tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8685071018234130124..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Scientific misconduct and the nature of scienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-81111325439854118862009-08-06T16:04:23.576-04:002009-08-06T16:04:23.576-04:00I agree with Mann'sWord, that "sacrosanct...I agree with Mann'sWord, that "sacrosanct concepts" defy the supposed self-correction of science. I would add they have done so since Darwin, and science is in unrecognized crisis across the board because of these dogmas. In my limited experience with peer-review of my eventually published papers, I found widespread incompetence among principal investigators in the field (aerosol measurements and their analysis), and a feudal society of competing PI's, whose fundamental incompetences were never treated as more than debating points, never to be finally judged and turned out.<br /><br />As for the crisis I mentioned, read my blog, particularly my "Challenge to Science" posts at<br /><br />http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.htmlHarry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38113740334345222682009-07-18T18:40:11.782-04:002009-07-18T18:40:11.782-04:00Don, thanks for the thoughtful comment, it is much...Don, thanks for the thoughtful comment, it is much appreciated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71326075228315497062009-07-18T15:30:34.161-04:002009-07-18T15:30:34.161-04:00Massimo,
There’s certainly room for reasonable di...Massimo,<br /><br />There’s certainly room for reasonable differences of opinion, hinging in part on what one includes in the “normal” correction mechanisms of science. For Schön at least, failure to replicate did not work (or hadn’t yet), but a highly unusual point-by-point comparison of figures in different articles did. Although, as you noted, few practicing scientists would rely on the referee process alone, I think many would put a lot of faith in replication. But I don’t think it works as well as they would like to believe.<br /><br />In their 1982 book on scientific fraud, “Betrayers of the Truth,” William Broad and Nicholas Wade make this point in a chapter called “The Limits of Replication,” which includes Mark Spector’s work on the kinase cascade at Cornell. As it turns out, he was spiking his samples with a radioactively labeled protein before running gels. This was discovered by his colleague Volker Vogt only after he got his hands on the original gels. As for Schön, Spector’s was highly visible work, but widespread failure to replicate had not uncovered the fraud. Broad and Wade write: “Had it not been for Vogt, the fraud would probably not have been detected until much later, and it might well have escaped attention altogether.”<br /><br />It would be tautological to say that, because a fraud was found, the process worked. The more productive question, which you started to address, is what actions or procedures are actually effective in uncovering fraud. Even the journals would agree that refereeing is not. It is more troubling that, in this and other cases, the “gold standard” of replication is also ineffective. To my mind, the things that did work, checking original gels and individual data points, lie outside of the usual conception of the self-correcting mechanisms of science.<br /><br />Disclosure: I was involved in the Schön case, both before it broke, as described in Reich’s book, and on the committee that investigated it afterward. The opinion here, however, is strictly my own.Don Monroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14057058447791467875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58391939177796470532009-07-18T13:22:35.706-04:002009-07-18T13:22:35.706-04:00Don,
the process did work, Schön is known as a fr...Don,<br /><br />the process did work, Schön is known as a fraud because people looked into his work and couldn't replicate his results.<br /><br />And my point wasn't at all that Reich doesn't take into account the informal part of the review process, only that her conclusion that the self-correcting mechanism of science doesn't work (direct quote in the review) is not warranted.<br /><br />Besides, my post wasn't about the book in particular, it was about misconduct and the nature of science in general.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77317447721364285122009-07-17T10:00:14.869-04:002009-07-17T10:00:14.869-04:00"The biggest fraud that shook the scientific ..."The biggest fraud that shook the scientific world wasn’t really the biggest (I would argue that Piltdown man, the fake missing link “discovered” in England in 1912 was much bigger)<br />"<br /><br />You would? <br /><br /> It didn't shake the scientific community because those who had a lot at stake in the ev world view were immediately on the hunt for a new (series of) missing link(s). Seems like most missing links have been disproven actually. With so many species extinct, one would think that the logic about what links prove would work just about the opposite from what it is purported to. Instead of each link leading to evidence of some kind of improvement or change, it leads instead to the idea that the individual genomes don't have nearly the flexibility that they use to.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83078681104014561422009-07-16T16:49:21.916-04:002009-07-16T16:49:21.916-04:00What about Hwang Woo-Suk?
http://en.wikipedia.org...What about Hwang Woo-Suk?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-SukUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01280482985803143221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4020165154852279082009-07-16T09:34:32.326-04:002009-07-16T09:34:32.326-04:00There is till some debate over educational psychol...There is till some debate over educational psychologist Cyril Burt, but this man's work influenced education policy in the UK and elsewhere for decades. In those terms, his may be the greatest and most serious scientific fraud of all time.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Burt<br /><br />Readers of Stephen Jay Gould may already be familiar with the Piltdown Man forgeries. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_ManTobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755923759289978768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51756002267800416912009-07-15T18:14:47.792-04:002009-07-15T18:14:47.792-04:00I suspect that peer review works fairly well when ...I suspect that peer review works fairly well when it comes to positions where the scientific establishment doesn't have strong vested interests.<br /><br />However, there are the non-negotiable and sometimes barely-examined paradigms that are foundational to our shared philosophies and personal investments. These are often off-limits.Daniel Mannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13952453459481872105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73628271013959873972009-07-15T16:58:14.728-04:002009-07-15T16:58:14.728-04:00I'm not sure about biggest fraud but perhaps m...I'm not sure about biggest fraud but perhaps most serious fraud is:<br /><br />http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/index.asp?section_id=3&show=dept&article_id=12634&ses=ogstjdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34319028874314701922009-07-15T16:25:44.675-04:002009-07-15T16:25:44.675-04:00Massimo,
Thanks for this informative post. I didn...Massimo,<br /><br />Thanks for this informative post. I didn't have much idea of the peer review process, and never had seen the informal review in that perspective.<br /><br />I've no idea of the frauds the readers have talked of above.<br /><br />I agree that valuable resources must have got expended in verification and subsequent rejection of the claims made about plastics, but that's a necessary evil. So many claims that sound extraordinary only serve to provide more-than-gentle push to science.<br /><br />Take care.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18559730769022345062009-07-14T17:44:22.247-04:002009-07-14T17:44:22.247-04:00No, she doesn't really offer any suggestions f...No, she doesn't really offer any suggestions for improvement. She's more descriptive than prescriptive.Don Monroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14057058447791467875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82630349027811996552009-07-14T17:32:22.094-04:002009-07-14T17:32:22.094-04:00Does Reich suggest improvements to the peer-review...Does Reich suggest improvements to the peer-review process which would reduce the likelihood of this kind of occurrence?nfitzgeraldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429844786029255033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34763996347122213382009-07-14T13:55:31.080-04:002009-07-14T13:55:31.080-04:00You really should base your conclusions on the boo...You really should base your conclusions on the book, not just on this review. Reich does <i>not</i>, by any means, exclude the "informal" part from the scientific process. The problem was that, although there was a lot of discomfort over Schön's work, and a widespread failure to replicate it, those problems alone did not stop him: he continued to win prestigious prizes and job offers and to be cited with praise. Contrary to Blume's claim, the "informal" process did not work--or at least had not yet done so.<br /><br />We'd all like to think that "in the long run" the problems would have added up to a rejection of the work. But in the meantime a lot of resources were wasted chasing after a fraud. Schön was eventually derailed only by his sloppy, essentially clerical mistakes--roughly analogous to the photo-manipulation problems in the cloning papers. It is worth asking, as Reich suggests, how long it might have taken to reject the work if he had covered his tracks better.Don Monroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14057058447791467875noreply@blogger.com