• 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
« My opinion: pure bovine excrement
Onwards and upwards »

Are we there yet?

November 18, 2014 by ferniglab


The question relates to what Langmuir termed “Pathological Science”, simply put “people are tricked into false results … by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions“. There is a lot of pathological science and I only use the examples below, because I am most familiar with them; for nanoparticles, I have a personal interest in understanding these materials, since I use them to try to make biological measurements, e.g., here.

At long last, the paper of Julian Stirling and colleagues on the absence of stripes in self-assembled ligand shells on gold nanoparticles is published in PLOS One. This paper was a bit of a saga (see PubPeer comments here, Raphael’s post here and Brian’s post here).

To summarise very briefly, there is no evidence for ligands on gold nanoparticles organising into stripes. There is evidence of phase separation, but then many have published data consistent with phase separation of ligand mixtures on nanoparticles, my own example is in Fig. 2 of a paper we published in Langmuir in 2008.

So that is the end, right?

No, as noted on Raphael’s and Brian’s blogs, we still have papers being published in credible journals in 2014 on the properties of nanoparticles with stripes (see links in their posts, above).

This really highlights some of the problems with scientific publishing. Peer review can be weak/poor/non-existent. At the extreme, we have papers that have clear problems with data integrity, for example the “chopstick nanorods” paper
(see post on Retraction Watch) and the STAP stem cell papers (one of several posts on Retraction Watch). One has to ask how did these get past the PI and then past the editor and reviewers? Was everyone asleep, or happy to push out something topical to massage their CV and impact factor, with no regard to the quality of experimental evidence? After all, post-publication peer review picked up the problems within days, yet pre-publication peer review had weeks with the manuscripts.

The above are extremes, though there are plenty of more examples like these. Moving to the middle ground, we have a critical examination of experimental evidence and this is found wanting; yet the publishing system trundles on, oblivious. So while the evidence for stripes does not exist, I predict that papers making claims for such nanoparticles will continue to be published.

This raises interesting questions regarding science and publishing. In general terms, we seem to have entered N-ray territory without exerting critical faculties. It is interesting to note that in the case of N-rays, just as many decades later with Jacques Benveniste’s claims for water memory (see here and here) Nature sent a scientist(s) in to evaluate the evidence and found that this was lacking. This effectively killed off N-rays and water memory at the time. I would further note that in the 21st Century Nature and other journals have abdicated this responsibility to engage with data critically, witness the response of Nature to the STAP cell paper retractions. and discussions on PubPeer relating to the sensitivity of bulk detection of single/very low numbers of molecules (e.g., here).

So where journals used to engage in critical evaluation, they have now apparently given up on this task. Perhaps they are instead focussed on the nonsensical number enshrined in their impact factor?

I would argue that this leaves science publishing in a rather bad state. To his credit, while Francesco Stellacci has clearly felt threatened by criticism of his data and has not engaged in discussions on PubPeer, he has provided his original data to the authors of the PLOS One paper. This is extremely important and I will say it again: credit is due, regardless of process.

Since critical evaluation of data is the foundation of science, it is obvious that we should have access to original data. So while Open Access is touted as a solution, it is not. Open Access is part of the solution, Open Data is the solution. Until data are accessible by all to scrutinise, many “discoveries” will remain unchallenged, Pathological Science will flourish and Science will be the poorer.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Nanotechnology, Peer review, Post publication peer review, Research integrity, Science process, Science publishing | Tagged Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology, Research integrity, science, Science fraud, Science progress | 1 Comment

One Response

  1. on January 27, 2015 at 12:21 pm The real problems of post publication peer review | Ferniglab Blog

    […] mirrored across multiple papers with no response. This looks to me like a potential class of “Pathological Science” and there is so much to read that I need as many filters as […]



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
  • November 2014
    M T W T F S S
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    « Oct   Dec »
  • 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: