• 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
« Latest score: EPFL 1- MIT 0
We DO have a problem »

When rigour deserts science we are left with quackery

May 31, 2013 by ferniglab


Update June 5
Standards, who needs them? I am just back from the E-MRS spring meeting in Strasbourg, which was most enjoyable, though someone seems to have forgotten about the “Spring” bit. Meanwhile, out in the world of science we continue to witness ridiculous decisions regarding manipulated and falsified data by journals and a quite stunning self-justification by a materials scientist who looks to be the next serial fraudster.

First up, the much heralded stem cell paper in Cell, three days from submission to acceptance, which readers spotted was full of manipulated images. Cell pulls the “Dictionary of Euphemisms” off the shelf, makes some weak excuses, hoping that we will all move one. Nice posts on Retraction Watch with extended comments here and here.
Second Retraction Watch reports on the outcome of an investigation by McGill of papers published by Maya Saleh. It is worth quoting once again the conclusions regarding a PNAS and a Nature paper of Salaeh’s:

“two figures in [a] Nature paper had been “intentionally contrived and falsified.” One of those figures was duplicated in a PNAS paper, which also contained an image that had incorrectly labeled some proteins”

What happens? Nature issues corrections.

Amazing really. Just think. A student cheats, is formally investigated and found to have indeed cheated. The student is then is allowed to “correct” their work, outside the exam and at their leisure. Makes sense every time.

Are we wasting out time bringing these problems to the fore? NO. One only has to remember three things:
1. This is public money being spent.
2. The amount of non-reproducible science published, which I posted on recently here.
2. Science fraud has the potential to kill people, see my posts on Anil Potti and the links therein here and here.

Now to the fake blog the reason for this update.
Fake blog here.
Real blog here.
I was quite fascinated, as I read it because I felt that I was getting a first hand insight into the mind of a science fraudster. I went to re-read the interview in the New York Times of Stapel, the fraudulent psychologist by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee. The arrogance and method are remarkably similar. The self-justification too. Reading the fake blog I got a feeling I was reading part of the transcript of Stapel’s interview.
Update 3 November 2013

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Imaging, Nanotechnology, Post publication peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing | Tagged imaging, Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology, research, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress | 6 Comments

6 Responses

  1. on June 1, 2013 at 9:04 am QI

    These are very strong accusations, I assume you will post some evidence that Stellacci is writing the ‘fake’ blog?


    • on June 1, 2013 at 11:21 am ferniglab

      The evidence for the authorship of the Fake blog is circumstantial. I have put forward my view that it is Stellacci, if it isn’t, then I will happily admit I was wrong on this. I fully subscribe to the Feynman approach to science.
      In contrast, recall that that Fraud is to intentionally deceive for personal gain. That fits the data and significantly nothing from the Stellacci lab suggests that the stripes are anything than an artefact. The misconduct in papers and the continued benefit drawn from the misconduct and the artefact leads to the charge of Fraud.


  2. on June 5, 2013 at 9:32 pm ferniglab

    Update June 5 due to lack of data forth coming on the identity of the author of the fake blog and fake tweeter.


  3. on August 15, 2013 at 9:33 am Does science self-right? | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] points to the contrary and I have posted about this at length for example, with respect to “stripy nanoparticles“. A recent example from the literature is “Chopstick Nanorods” Anumolu et al., […]


  4. on September 16, 2013 at 3:05 pm Getting science right side up | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] abuse of data, either through re-using data to illustrate a different experiment, something I have posted on before (and here and others here), or through heavy cut and paste, as in a recent case at Cancer Cell may […]


  5. on September 26, 2013 at 12:07 pm Is peer review broken? | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] excellent points, which echoes the frustrations vented in a number of my posts (some examples here and here), is that editors really need to act like editors, not just some sort of conduit. That is, […]



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
  • May 2013
    M T W T F S S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
    « Apr   Jun »
  • 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

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: