• Home
  • Development of Heparin and HS Glycotherapeutics
  • Lab
  • People

Ferniglab Blog

The personal blog of Dave Fernig, thoughts on science and unrelated matters

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« No news is bad news for science
Data re-use warrants correction at Nature Materials »

Fee-fi-fo-fum…

March 6, 2013 by ferniglab


Raphael notes in a post today on his blog entitled “On my [Pep Pàmies] comments on Lévy’s blog” that the apologia written in a private capacity by Pep Pamies, an editor at Nature Materials has been removed. A cached version has been unearthed and is posted for the record on Raphael’s blog.

To recap, Pep had been defending the data of Francesco Stellacci supporting the separation of ligands on nanoparticles into stripes; he eventually revealed himself to be an editor at Nature Materials, which surprised many and angered a few. As I commented earlier, one aspect I found worrying was the fact that Pep was not taking a strong line against data re-use.

So why the disappearance of his comments? My own speculation is that some giant has awoken from a deep slumber to find annoying disorder in his (or her) castle. As various fairy tales teach us, in such situations (quite common in fairy tales) giants tend to react somewhat violently towards anyone unfortunate to be within striking distance. We should not forget that giants have quite a long reach – that is why they are giants, after all!

Of course it may not be a giant – dragons, I understand from my reading of wise tomes such as Farmer Giles of Ham and The Hobbit, have similar tendencies as giants. Plus dragons can fly, so their reach is greater than that of a giant.

Nevertheless, I remain confident, perhaps over confident, that giants are only so big, dragons can only fly so far and that the world is far larger than their reach. The consequence is that there will always be a safe haven for information. After all, history teaches us that the movement of information out of the reach of an irate giant or dragon has been critical in preserving open debate and democracy and, hence, science. Indeed, the unexpected (temporary) disappearance of information often only serves to stoke the curiosity of Homo sapiens.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Nanotechnology, Research integrity, Science process | Tagged Nanoparticle, Nanotechnology, Research integrity, Science progress | 8 Comments

8 Responses

  1. on March 7, 2013 at 10:06 am Pep

    Dave, your story about giants and dragons is amusing, but as often with your written posts and comments of late, it is venomous and wrong.

    Reality is more boring: My Columbia online account (including web space and e-mail address) expired after a grace period, as I have not been affiliated with Columbia for quite a while.

    From an automatic e-mail I received from samurai@columbia.edu: “Please be advised that your Columbia (Cyrus) email system access via jp2766 will expire early on 02/15/2013. If you are an employee and you believe you are still eligible, please contact your department administrator.”

    I plan to revive my blog on another computer platform, but I haven’t yet had time to do so. Glad that Raphäel reposted my note meanwhile.


  2. on March 7, 2013 at 11:26 am ferniglab

    I wouldn’t say venomous, just injecting some humour. To recall, the giant in the fairy tale smells the blood of an Englishman, which leaves many of the commentators in the clear, though not myself.

    I am truly relieved that it is the usual grey administration rather than anything else – there are more than enough giants and dragons around. Happily there are none in the stripy nanoparticle discussions, which continue to be reasonable and fair. There are no “sharp elbows” and no comments or posts which I would see earning a red card for content or intent.

    I would recommend WordPress as a blogging site. They are very good and if you saw the false DCMA takedown notice suffered by Retraction Watch, they do not over react to giants and dragons!


  3. on March 7, 2013 at 11:12 pm Pep

    Dave,

    I disagree. The ‘stripy nanoparticle’ discussions have been unreasonable and unfair.

    Raphäel Lévy is in a quest to prove his preconceived story by ignoring facts that do not fit into his narrative.

    Philip Moriarty boasts opinionated, premature conclusions before the relevant data can be collected and analyzed by the criticized authors, by others or by him.

    Predrag Djuranovic has been treated as an authority on the subject despite that apparently he has yet to graduate.

    You actively search for instances of data re-use and then rush to make toxic judgments about how such mistakes came to be or should be dealt with.

    Exposing problems related to published scientific literature is, of course, good for science. Cherry-picking evidence, stating premature conclusions as if they were facts, and making speedy judgements damages the fair and (often necessarily slow) progress of science. Finding and voicing potential scientific flaws is easy. Carrying out the appropriate experiments and analysis that the scientific process demands takes substantially more time than writing blog posts.

    The ball is on Francesco Stellacci and co-authors’ court. It’s on their own interest to correct/admit any outstanding problems and defend their work when they are ready. Only when sufficient evidence is on the table the relevant scientific community will arrive at a consensus about this debate.

    Yours, Raphäel’s and Philip’s rushed conclusions are damaging to the process. And prejudiced views and hyperbole should not be disguised as reasonable scientific discussion.

    (Needless to say, this is my personal opinion, not that of my employer.)


  4. on March 8, 2013 at 12:37 am Pep

    P.S. As I did with Lévy’s blog, I will also refrain from entering into further discussion on the matter on this blog.


  5. on March 8, 2013 at 11:08 am Philip Moriarty

    @Pep.

    Opinionated? Moi? Surely you jest!

    😉

    I can readily accept that I am dogged and dogmatic about this ( and many other aspects of science ). That’s a fair criticism.

    What’s rather less fair is to suggest that my (and Raphael’s and Pedja’s) conclusions are premature. Some of the STM data have been in the literature for almost a decade. It’s clear to see that the conclusions are not supported by the data for the reasons we have discussed at length in a series of posts at Raphael’s blogs. Raphael did a great job recently of summarizing the key aspects of this convoluted debate .

    You state,

    The ball is on Francesco Stellacci and co-authors’ court. It’s on their own interest to correct/admit any outstanding problems and defend their work when they are ready .

    Over the last few months I have repeatedly asked Francesco to send me the raw data underpinning the conclusions in his group’s papers. He has repeatedly failed to send me that data. As you know, Nature Publishing Group’s own guidelines do not mandate authors to provide raw data “when they are ready”, as you suggest. Instead, those guidelines correctly state that “authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without undue qualifications.”

    I asked you at the start of the year to provide examples of our “prejudiced views and hyperbole”, as you put it – a claim that you have made previously. Those examples haven’t been forthcoming.

    Predrag Djuranovic has been treated as an authority on the subject despite that apparently he has yet to graduate.

    That comment really does not do you any credit at all, Pep. Arguments from authority are never convincing. Predrag’s discussion of the feedback loop artifacts is clear and compelling. Rather than stooping to ad hominem slurs, please engage with the arguments.

    Philip


  6. on March 8, 2013 at 1:17 pm Li Jinfeng

    Hello again, “Pep”.
    You don’t need to have a PhD to contribute to these discussions / controversy in constructive ways. Predrag Djuranovic may have not graduated yet – as you as stressing – but, having read his comments and yours, I have so much more respect to him than to you – with your PhD and numerous postdocs.
    And who knows, maybe people signing themselves as “Someone has to say it” or “It’s about for game to end” have not only PhDs, but also hold Professor positions?


  7. on March 10, 2013 at 2:41 am Anonymous

    Agree with Dave’s previous comments that data duplication and self-plagiarism are not acceptable. Also agree with the comment, “We should not forget that giants have quite a long reach – that is why they are giants, after all!”. Indeed, wrong doings of folks in leadership positions are kept under wraps by the academic insititutions and editors. In earlier comments, I pointed out the case of Dr. Ziwei Huang, Director of Upstate Cancer Institute and Chairman of Pharmacology Department at Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York.
    A recent report (http://gumtalk.wordpress.com/) identifies that one of his papers published in Current Opinion in Chemical Biology “appears to have plagiarized from at least 8 different publications and a course material.” As of yet no action taken by Upstate Medical University or editors of the journal. Checked some of his other publications and found multiple instances of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Perhpas Dave or anyone else would like to look into this further. Can provide list of other suspect publications if needed.


  8. on March 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm Data re-use warrants correction at Nature Materials | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] Stellacci, Nature Materials 7, 588 – 595 (2008). Thanks to Pep (despite stating he would no longer comment on this blog) for pointing this out in a comment on my blog entitled […]



Comments are closed.

  • Places of interest

    The one and only PhD comics, the guide to being a graduate and to mentoring.

    Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels

    Retraction Watch provides updates on retractions of articles.

    Office for Research Integrity, their video should be compulsory for all.

    Centre for Alternative Technology

    Lateral Science, has some quite stunning information - well worth a browse.

    Fascinating places that have been closed by lawyers

    Science Fraud, shut down due to legal threats on Jan 3 2013. and Abnormal Science

  • Blogroll

    • WordPress.com
    • WordPress.org
  • Funding agencies

    • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
    • Cancer and Polio Research Fund
    • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
    • Liverpool Pancreas NIHR Biomedical Research Unit
    • Medical Research Council
    • North West Cancer Research
  • Seminars

    • Cancer Research UK Centre
  • March 2013
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
    « Feb   Apr »
  • Archives

    • November 2022
    • July 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • May 2021
    • March 2021
    • August 2020
    • June 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • December 2019
    • October 2019
    • July 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • January 2019
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • October 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • March 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
  • Follow me on Twitter

    My Tweets
  • Cloud

    American Civil War antithrombin III banana Biological imaging biotechnology Brexit Choanoflagellates chocolate chondroitin sulfate coagulation Confederate States covid19 DN Lee Education EU EU referendum Europe extracellular matrix FGF Fibroblast growth factor Food FRET sensors Gish Gallop glycosaminoglycans GMO government Graduate students heparan sulfate heparin history of science imaging Irvine Stephens Bulloch James Bulloch James Dunwoody Bulloch Liverpool microbiology Nanoparticle Nanoparticles Nanotechnology neuroscience nmr Open Access Open Data orange Parliament Peer Review PhD polysaccharide port sunlight Post publication peer review protein chemistry REF research Research Excellence Framework Research integrity Roast SARS-CoV-2 science Science and Technology Committee Science fraud Science Funding Science progress Scientific American Seminars sorbet speaking strawberry sulfation Sulfotransferase synthetic biology Teaching technology transfer Tourism Travel Universities

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Join 73 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: