Bad Science – 2011
Bad Science-2011Dmitry Tselikov, Compulenta
Science is no stranger to scandals. Then it turns out that a world-renowned scientist forged the results of the study, then technical errors or banal negligence will be found. Sometimes the proceedings drag on for several years.
So get your spoons ready, we'll pour some tar into them. Just don't forget about the barrels of honey.
[1] Diederik Stapel, who headed the Research Institute of Behavioral Economics at Tilburg University (the Netherlands), became the embodiment of the saying that too much good is harmful. This man churned out sensational articles, penetrating into the very essence of human nature and getting on the front pages of the world's largest media. But the envious found out that there was a typical churovism – mass falsification of research results. At least thirty articles have been withdrawn (!), and observers believe that their number may increase to a hundred. Among the most curious conclusions of Mr. Stapel, which turned out to be lies: thinking about meat makes a person rude; a chaotic environment makes us believe stereotypes more; garbage on the streets and graffiti on the walls increase the level of crime, hatred, discrimination.
Diederik Stapel, anti-scientist of the year. Look into those honest eyes. (Photo by Joris Buijs / PVE.)
[2] "KL" has just written about this, but there is no way to ignore this subject. A 2009 article was withdrawn, which claimed that there was a link between chronic fatigue syndrome and the mouse leukemia virus. A number of laboratories were unable to obtain these results. A scandal? Still what! The article was quoted about two hundred times. In addition, the lead author of the study, Judy Mikowitz, who worked as the director of the Whittemore–Peterson Institute (USA), refused to give up laboratory laptops, handing them over to subordinates and leaving for another city. It was qualified as a criminal offense; now the lady is awaiting trial.
[3] Paolo Sebastiani, a biostatistician at Boston University (USA), withdrew a sensational article that described 19 genes that allegedly prolong life. Immediately after publication, critics suspected that the detected correlation was the result of an error in the sequencing chip. Repeating the study, the scientists showed that the correlation is not so impressive.
[4] At the end of 2010, NASA employee Felisa Wolf-Simon and her colleagues reported the discovery of bacteria in Mono Lake that not only survived with an unusually high concentration of arsenic and low phosphorus levels, but also incorporated arsenic into the main DNA chain. However, critics soon questioned the results, noticing errors in DNA extraction and the presence of phosphates in an allegedly phosphate-free environment. The journal Science has published eight technical comments about the article, but has not yet decided on its review.
[5] In 2008, the skeptic Edward Wegman from the University named after George Mason (USA) published an article in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, in which he proved the inconsistency of the generally accepted view of climate change. It turned out, however, that the author is a godless plagiarist who did not hesitate even to quote from Wikipedia without specifying the source.
[6] The RAND Corporation withdrew an article stating that the free distribution of marijuana by prescription led to a decrease in the crime rate in the relevant areas of Los Angeles. The researchers concluded that the decrease (very small, I must say) is more likely due to the installation of surveillance cameras and the appearance of guards in such pharmacies. In addition, the data collection methodology itself was criticized: information about crimes was taken from the site CrimeReports.com . The statistics of the city police department were not taken into account. It should be noted that the public and politicians are actively breaking spears about the free distribution of marijuana: either this initiative reduces crime, or, on the contrary, contributes to it. So the topic is hot.
[7] In 2009, the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a completely fantastic statement by zoologist Donald Williamson that the ancestors of modern butterflies mistakenly fertilized their eggs with the seed of velvet worms. They say that this is why caterpillars are present in the life cycle of butterflies. Evolutionary biologists just laughed. Probably, because of the obvious nonsense of this hypothesis, no one began to seek a review of the article. But when Symbiosis magazine published another work by Mr. Williamson on the same topic this year, the scientific world shuddered and rebelled - and this article was withdrawn.
[8] In 2009, the Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery published an equally fabulous study by Indian "specialists" who claimed that appendicitis can be managed by a conservative method – with the help of antibiotics. In 2010, a group of Italian surgeons published a very polite letter in the same journal, in which they listed all the questions about the methodology of their colleagues' research. The Indians did not give up, sending a detailed response to the editorial office, in which, in particular, they called for organizing large-scale testing of antibiotics on patients with an appendicitis attack. The magazine could not tolerate such impudence and pointed the article to the door, although the official reason was called plagiarism: they say, this was already written about in 1995 and 2000.
* * *
A number of last year's scandals have also been developed.
[1] Virologist Naoki Mori from Ryukyu University (Japan) was suspended last year for duplicating images, which led to the withdrawal of twenty articles. In 2011, it turned out that one of these papers - dedicated to the discovery of an apoptosis inhibitor and published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications – was co–authored with University President Teruo Iwamasa. The latter claims that he was not aware of the plagiarism of the illustrations.
[2] Harvard cognitive researcher Mark Hauser resigned in July as colleagues voted to ban him from teaching this fall and restrict research. A well-known scientist, the author of the book Moral Minds, in 2010 withdrew a 2002 article in which he showed that Oedipus tamarins are capable of generalizing images. In addition, two more studies were questioned, one of which was corrected and the other was confirmed.
[3] Another article by French immunologist Sylvia Bulfon-Po was withdrawn for incorrect information about the illustration. Last year, the director of the Borstel research center refused twelve jobs and was forced to resign after an investigation revealed a large-scale data fraud. The blame was laid on two former postdocs who worked in her laboratory – Elena Bulanova and Vadim Budagyan, but in this case they were not co-authors of the article. Ms. Bulfon-Po wrote it when she was not yet working at Borstel.
[4] The families of patients who died of breast cancer sued Duke University (USA) for the fact that its staff forged a statistical analysis of the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Oncologist Anil Potti confessed everything last year. The plaintiffs suspect that the university management was aware of the fraud.
[5] In May, the US Office of Scientific Ethics announced the results of an investigation that showed that postdoc Vipul Bhrigu was indeed guilty of an official offense. Postgraduate student Heather Ames almost went crazy: the results of experiments were constantly spoiled. She asked to go to her friend's lab, and everything turned out fine there. The girl suspected foul play. Indeed, a video was soon discovered showing Mr. Bhrigu spoiling the samples. In July 2010, he pleaded guilty to intentional destruction of property and received six months probation, as well as a fine of $ 10 thousand.
Prepared based on the materials of Scientist (Top Science Scandals of 2011) and LiveScience (Doh! Top Science Journal Retractions of 2011).
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru
28.12.2011