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 ...
Citation please.
I just noticed this. OK.
First, are you seriosuly challenging or questioning this post?
Yes. I'd never heard that Darwin was greatly interested in Haeckel's hypothesis.
I think this was in a Nature article about Haeckel's hoax drawings. But it could have been in a number of other things I've recently read.
I appreciate your non-emotional attitude in this response.
And, to clarify one more thing, which I think you've implied: you are not challenging that Haeckel's drawings were hoaxed or distorted?
You want some examples of evolutionists who are Marxists?
Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin are evolutionary biologists. They view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. How about Jonathan Beckwith , professor of microbiology at Harvard. At MIT we have Jonathan King and Noam Chomsky. Stephen Gould admits to his Marxism and actually lauds the way science is informed by his beliefs. Many of these people are members of a radical organization called "Science for the People," which grew out of the campus rebellions and anti-war protests of the 60's.
Richard Levins and Lewontin stated "Scientists, like other intellectuals, come to their work with a worldview, a set of preconceptions that provides the framework for their analysis of the world."
That's just for starters..........There's also Dawkins...
I think you should check your post again: indeed you did ask for examples which I provided and there are many more US "scientists" who admit they are Marxists. If you wanted examples of fraud you perhaps should have framed your question more clearly. I note someone else is giving you examples but you don't acknowledge these frauds. Indeed, you are simply another zealot who marches towards a different beat.
I don't think many people use scanners any longer. Digital cameras have all but replaced film.
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.