Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Key Researcher Agrees To Retract Disputed Stem Cell Papers

Unknown Lamer posted about a month and a half ago | from the so-much-for-that dept.

Biotech 61

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "After several months of fiercely defending her discovery of a new, simple way to create pluripotent stem cells, Haruko Obokata of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, has agreed to retract the two Nature papers that reported her work. Satoru Kagaya, head of public relations for RIKEN, headquartered in Wako near Tokyo, confirmed press reports today that Obokata had finally agreed to retract both papers. He said the institute would be notifying Nature and that the decision to formally retract the papers would be up to the journal."

cancel ×

61 comments

Fabricated results (4, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about a month and a half ago | (#47165829)

Another article I read about this mentioned that she confessed to fabricating "at least some results". Now, there are various reasons why a researcher would fabricate results, from the pressure to publish to just literally being evil, but in this case how would she ever expect to get away with it? This is not like a paper in my sub-field, which if I'm lucky five people will ever read. EVERYONE wants pluripotent stem cells, so of course a simple method to create them is going to be tested and replicated over and over and over.

Re:Fabricated results (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a month and a half ago | (#47165943)

I haven't read the paper nor do I have the expertise to really comment on the technicality of it, but it could be that they knew the method worked, but didn't reproduce it enough for it to be real solid and scientifically valid. And with budget/time constraints it could have gone quite simply as just fabricating data to push it out faster.

Re:Fabricated results (5, Interesting)

Stem_Cell_Brad (1847248) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166071)

I think this is the explanation. The lead author convinced herself that the procedure worked. Apparently, she was rather easily convinced by her own ideas. In order to convince other scientists, she had to fabricate some results. Those fabricated results enabled publication of the papers through peer review.

The whole thing stinks. Let's say there is some merit to making pluripotent cells by stressing them with acid. Well, by lying about some of her results, the lead author essentially poisoned the whole area of research. She has made it difficult to now work on this topic because it will be overly scrutinized by any reviewer. Let say the whole idea is bogus. The lead author wasted time and energy of researchers around the world who are interested in this process.

Although this may be obvious. The lesson is just never make up data. It is so myopic to think that you will benefit in any REAL way.

Re:Fabricated results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47172775)

"...Overly-scrutinized by any reviewer..." You, and any scientist, should relish being overly scrutinized by a reviewer (unless you are in some political hot bed field of studies, where real science doesn't matter)

Now, overly scrutinized by funding institutions, that would be a bad thing. If universities control what you work on, they might say no, etc.

Re:Fabricated results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47174501)

The parent probably means "over-scrutinized" in the sense of rejection from publication for relatively minor methodological limitations. No study is methodologically perfect, but most are still useful when limitations are well managed.

Re:Fabricated results (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about a month and a half ago | (#47165961)

Publish or Parish, is the motto for researchers.
In a field where everyone wants your data, that means there are a lot of people working on it.
So people may fabricate their results to what they feel would be the expected results, as a gamble, if it works they are first and they are the hero and they get a lot of money and fame. If they fail their story gets retracted, they find a way to point the finger at someone else and suffer some shame until people forget.

Re:Fabricated results (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166021)

Outside of Louisiana, we just call them counties.

Re:Fabricated results (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166227)

Publish or Parish? Is that the practice by which failed academics become Christian ministers?

Re:Fabricated results (5, Funny)

steelfood (895457) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166377)

Publish or Parish, is the motto for researchers.

Somehow, I'm not sure priesthood would be the alternate profession of choice for out-of-work scientists.

Re:Fabricated results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166443)

Publish or Parish, is the motto for researchers.

Somehow, I'm not sure priesthood would be the alternate profession of choice for out-of-work scientists.

You'd be surprised - beg the government for funds vs pray to god. Biggest difference is God has a better chance to respond after you consuming the proper mushrooms.

Re:Fabricated results (1, Insightful)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166503)

I don't know, if they're out of work because their faith in their theories was strong enough to make them falsify data, they might be good candidates for priests.

Re:Fabricated results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166905)

Publish or Parish

Cake or death?

Re:Fabricated results (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166139)

You're asuming it went something like "I'll make this stuff up and no-one will know!"

I doubt that's what happened. Most lies start very innocently. For example:

When I was much younger and dumber... a freshman in my FIRST attempt at college... I had... some class... probably biology or something. We were put into groups of about 5 students each. We were supposed to come up with experiments and provide a result. Well, we were going to grow beansprouts under different condition and report on the best way to grow them. I volunteered to take "Light" and would grow my sprouts under sunlight, ambient indoor light in my dorm and a black light.

Well... I was kind of busy drinking heavily and never got around to it. I'd never even bought the black light. Then, Suddenly (3 months later), one of my group who I totally forgot about asked for the results. Well, it should have been clear right? Sun is best, ambient is ok, Black light would have killed them. Who's to know I didn't actually do it right? It's a choice I made in less than the second it took me to answer her, but I regretted it immediately. It would have been far easier to admit my failure than admit the lie, but what was done was done so we reported all our results. got a B+ and everyone was happy! Whew... load off my mind. Then, a few days later the professor was talking about something and I was totally not paying attention and he turned to me "Well you have a blacklight right? Bring it in tomorrow and we could try that out!" I nearly peed myself.

I got out of it by running to walmart... but I suspect she started with a small white lie like I did... and things snowballed. Each time she was in a bind, she had to make the lie worse. Until eventually she was defending herself to an international crowd and ruining her career. Don't lie... but if you do and get caught, come clean asap. The longer you wait, the worse it will get.

Re:Fabricated results (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166259)

That wasn't a while lie by a long shot.

And this could have jut been a mistake in the methodology, no lie needed. OR simple a mistake.

Re:Fabricated results (2)

steelfood (895457) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166341)

In the biomedical research field, everybody fabricates results. Or selects them. Or fails to do the research properly and contaminates the experiment. That's why so few experiments are easily reproduced, and a good chunk of published literature eventually gets refuted, or at the very least, refined. The only thing is that scientists don't attempt to reproduce most experiments. So nobody really knows for sure what's real and what's not.

There's pressure to publish, but there's also pressure to selectively publish positive results. No journal will publish experimental dead-ends, so nobody writes papers saying their experiment failed. And so people who spend years of their life working on an experiment will force their paper through by forcing a positive result from the data if it doesn't go the way they intend.

Things are only really called out when there's a lot of money involved in the results of an experiment, and there's pressure from private industry to monetize, stem cells in this case, clones in the other. Otherwise, things languish for 30 or more years before somebody takes a good, long hard look at the data. Sometimes, it's because the original researcher has to die first before the revocation is even allowed to happen.

Look at that fish oil B.S. recently. It was known fact for 30+ years that fish oil, specifically omega 3 fatty acid was beneficial for the cardiovascular system. Turns out somebody fabricated it, and nobody caught on for the next 30 years.

Or Dolly, the cloned sheep who turned out not to be a real clone. Or any early literature on vitamins supplements, whose effects are largely found to have been literally pissed away. Or the ever-changing food pyramid and other nutritional recommendations.

And I don't even have to mention all of the monetary incentive-based skewed research.

Pure research, that which deals in either the microcosm or the macrocosm exclusively, is not subjected to this fault. The former tends to not have such ambiguities, and the former is taken as ambiguous by nature. But beware reseach that tries to tie the two worlds together (for example, asserting that a protein deficiency is correlated to a certain disease, or tying cell phones to medical disorders) and presents some solid, concrete result. Both socially and academically, we're still unable to support that kind of research the way it should be supported. And so it's really a crapshoot which paper ends up withstanding the test of time and which one doesn't.

Re:Fabricated results (1)

harlequinn (909271) | about a month and a half ago | (#47169277)

"In the biomedical research field, everybody fabricates results."

A nice anecdote. Do you have any data to back that up?

Re:Fabricated results (1)

David Jao (2759) | about a month and a half ago | (#47169481)

The Wikipedia article contains zero mention of any controversy surrounding whether or not Dolly is a real clone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Where is your evidence that Dolly is not a real clone? If Wikipedia doesn't mention the allegation, it's not even a conspiracy theory.

Re:Fabricated results (1)

hackus (159037) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167349)

Fabrication typically happens in a lab that just needs more money to get the results previously published.So sometimes, fabricated of the expected results will happen so that more money can be obtained.

Then of course it is a race against time to get the results you got the money for...sometimes that doesn't work out.

But, I have seen that happen many times with science research. Most of the time it works out, but sometimes it doesn't.

Crazy if true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47165845)

Publishing a faked result on a high profile topic like this is utter madness. Bad enough to fake something unimportant that nobody will try and reproduce , but it really takes a self-destructive individual to fake an experiment that people will desperately want to build upon...

Go Girl Go! (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a month and a half ago | (#47165883)

HAY! Haruko san; you've got a good idea, just go back to the lab and finish it.

If Haruko were a guy, I'd say, "get your head, out of your ass, and FINISH." Girls react differently than guys.

Re:Go Girl Go! (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about a month and a half ago | (#47165909)

Other researchers have tried the same method and found that it simply does not work [slashdot.org] .

Re:Go Girl Go! (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167489)

As an R&D manager, I can assure you they just weren't trying hard enough. Maybe they just need the right incentive. Higher pay for those who achieve and those who don't get fired.

Hooray! Science works (0)

Enigma2175 (179646) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166075)

I'm sure the anti-science crowd will try to point to this as an example of corruption in science but this is really an example of science working the way that it is supposed to. Scientist reports results, other scientists try to reproduce the results and if they can't then they start crying foul.

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166291)

It is an example of corruption in science. This was a high profile paper. Now everything she's ever published is suspect. If she had the balls to do this on a discovery of this magnitude, just think of all the "little white lies" in less prolific papers not just by her but by others. It's epidemic, especially in Asian countries.

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166441)

I think we're confused by the exact semantics, because neither of you is particularly wrong.

This is an example of corruption in the scientific _community_.

This is an example supporting the way science outs truth, supporting the scientific _method_.

Re: point two, though, it sounds like she cut corners or fuzzed details more than deliberately skimped or lied; it's wrong but not malicious.

-AC.Falos

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

formerly dead (3682275) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166419)

Since others have tried and failed to duplicate the results specified in the paper, it seems that the only way to really resolve this is to have Obokata-san duplicate her experiment. The process should be closely monitored so that there is no question about fabricated data and no chance the process is sabotaged by someone else.

Part of me is still holding out hope that there is some truth to the paper's overall result - if only because here was someone who could have been a great inspiration for kids (particularly girls) to get into science and also because I hate to believe people are so stupid as to fabricate something this important and think it won't be uncovered. Yeah, my naivete is showing.

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166851)

Part of me is still holding out hope that there is some truth to the paper's overall result - if only because here was someone who could have been a great inspiration for kids (particularly girls) to get into science

What the fuck does her gender have to do with anything?
Look girls, this woman, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??

Further, what the fuck would her success have to do with kids in general?
Look kids, this adult, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??

You can't choose a role model for your child. A person (such as a child) can either choose to respect / admire / aspire to other people or not.
Trying to foist a particular person off as a role model comes across as disingenuous, fake, and stupid to even the dumbest and youngest of kids.

Further, selecting said role models for your kids based on their success, rather than their behavior, ethics, character, etc. will get you poor results, all while speaks volumes about your own priorities. She fabricated data, at the very least, and published. Even if she ends up being right she's a terrible role model.

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167423)

Exactly.

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

formerly dead (3682275) | about a month and a half ago | (#47185097)

I completely agree that children will choose their own role models or choose how they are inspired by others. I never said otherwise.

How do they find role models - either real or fictional? Often is it through the media: movies, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, whatever. Making a major scientific announcement will get you media attention (whether you want it or not) and make you a potential role model (again whether you want it or not). The child will choose.

With regard to Obokata-san, she became a media darling for some weeks. Of all the children who saw that, I cannot believe that none drew any inspiration from her. That none said: "Wow, I want to be like her". And when they see that same media turn on their new-found idol with equal zeal, tear her apart and ultimately wear her down, what then? Undoubtedly, some children were left discouraged, perhaps now seeing science in a negative light. That is unfortunate. So, to answer your second question, her success is relevant.

As for gender, if you believe it has no influence when choosing a role model, kindly reconsider. Beginning early on, children are very perceptive to even subtle social cues and that certainly includes gender. People also gravitate towards "like" things and that includes gender. They may find it easier to imagine themselves as that role model because they "look like me". From time to time, do we not see articles on Slashdot and elsewhere about attempts to encourage girls to consider STEM-related careers? To that extent, a female role model can be a great asset. So, to answer your first question, her gender is relevant.

You seem to have already convicted Obokata-san. There certainly seem to be irregularities in the papers and some stupidly naive mistakes (plagiarism?), but as yet I have not seen absolutely conclusive evidence that the paper's assertions are invalid. I choose to believe Obokata-san is innocent until proven guilty. While fraud is certainly a possibility, don't forget that hatred, jealousy, and professional assassination are not unknown in the realm of research and academia. Egos and money are involved after all.

Give her the chance to prove her and her team's assertions. It is the best choice for science.

Re:Hooray! Science works (1)

harlequinn (909271) | about a month and a half ago | (#47169315)

Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.

The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.

It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.

It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.

"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166077)

"The science of the two papers was rigorously, robustly peer-reviewed as part of our usual editorial procedures. Any inaccuracies in the presentation of data that may have come to light since the peer review are being investigated," the Nature representative wrote. "We are always looking for ways to improve our processes to best serve the community and will continue to do so going forward."

And this is Nature fer chrissakes; not the Journal of Homeopathic Chiropractic Aroma Therapy and Crystal Meditation.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166233)

Do you know understand publication and peer review?
Nature peer review means that the data and methodology looked good and rigorous.
If they laid about the data, or some methodology it's very hard to know that unless if is really obvious.
This is why publication is only the beginning of peer review. After publication other experts can look at it and try to reproduce the results. This is also why the most interesting papers are the second papers.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166507)

I do and supposedly experts (referees) in your field of research are suppose to review the material. Mistakes, easily identifiable, made it past them which should not have:

"First, to take a random example, the Obokata et al. article refers to “pasture pipettes” rather than “Pasteur pipettes.” The existence of such an obvious error suggests that the nine authors, as well as the referees, editors, and copy editors were all, to put it bluntly, slackers. Some of the actions taken by the authors in apparently inappropriately editing and recycling figures might arguably have been uncatchable by the referees and editors, but surely this simple typo should have been caught by someone. Maybe the referees and editors who missed this should be put out to pasture.

More seriously, Nature has some heavy-duty explaining to do. An earlier version of the Obokata et al. paper was rejected, but then the problem-beset version published in late January was finally accepted. I’d like to see Nature, while protecting the identity of the referees, disclose (on their website) all of the editorial correspondence (redacted appropriately) and every version of the submitted papers, so we can all judge whether or not the decision by Nature to accept the papers was appropriate based on the information available to them at the time."

http://www.ipscell.com/tag/rob... [ipscell.com]

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167157)

You're argument comes down to a spelling error? one that probably would have been there even if the data was good? They appear in papers routinely. It's not a red flag by any stretch.

Publication seldom have actual experts in the specific area of the field reviewing papers. One of the reason why I stated that publication is the start of peer review.
For example. they may have a geologist read a paper on magnetic pulses prior to an earth quake, but he may not be an expert in the specific area of geology. If we could have a perfect pre-publication peer review, that would be great, but we can't.

" I’d like to see Nature, ..."
I would to, OTOH most people have no clue how to evaluate situation in context so any thing perceived as an error by the general populace will end up being a nightmare.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167381)

However, we have seen here on /. literally hundreds of times people saying "have you published a peer reviewed paper on that?" as if it should end someone's argument.

This should lay bare the bullcrap that that particular response is. Peer reviewed publication is, as you have said, only the start. Only once years of scrutiny and **reproduction of results** has happened is the hypothesis confirmed. The second part actually being the more important.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (5, Informative)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166249)

If the methodology looked good and the data looked reasonable, it'd pass the initial round of peer review. They don't recreate the experiment as part of the editorial peer review, they just look for things that were overlooked or that don't make sense. It's up to other labs to reproduce the results and subsequently publish their own papers.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (4, Interesting)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166515)

The investigating panel said:

The report also says that the experiments are so poorly documented "that it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to accurately trace or understand her experiments." In a stinging summary, the committee wrote: "Dr. Obokata's actions and sloppy data management lead us to the conclusion that she sorely lacks, not only a sense of research ethics, but also integrity and humility as a scientific researcher."

Again, this is Nature we're talking about. Every time we get one of these situations, the apologists start up with "but peer-review wasn't meant to find that...", and yet the journals themselves are always chest-thumping about how everything they publish is infallible because it was peer-reviewed, except when it isn't, and then it's not their fault. Peer-review is just a crutch. It imparts a false sense on confidence where there shouldn't be any.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166595)

Peer review is not a crutch. It is a necessary, but not sufficient check and balance. That said, the peer reviewers MAY have performed less than admirably (hey, it happens). The part that really has turned up under closer review is her methodology is awful. Peer reviewers tend to work along the assumption that the researcher knows what they are doing. That assumption appears to be incorrect (recall the first three letters of the word). Looking a detailed Materials and Methods is amazingly boring and often not even possible because editors don't want to 'waste' space in their precious journal having somebody detail where they got a reagent from or exactly how they (supposedly) did things.

There is an increasing trend to require authors to put such details in the paper. Typically in a web based supplement (so it doesn't waste space in the precious journal). This trend has started for precisely these reasons.

Nature is going to eat some deserved crow on this one. Fortunately, that is the time tested recipe for improvement.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167213)

Maybe, but remember nature has over 10,000 peer reviewers the volunteer. So is may be the peer reviewers that eat crow.
You can not have a peer review peer review.

http://www.nature.com/authors/... [nature.com]

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47169125)

I've heard of Nature papers being published with only two peer reviewers (not 3 or even 4, standard for other journals).

Also, I've heard of Nature papers where of the two peer reviewers, one correctly pointed out several flaws, while the other actively argued against the first reviewer. And that paper was published.

Nature doesn't give a shit about factual correctness. It's a magazine. They want an audience.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47177353)

Sure you can gave peer review of peer review. See for example Peerage of Science [peerageofscience.org] .

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167197)

"journals themselves are always chest-thumping about how everything they publish is infallible because it was peer-reviewed, "
name one.

natures policy:
http://www.nature.com/authors/... [nature.com]

It isn't perfect, no one says its perfect, and people are involved, so tere will be mistakes. The fact that people make mistakes(intentional (fraud) or unintentional(bias)) is the foundation for the scientific method.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (2)

Stem_Cell_Brad (1847248) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167449)

Yeah, peer review is a horrible system. The only thing it has going for it is that it is better than other method of assessing these sorts of things.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166297)

"The science of the two papers was rigorously, robustly peer-reviewed as part of our usual editorial procedures. Any inaccuracies in the presentation of data that may have come to light since the peer review are being investigated," the Nature representative wrote. "We are always looking for ways to improve our processes to best serve the community and will continue to do so going forward."

And this is Nature fer chrissakes; not the Journal of Homeopathic Chiropractic Aroma Therapy and Crystal Meditation.

Sigh, I'll point out what gets said it every one of these topics:

The point of peer review isn't to uncover fraud. That's the job for follow-up studies (like we saw in this case).

The point of peer review is to catch things like logical flaws. Do the conclusions follow from the data? Are there any obvious problems in the experimental setup? Did they mess up any math anywhere?

Catching fraud usually requires that the experiment be repeated. The initial peer review process of the initial article doesn't (and generally can't) do that. The whole point of the initial article is to put the experiment and the result into the literature and the community consciousness, THEN have other scientists attempt to reproduce the results. The fraud will presumably be caught then, if it exists. It worked in this case.

Now, I'll give you that science has a problem right now where not enough follow-up studies are being done. This means that there is way too much fraud, especially in the life sciences. But this is actually a case where the process seems to have worked pretty well.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166569)

They should be catching typos, but they didn't. This points to a lax review process. There was also a conflict of interest between Nature and Riken, which was not disclosed.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

Xylantiel (177496) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166657)

I'm unsure if you're serious or not.. actually it's the copyeditor's job to catch typos unless they are scientifically relevant. And if you think Nature is a journal and not a journal-like magazine, you are mistaken. TONS of stuff published in Nature turns out to be wrong or overhyped.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167227)

Let me fix that for you:
"TONS of stuff published turns out to be wrong or overhyped."

Thus the scientific method

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (3, Funny)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166597)

I'll have you know that the Journal of Homeopathic Chiropractic Aroma Therapy and Crystal Meditation practices peer review to the highest scientific standards.

To increase potency of the review, 15 scientists are tasked with reviewing each article. One of their reviews is then sent to 10 000 experts, who review the review. This step is repeated a few times. Finally, the resulting review is sent to our chinese editor (who at times is too busy editing other prestigious publications like the American Chinese Traditional Medicine and Voodoo annals and thus delegates this job to his team of highly-trained monkeys) who decides whether to publish or not.

Of course, this review cannot be questioned, otherwise it will never accurately review anything, as the trust between Journal and reviewers is broken.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (0)

Xylantiel (177496) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166741)

Um, you realize that Nature is a magazine, not a journal right? Yes they have peer review but they have a heavy vested interest in publishing exciting-but-possibly-wrong stuff, which they do all the time.

And if results were simply fabricated, peer review can't always catch that as others have said. Though sometimes it is obvious if someone is suddenly able to do something that others have been trying to do but failed, but they can't show WHY it worked for them and not for anyone else. Sometimes quality professional journals, especially in experimental sciences, will have higher peer review standards in that direction than a headline-oriented magazine like Nature.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167243)

"have a heavy vested interest in publishing exciting-but-possibly-wrong stuff,"
no they don't.

" which they do all the time."
no they don't.

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (1)

harlequinn (909271) | about a month and a half ago | (#47169325)

Proof from either of you?

Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47170909)

"have a heavy vested interest in publishing exciting-but-possibly-wrong stuff,"
no they don't.

Proof from either of you?

I'm not the above posters but there's a very obvious vested interested; They make money from selling magazines.

publication is just the beginning of peer review. (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166207)

It also only looks at the data and methodology. if the data is wrong, they have no way of knowing that unless they actually do the experiment.

Re:publication is just the beginning of peer revie (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166537)

You obviously don't know know about the mistakes made in the paper which made it through the review process. Stop now you are out of your depth. Or put another way, how much is Nature paying you to defend them.

Re:publication is just the beginning of peer revie (2)

geekoid (135745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167377)

My statement has nothing to do with Nature. It's a statement on the peer review process in general. Many people think publication is the end of peer review and that a published paper means its been fully vetted.

Nature has over 10,000 people that volunteer. It looks like the ones that did this peer review messed up.
IT's a hard problem. You get peer reviewers, you do your best to be sure they are good. You can't peer review there peer review so you trust them.
That also applies to any organization that has peer reviewers.
Don't confuse my wanting things to be clear, and waiting for more informaiton before damning anyone as excuse making. It is not.

1) Did nature follow their own policy when determining who to peer review the paper?
2) Did Nature have a good reason to trust that peer reviewer initially?
3) Did other peer reviewers bring up issues that were unreasonably dismissed?
and so on.

Like I said, it is a hard problem.

I assure you I am not out of my depth.

Re:publication is just the beginning of peer revie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47167647)

Of course you can peer review peer review. There is an editor assigned to each article. They read the reviews and make the final call. If they are unsure or the reviews seem off in some way, they can add more reviewers or reviewers with specific expertise (i.e. statistics). Many journals also have paid methodologists that they send a limited number of articles to. Over time the editors will build experience with the peer reviewers they pick for articles, and they are supposed to use this experience when reading further reviews.

Re:publication is just the beginning of peer revie (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166917)

It also only looks at the data and methodology.

Except they didn't look at the methodology or do a sanity-check on the data.

From academia to congress to joining a gym, no one fucking reads or thinks - they just sign it to get it off their plate.

Big news in Japan (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47166903)

This whole thing has been very large in Japanese media, largely due to the fact that it was initially reported as a huge discovery by a young female researcher.
 
  The latest article I read just now is about how she (through her lawyer) claims that she was forced to agree to this through huge pressure, that she's very sad about how it leaked out, etc.
 
I don't doubt the pressure part, and I imagine that there's a lot of feelings involved for her and that she believes she's right and that she thinks that the things she did weren't really "in bad spirit", but knowing how easy it is to fool oneself it all seems a bit like someone who doesn't want to accept that it might not quite be what she wanted it to be.

Slippery slope (2)

negnin (975554) | about a month and a half ago | (#47166931)

I think a lot of these cases of fabricating results started relatively small and innocent. Maybe you slacked off all week and your professor is asking you for the results of that experiment you were supposed to run. Maybe you'll just make a little graph that seems reasonable, after all, you'll get those results this week for sure... Next thing you know your boss is asking for the follow up experiments and you're in over your head. The longer this go on the harder it is to come clean and you end up publishing your fabricated results in Nature...

what, no legislation? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47167437)

At least we are not getting a "stem cell tax", heh, blowjobCLIMATEhorsehitCARBOnTAXscienceisalwayssettled

Indifferent (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about a month and a half ago | (#47167537)

Makes no difference to me. I prefer all-natural, organic stem cells, the way God intended, not some Franken-stemer cells cooked up in a lab.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...