Intelligent Design Medicine Peer review

Learning from one of “science’s biggest frauds” (we hope)

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

That would be Yoshihiro Sato, whose misdeeds in this matter have prompted the retraction of over 60 studies so far. A fellow bone health researcher gave serious attention to the question:

The analysis is one of just a few to look closely at research-misconduct investigations, and the first to use a systematic approach to rate them, says C. K. Gunsalus, a specialist in research integrity at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, who was not part of the analysis. Too many research-misconduct investigations turn out to be inadequate or flawed, says Gunsalus, who had a hand in creating a 26-point checklist2 that university officials can use to guide probes into research misconduct, which Grey’s team used to rate the investigations.

The checklist questions an investigation’s scope, reliability and impact — for instance, whether the investigating committee included external members and whether evidence could have been tampered with. The team independently assessed each investigation report using the checklist; one report had addressed none of the points adequately and two others properly addressed only two or three points. “Overall, each report was considered unacceptable,” say Grey and colleagues.

Holly Else, “What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds” at Nature

See also: Most chemistry papers are retracted for serious, not trivial, problems

and

A study of the causes of science skepticism sails right by the most obvious cause of skepticism: Repeated untrustworthiness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Learning from one of “science’s biggest frauds” (we hope)

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    But the funding is just SITTING THERE waiting for a project, ANY project, to get approved. “We need to put another hundred million into Research…”

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    Cool we should spend millions more dollars on the IKEA effect. Let’s ignore the fact that most people that expend energy and experience pain putting something together probably don’t want to see it broken because of the effort that they put into it. We have to find the scientific cause

  3. 3
    vmahuna says:

    AaronS1978 @ 2–
    The US Navy has simply THROWN AWAY what may turn out to be a TRILLION (with a T) USDs on the new class of “all electric” (NO hydraulics, NO pneumatics…) aircraft carriers. The lead ship FLUNKED Sea Trials (um, it can’t reliably launch aeroplanes using its fancy new “rail gun” electric catapults…). Fixing the MANY problems would cost more than the original construction and might be IMPOSSIBLE. There are 3 or 4 “follow ships” in the class in advanced stages of construction. It will apparently be CHEAPER to simply scrap them at the construction yard than try to fix THEM. And the US Navy has NOTHING ELSE in the carrier pipeline.
    But, hey, a BUNCHA people got BIG paychecks for the last 20 years, so what damage was really done?

    Oh, and of course F-35 fighters don’t work either. But that’s no reason to stop production of THEM. Why, some people in California wouldn’t get PAYCHECKS.

    Funding for Science research would be some kind of rounding error in DoD’s budget.

  4. 4
    martin_r says:

    i got one for you:

    Nobel price laureate Jack Szostak – known worldwide for his origin of life research,

    RetractionWatch.com:

    ”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

    Jack Szostak: “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments.”

    https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/

  5. 5
    Marfin says:

    We have to view academia just like sports in that people will cheat to get what they want, and will convince themselves that what they are doing is not really cheating.The problem is then compounded by the fact that if the work they are doing brings fame, fortune,and power to those who are running said sport , or academia ,they will support said cheat in their cheating. I knew Lance Armstrong was doping 20 years ago , how did I know its because he was winning and beating know drug cheats.
    Sport is absolutely riddled with drug and lots of other type of cheats why would any other field of human endeavour inc science and academia be any different.

Leave a Reply