My boss doesn't want me to say I performed tasks I'm not qualified to

Question

I'm a STEM major and I'm doing my internship in a data science department, where the primary task is to develop machine learning models for healthcare.

I was genuinely excited to start working with them, but soon I realized they barely had any stable project to work on, let alone data. They are young and very disorganized. Since I wanted my internship to be somehow useful, I picked a problem and tried to build a model that could help solving it. I chose a task that professionals perform on a daily basis and that involves pattern-recognition skills. After reading a few articles related to the problem I figured out a new (not mind-blowing nor amazing, but still new) way to build a model to perform this pattern-recognition task. Since I had no data, I needed to gather it from free databases and to label it myself; this was a kinda painful process, since I don't have healthcare training and I needed to learn (and to properly identify) which trends/patterns were important so that I could label my data to train my models.

I was shockingly surprised when, after training the models, gathering the information and analyzing it, I got very good results. My model is indeed good for identifying what I wanted.

Now my superiors want to keep and to deploy the model. When I was talking to someone that could provide the financial support to do so, I mentioned I have no training in healthcare and still had the obligation to label the data myself, so I asked in the "requirements list" for the model to be successful to have a professional to look at the theory I took into account, to help with gathering more data and to label it. At the end of the talk my boss was mad, and asked me to not say that in future meetings.

I'm disgusted. It's not ethical to omit that kind of details. If the model is indeed going to be used in healthcare, it NEEDS to be reliable, and it will surely not be very reliable if an inexperienced person labeled the data it was trained on. I need to write a report to be published, and I intend to include a note that clearly explains that

1. the theory and labeled data is in the process of being validated by a professional, and
2. that the results obtained indeed show that my approach was good, and that by increasing the size and quality of the data set the final tool would be a good one.

Point two validates the utility of the model (that is what they want) and point one addressed my concerns. My questions are:

1. Should I keep stating the fact that I performed a task I'm not qualified to even if my superiors don't want me to do so?
2. How can I explain to them that I feel more comfortable doing so, since my name (and reputation) is involved, and since any project of this kind must be transparent?

---

My team was aware of the fact I wasn't feeling comfortable labeling that kind of data without the advice of a professional, but dismissed it, so I just kept working. I never thought it would be a problem to say that to external people, considering that I'm explaining why (after cleaning the data and making sure the facts taken into account are actually useful for people working in healthcare) the final model can be useful.

---

Some of you think I aired confidential information during a meeting, and that is not the case:

1. I started working on my own project, I needed to read medical literature to define it and later to label data on my own.
2. I stated I wasn't feeling comfortable and that, at the end, I would need a professional looking at the theory/labeling to get an informed opinion, and no one seemed annoyed nor interested in that. It wasn't a big deal.
3. Now that my project is getting good results, I was asked to share it with people that potentially could provide financial aid to keep the project going.
4. My team asked me to explain to the external people what I need in order to keep the project going. I didn't ask for money but instead asked for someone in that specific area of medicine to look at the details.
5. My team was mad at me.

How on earth was I supposed to know I wasn't allowed to share that?

My time with them is ending soon, and I'm writing a "paper" (I prefer to call it a "report"), and of course I need to include the information I took into account to make inferences. Even if I got scolded, I feel I cannot write it without saying that approval from a professional is pending. If the theory behind the model is accurate, then great, but if I write bullshit on my paper, at least people will know why and I won't dirty the literature with my report.

I want to add that note to my report, and if I'm asked to remove it I will, but at least there will be a record of me stating that. I'm not giving more details since this question blew up and I feel kinda exposed, but thank you all for your comments.

Answer 1

I'm someone that's worked in the data analysis / science area for a decade and worked on many ML projects. What you did is often how models get built and really great proactive behaviour. So don't let all the fuss around it get you down.

Relabelling the data may not be the only way to get comfort about using the model (validating it). It's often possible to run models in shadow mode, where results from model are obtained and not used but reviewed to see if model made the right decision. Having said that, being skeptical about a model is always healthy.

A lot of this stinks of politics - e.g. get a model "in" and claim credit if it's great, or blame someone else if it turns bad. Usually as senior, my role at a place is to prevent this kind of stuff and shield juniors from it.

Unfortunately, not every workplace does things the "correct" way. So do take the advice from all the other answers. Just don't let it make you think you did something wrong. I would love to have people behaving the way you did work for me.

Answer 2

My corporate sense tells me that there is more to this story than either you can share (for fear of it being identifiable) or you can share because it's your bosses' view.

That said - if I've understood the problem correctly:

You've done something as an enthusiastic amateur, the entity you are working for has seen value in it and wants to utilize it. You feel that for it to be used in the real world, it needs an expert to review and validate it. You shared this issue in a public meeting (by the sounds of it, in front of the target audience) and your boss is upset.

The short answer here is: Time and Place.

The time to raise this concern is generally privately, and the place is out of earshot of a potential client.

Doing so in front of the client raises serious doubt amongst the target audience that doesn't need to be there.

Consider the following possibilities:

1. You've done a stand-up job; your method works correctly and has no flaws.

   In this scenario, if you had kept quiet and raised this privately with your boss, after the meeting they could have gotten a contractor in to validate your work - give it the seal of approval - you've satisfied your ethical obligations (which I'll get to later) and the product is rolled out and the client has confidence.

2. You've done a pretty good job; there's some minor issues here and there.

   Okay, so the client doesn't know - but hey, it's a new way of doing things - a reasonable client expects a few bugs and teething issues - either they are fixed before being rolled out or they are fixed in the first few iterations. Either way, the client is happy and again, has confidence.

3. You've done a crap job, and it's irredeemably flawed.

   So your Boss sets a second meeting with the client and explains that whilst conducting a procedural review of the method, they found a critical issue that means they can't deploy it at this time. The client, although understandably upset that they don't have a shiny new toy, have confidence in the internal QA process and so will likely want to continue with their professional arrangement with you.

This is, I feel, where and why the boss was pissed:

This is what the client will have heard: "We have no idea what we are doing and we have total amateurs doing work for us" - even if that has an element of truth to it - and you've made everyone involved in that relationship look like they are either idiots themselves (as they wouldn't dare to put an amateur's work in front of them) or deceptive cheats (who are trying to pass off a donkey as a thoroughbred). It makes you look bad.

Now - to get to your ethical concerns:

You are absolutely valid in the statement "If this is going to be used in the Real World, then I need a professional to validate it" - and that is a genuine concern to raise to your manager... Right after the meeting, after the client has left.

For instance: "Hey Boss, I didn't want to say it in front of the client - but if this is going to be used, we really need someone with actual expertise to check my work."

Assuming your boss isn't a scumbag, they would agree and set that up in the time between now and when the client would want to deploy it.

If they push back, then perhaps you decide if you want to take it further.

Think of it like this - in business, much rests on confidence. Just like in a game of poker, a well-played bluff can still win. Keeping a straight face in front of the client is generally the best strategy and raising it privately afterwards.

Answer 3

TL;DR

I am not convinced that you have a free pass to broadcast your lack of qualification to any external person without any oversight by (nor repercussion from) your company, and that is what you are arguing for in this case.

Maybe a better way to phrase it succinctly is that you are claiming that:

My boss doesn't want me to say I performed tasks I'm not qualified to

But I suspect what would be a more correct interpretation would be:

My boss doesn't want me to say I'm not qualified to people who are external to our project

And that's a very different scenario to be in.

---

The longer answer

I came into this question thinking (based on the title) that it was about your management wanting to hide your career achievements or hide the fact that they made you do something they could get in trouble for, and I was strongly on your side here.

However, the real story is more nuanced and I think you're dealing with crossed wires between you and your boss.

In regards to your personal achievement, whether it be a CV or being able to take credit for your contribution to the project, you are absolutely entitled to state what your contribution has been.

If there is every any blowback on this project stemming from your lack of qualification, as long as you took due diligence to point out your lack of qualification to the right people beforehand, you should be absolved of any real responsibility (barring cases of plain bad work that an unqualified person should plainly understand).

However, take note of "the right people" in the above paragraph.

Now my superiors want to keep and to deploy the model. When I was talking to someone that could provide the financial support to do so, I mentioned I have no training in X area and still had the obligation to label the data myself, so I asked in the "requirements list" for the model to be successful to have a professional to look at the theory I took into account, to help with gathering more data and to label it.

That is pretty much the last person you should be telling this to. You are undermining the confidence of your company's potential investor into the project.

Stating that you personally recommend having a professional vet the theory before releasing it is absolutely fine (assuming you already mentioned this to your company and they did not already state that they would do so themselves). Stating that you have no qualification on the subject is not fine.

There are two outcomes here. Either you built it badly, in which case asking for the professional's review would have caught this anyway. Or you built it (sufficiently) correctly, at which point your comment about your lack of qualification does nothing except open the door to the investor backing out before even having a professional take a look at it and confirm that it works.

If someone tells you they've got a gold nugget for sale, you'll want to get your geologist in to confirm but you'd be interested in buying it. If that person also tells you that they can't really tell a gold nugget from a lump of sand, are you going to be as interested? Are you even going to be as willing to call your geologist in to have a look at this potential lump of sand?

The person's statement about their inability to detect gold does not change the possibility that the thing they're selling is an actual gold nugget. However, their statement significantly lowers your expectation of getting an actual gold nugget. The offered product did not change after the salesman made that statement, but your interest in the offered product was negatively impacted regardless.

In real life, you are this nugget salesman. Is your employer going to be happy with you proclaiming the inability to distinguish gold? Have you even considered that maybe someone else at the company had already done a first pass check to confirm it is indeed a gold nugget? Because if so, your statement has completely eroded all the value from their effort.

I'm disgusted. It's not ethical to omit that kind of details. If the model is indeed going to be used in the field X, it NEEDS to be reliable, and it surely will not be very much reliable if an inexperienced person labeled the data it was trained on.

I do not believe that you were being told that you couldn't ask for a professional's review. I believe that you were being asked to not be blatant about your own lack of qualification to an investor.

The freedom of being able to claim your achievements does not absolve you from any consequences if you put your foot in your mouth. Regardless of your statement having been objectively correct, you very likely spoke out of turn here.

You were representing your company's product, not your own. This distinction is very important. You represented it using only your (unqualified) profile. You have effectively shut out any other effort/value that the company may have put into this product.

At best, you've tainted an investor's confidence for no reason. At worst, you've eroded additional effort/value that the company put into the product that you were simply not aware of.

I never thought it would be a problem to say that to external people

Have you ever considered why we label some people as internal versus external? It is specifically because external people do not get to know how the sausage is made; or only selectively so.

You should have voiced your concerns internally, and you should have stayed out of any external communication unless you had tangible proof that the company was covering up something that would be damaging to the public - and to be very clear I do not believe this to be the case here based on what you've written.

should I keep stating the fact that I performed a task I'm not qualified to even if my superiors don't want me to do so?

In general, I agree with empowering whistleblowing when a company does something bad (whether intentional or not) and all reasonable attempts to resolve the matter internally have failed.

However, I am not convinced that the company here is guilty of a cover-up. I suspect you're jumping to that conclusion too quickly and in the process you are glossing over the fact that you did in fact state something to a particular person that you should not have.

Your principles are good at heart but slightly misplaced in this scenario.

How can I explain them that I feel more comfortable doing so, since my name (and reputation) is involved, and since any project of this kind must be transparent?

As I mentioned before, asking for a professional's review is okay, and you can explain that. Internally, you can state that this is due to your lack of qualification. Externally, you do not talk about your qualification. Unless you are asked a direct question, at which point I do agree that you should not lie either, but you should still (a) redirect towards the company's focus and (b) make sure to explain that your personal lack of qualification is not necessarily indicative of the company's overall effort on the project.

However, I am not convinced that you have a free pass to broadcast your lack of qualification to any external person without any oversight by (nor repercussion from) your company, and that is what you are arguing for in this case.

Answer 4

Good answer already.

My addition from experience is that sometimes when you do something new you are the expert concerning it. I have over the years done several 'new' things, not World-changing stuff, just a new way of solving a problem, or identifying a problem and making a solution for it.

There was no point getting someone qualified in that field to check it over because in terms of the important parts they never knew it was possible and I deemed it a hard earned arrow to my personal quiver that I'm not about to give away for free. On some occassions I haven't seen much worth in a qualification if I can solve a problem the qualified people can't, or in a better way.

In one instance I was commanded to appear before a King and explain why I did something without qualified support, and had to explain that the 'qualified' solution was rubbish compared to mine. After which my solution was implemented in 11 govt departments in 2 countries and is still in use over a decade later.

Also there is always the danger of your discovery becoming someone else's, this is rife in many areas especially the groundbreaking ones.

Answer 5

Fundamentally, I don't think you know what is going on.

You were in some meeting. You don't know the other participants. You don't know the overall purpose of the meeting ("to seek financial assistance" is not a thing). You don't appear to have a grasp of what the specific meeting objectives are. You don't appear have a good grasp of what development process will be used, what regulatory or legal requirements you need to comply with, or what "qualifications" you need (or don't need!) to build a model.

You should figure more of these out before puffing up about your ethical obligations.

---

From the extremely vague description you have given, I think you were probably doing some sort of internal gate review for program startup. I'm guessing you were brought along as a courtesy or as a training opportunity. Possibly to answer questions

If so, it was probably your boss (or his boss) showing a big slide deck with something like a problem statement, sketched out solution (your algorithm), development schedule, and costs. Probably he was showing to some fairly senior folks in your organization.

In that case, "have the model reviewed" is not a requirement. Your requirement would be something like verifying or validating the model, and the methods for doing so would be far below the level of detail at that meeting. It might be a triangle on a schedule, but it might not even show up at that level. You insisting on it is like going to a rental-car counter and interrogating them on valve timings: unproductive and distracting, and if you do that to "help" someone who is trying to rent a car they will not thank you.

In summary, you're likely not wrong. You're more likely not even wrong, in that you were totally misguided in bringing it up in the first place.

Of course, that's leaving aside all the time-and-place discussions that other answers cover very ably.

Answer 6

I have been tangentially involved with something similar.

No-one is going to make clinical decisions based on your output. Instead, your system will highlight the interesting portion of a scan and suggest a diagnosis, but it will be reviewed by an expert before any action is taken: these tools are there to help but they do not get the final say. So I don't think there's anything to worry about here.

And your system likely can't be used at all until it has been published and peer-reviewed, let alone approved by whatever medical agency. (It sounds like this is the report you're writing now.) Once you've got funding for that you can acquire a larger professionally-classified corpus and then quietly drop your own set, or even sell this as "with more money we can cover other outcomes too" to get a much larger training set.

FWIW I think it was right to set your customer's expectations here: they're getting a prototype proof-of-concept and not something they can roll out tomorrow. Perhaps your boss just wanted you to communicate that differently.

Answer 7

I am not sure I completely understand your question (and you need to keep things vague - which is OK) but since you say that

If the model is indeed going to be used in the field X, it NEEDS to be reliable,

I would start with protecting myself.

The reality of how the "NEED" is important depends on the topic. If this is pattern matching to choose a paint color it is one thing, if this is pattern matching for medical studies it is another one.

Make sure to have, in writing, the exchange with your boss highlighting your lack of expertise or license to do the labeling. This in case things go south and the guy or gal who mislabeled X is in trouble.

With this in hand, you have done what you could to morally inform the company (if there are no greater stakes, in which case you move into the area of whistleblowing which is a whole other story). If your boss tells you not to say something to external parties, do not say it.

Answer 8

The most important thing is probably not whether or not you are qualified in the field, but how you encoded the data.

Certainly in a scientific report using routine data like this I would expect to see a section on the encoding, which would include details of who did the encoding (how many people, what their broad academic background is) and then more importantly exactly how was it done: did you generate lists of codes corresponding to certain groups, did you download them from elsewhere, how were difficult or edge cases resolved etc. That way the process is honestly and reproducibly reported for people who might use your model or your product.

For what it's worth, in my field (epidemiology research) we usually have non-clinical people derive lists for our clinical coding, but they do have support from clinicians who can advise on difficult cases and review the lists when done.

Answer 9

Let's assume your company charges a client a huge sum of money, and in exchange the best and most experienced developers work on solving the client's problems.

And you tell the client that it wasn't the best and most experienced developers who solved a problem, but that the problem was given to an intern to solve.

The client is not happy to pay for an experienced developer, and getting the work of an intern instead. The client feels ripped off. And that's because you told the client.

It doesn't matter how good you were and how good a job you did. The client feels they didn't get what they paid for. That's why your manager doesn't want the client to know that an intern did the job.