Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

More Troubles For Authors of Controversial Acid-Bath Stem Cell Articles 99

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the all-the-great-ideas-are-lies dept.
bmahersciwriter writes "Reports early this year about a strikingly simple method for deriving pluripotent stem cells were met with amazement and deep skepticism, then claims that the experiments were not reproducible, then accusations of copied and manipulated figures. Now, the first author of one of the papers is being lambasted for having copied the first 20 pages of her doctoral thesis from an NIH primer on stem cells. And an adviser on her thesis committee says he was never asked to review it. Could this get any stranger? Probably!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Troubles For Authors of Controversial Acid-Bath Stem Cell Articles

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @10:03AM (#46523835)

    The original paper claimed that you could use any cell to get the special property that the embryonic researchers keep insisting is the reason they should keep getting the majority of the stem cell funding. Because the original claim would make stem cell research easier, multiple sets of grad students were assigned to replicate the results and bring in the new strains of research-grade stem cells. Only because every group of such grad students failed to reproduce the results has anyone started reading deeper.

    The fact that this 'test and debunk' response is so rare is a serious problem. The problem has many factors feeding it, such as the 'publish or perish' dogma in research schools as well as the 'I'm a researcher, not a lecturer' mindset of enough university professors. Even if that Stanford Institute of Actually Testing Things stays pure to its goal and unaffected by politics (inter-university politics are my biggest concern, but any politicking will be a problem), it will not be able to make a significant dent in the massive pile of worthless 'discoveries' that have no basis in reality. Every school needs a retesting group.

  • Re:Motive? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Marco Tedaldi (3390641) on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @10:25AM (#46523977)
    The Motive is clear: In today science landscape it's "publish or perish". And if you get published in Science, you're a big star. There are many many papers out there that are using fake data, plagiarizing stuff and so on. It's a game. If you get published, you have won the first round. Maybe someone is able to reproduce the work with some minor tweaks. Than, you're the hero and someone else did your work. And there is still the chance, that no one notices because they are ashamed, because they are ashamed, that they have not been able to reproduce your work. I boldly state that 5% to 10% of published results are not "clean" in one way or another! Only a small percentage of these papers will ever be found. And even after papers are found to be "flawed", sometimes the publisher does not retract it. And even retracted papers still collect citations. The scientific publication system is heavily messed up and play into the hands of a few big publishing houses and some crooks!
  • by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @10:50AM (#46524193)
    Oh yes, I also forgot about the proof that Noah's Ark took place exactly as described in the Bible.

    Give me the publicantions and research where Pro-AGW factions engaged in scientific fraud.

    Since you said it, you must know the exact citations. Show the exact fraud.

    Right?

  • by hawkfish (8978) on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @02:09PM (#46525813) Homepage

    Give me the publicantions (sic) and research where Pro-AGW factions engaged in scientific fraud.

    Well, this [theguardian.com] comes to mind. Why cover up the data? Maybe he was cleared of all wrong-doing, but this was one of the first hits when I searched for "Global Warming Fraud".

    You typed something into Google and got hits. Wow, now that is deep research! Did you notice that at the top of your link was this [theguardian.com]?

1 Dog Pound = 16 oz. of Alpo

Working...