psyuk,
1) yes, it's possible that complex's research experience was unsuccessful. and yes, in that case, maybe it would impact the committee's perception of his/her candidacy. however, even so, a significant amount of research fails and, as i was trying to point out in my post, the number of publications an applicant has is not the gold standard for md/phd admissions. in my personal opinion it is more important that complex understands his/her research, its possible conclusions (as well as shortcomings) and, if it was a "failure," why (and/or how those problems could be remedied).
2) the more likely possibility here (in my opinion) is that the data which complex collected during that year at nih is in the process of being integrated into a larger paper that will be written by someone else for publication. as was implicit in my post, this is often the case with undergrad or post-grad researchers who only have a limited amount of time on a given project. in any event, manuscripts often take a long time to get written, edited, approved and (finally) published. thus, perhaps in six months to a year, complex will have his/her name on a publication. will it really make that big of a difference? i tend to think not.
3) finally, perhaps the difference between quality and quantity of research explains why complex doesn't have his/her name on a publication. having written an undergrad thesis and edited several others, i have an appreciation for the spectrum of quality involved in undergrad/post-grad research. even though one of those theses was brimming with biochemical data, it was missing several important controls and thus failed to fully account for all possible conclusions. given this and the fact that the final decision to publish rests with a PI, it seems reasonable to conclude that differing standards of proof (or quality of research, as i would say) among PIs would also contribute to an applicant's total number of publications.
4) along this same line then is a fundamental question: are two crappy third-author publications (to which you contributed data for one of eight or so figures) really preferable to a solid, second-author paper, which includes a significant amount of high-quality data you collected? it depends on who you ask, i guess... but i think most admissions committees would opt for the latter.
5) whatever the case may be, psyuk, you need to be a little less dismissive... particularly given how little you know about complex and/or the specifics of his/her research experience. complex came to this forum for honest, objective advice, which should include reasonable responses for all possible scenarios without falling back on (often incorrect) assumptions.
aaron
