Give this one to the NYT. It would be better for their case to imply that image fraud happens more on TV.
Posted on 01/23/2006 10:05:37 PM PST by neverdem
Among the many temptations of the digital age, photo-manipulation has proved particularly troublesome for science, and scientific journals are beginning to respond.
Some journal editors are considering adopting a test, in use at The Journal of Cell Biology, that could have caught the concocted images of the human embryonic stem cells made by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.
At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal's guidelines, said Michael Rossner of Rockefeller University, the executive editor. The editor of the journal, Ira Mellman of Yale, said that most cases were resolved when the authors provided originals. "In 1 percent of the cases we find authors have engaged in fraud," he said.
The two editors recognized the likelihood that images were being improperly manipulated when the journal required all illustrations to be submitted in digital form. While reformatting illustrations submitted in the wrong format, Dr. Rossner realized that some authors had yielded to the temptation of Photoshop's image-changing tools to misrepresent the original data.
In some instances, he found, authors would remove bands from a gel, a test for showing what proteins are present in an experiment. Sometimes a row of bands would be duplicated and presented as the controls for a second experiment. Sometimes the background would be cleaned up, with Photoshop's rubber stamp or clone stamp tool, to make it prettier.
Some authors would change the contrast in an image to eliminate traces of a diagnostic stain that showed up in places where there shouldn't be one. Others would take images of cells from different experiments and assemble them as if all were growing...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Your post in response #2 has been removed because it contained a Getty image. Please do not post it again.
From Sox's brief day in the sun. Yeah, that's a leash. You can even see it in the unmanipulated original, since it crosses the "A" in "GOODYEAR" on his shirt.
This is back from when Sox still served a purpose in humanizing the Krintons. As soon as they left the White House, he was passed along to a secretary, since the Krintons had no use for him, anymore.
At least he was spared the "Buddy" treatment (which is the same as the "Vince Foster" treatment, BTW)...
Remember when photographs didn’t lie?
Cookbook for Flim-Flam
The pressure for cloning's so great
That a researcher might take the bait
And "doctor" his finds to mislead weaker minds.
Which proves -- greed is a strong human trait
Give this one to the NYT. It would be better for their case to imply that image fraud happens more on TV.
What's more interesting about this article is that it's an example of detecting "design" in the sense of distinguishing manipulated pictures....
Journals should only accept photos -- but the trend is the opposite, purely e-submissions.
That's as it should be, tbut integrity of data is harder to guarentee.
In talking with friends the actual thing nowadays is that one can't believe anything in any journal necessarily.
What I find interesting, is that while pointing out the fraud, they still want to call them scientists. This is where we get evolution from.
Darwin said Haeckel's pictures confirmed to him the proof of evolution more than anything else. Darwin never knew they were fake.
LOL -- you beat me to it.
NO, it's a leach, with a cat.
And these same fakes are still being foisted on our school children today, in the name of 'science.'
Never seen that - it's good.
Wow! You've convinced me; that picture sure proves that dogs evolved from birds, and a good thing too, since it would be bad news if they were still flying. :o)
Yes, you can see part of it covering up the A in "YEAR" in the original photo without your contrast manipulation.. Clearly the cat was on a leash.
The first time I saw someone "cleaning up" their gel about ten years ago now I was shocked.
I think it is still debatable whether "removing debris" electronically should be acceptable.
Matters not though as much much more than that is done now.
We simply now, cannot, literally, trust any article.
In some ways we are full circle and ultimately not trusting anything will be a good thing.
"What I find interesting, is that while pointing out the fraud, they still want to call them scientists. This is where we get evolution from."
______________________________________________
Remember its "science" if you propose a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena.....fraud or no fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.