Stem Cell Research Paper Recalled 112
MattSparkes writes "One of the best-known stem cell papers describes adult cells that seemed to hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells. Now some of the data contained within the paper is being questioned, after staff at a consumer science magazine noticed errors. It shows how even peer-reviewed papers can sometimes 'slip through the net' and get to publication with inaccurate data."
No shit sherlock. (Score:5, Informative)
Peer review is self correcting (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the process can take time, and god forbid you were the poor grad student that spend 3 years heading down a blind alley, but this episode just reaffirms that overall, the process works.
Re:Talk about stem cells... (Score:4, Informative)
not just "sometimes" (Score:3, Informative)
It shows how even peer-reviewed papers can sometimes 'slip through the net' and get to publication with inaccurate data."
How about the misandry-filled assertations about how women use more words than men, have brains more "wired" for communication, etc? Turns out that everyone's been quoting each other and nobody can even stick to facts interview to interview [boston.com].
What's appalling is that the author, Dr. Brizendine, not only holds a top academic position, but also has a best selling book that is full of "facts" that are complete fabrications.
Re:No shit sherlock. (Score:3, Informative)
Much of peer review involves checking the form, rather than the substance, of the paper. Does the paper follow proper protocal? Is it clearly written? Are the references complete and correct? Should it be shortened or added to?
The substance of the paper also comes into it, of course, but the reviewer is very limited as to what he or she can do when it comes to checking the validity of the claims.
Re:Somebody should tell the king... (Score:3, Informative)
See, people like you trolling a debate they know nothing about would make me ashamed to be an American (if I was one). Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells, which has no significance at all in regard to the current political/moral question of embryonic stem cells. They're two totally different things, obtained through totally different processes.
Re:Somebody should tell the king... (Score:5, Informative)
people like you trolling a debate they know nothing about would make me ashamed to be an American (if I was one). Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells, which has no significance at all in regard to the current political/moral question of embryonic stem cells.
Actually, they are completely relevant to the moral/political question of embryonic stem cells, in so far as embryonic stem cell opponents have been using these adult stem cells to have their cake and eat it too.
Specifically, they've been tying the hands of researchers due to their religious beliefs and then shielding themselves from criticism by claiming "oh, we don't need embryonic cells anyway, because adult stem cells are just as good." Here is one example [nationalreview.com].
Supposed to, but often doesn't (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No shit sherlock. (Score:3, Informative)
You beat me to it. A lot of journals only use 1 or 2 reviewers. 3 is the most I've ever heard of. Reviewers are neither paid for their work nor given a lot of time to do it, so some really just phone it in. Even the more thorough ones: we're talking essentially 3 chances to find a mistake. I've rievewed papers and if I notice a mistake I'll certainly point it out even if it's just a grammar, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that I didn't manually overlay their graph with every other paper they've written to check for a mistake like the one mentioned in the article. That's the kind of mistake it takes 10000 pairs of eyes to catch.
To put it in terms a typical slashdotter should understand, that would be like expecting a program to be completely bug free after 4 revisions. Of course part of the process is that after it's been published, it's expected that other scientists will look at the paper and catch things reviewers might have missed...kind of like the open source coding model.