention. I am looking forward to getting your response soon.

Regards,

Yan Jun

1. Thin, T. H., Li, L., Chung, T. K., Sun, H., and Taneja, R. (2007) Stra13 is induced by genotoxic stress and regulates ionizing-radiation-induced apoptosis. EMBO Rep 8, 401-407

2. Sun, H., and Taneja, R. (2000) Stra13 expression is associated with growth arrest and represses transcription through histone deacetylase (HDAC)-dependent and HDAC-independent mechanisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97, 4058-4063

3. Liu, J. J., Chung, T. K., Li, J., and Taneja, R. (2010) Sharp-1 modulates the cellular response to DNA damage. FEBS Lett 584, 619-624