Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Five decades after it was revealed as a forgery, the Piltdown man still haunts paleoanthropology. Now, thanks to the disgraced stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang, cell biology has a high-profile scandal of its own to live down. Few recent papers in biology have soared as high in acclaim as Hwang's 2004 and 2005 announcements of cloning human embryonic stem cells -- or plummeted as fast into infamy with the discovery that they were rank fakes.
Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is no less promising today than it was before Hwang's deceit was revealed; most investigators continue to believe that it will eventually yield revolutionary medical treatments. That no one has yet derived ESCs from cloned human embryos simply means that the science is less advanced than has been supposed over the past two years.
Still, Hwang has badly sullied the reputation of a field that already has more than its share of political and public relations problems. Some longtime opponents of ESC research will undoubtedly argue that Hwang's lies only prove that the investigators cannot be trusted to conduct their work ethically, and the public may believe them. This is one more crime against science for which Hwang should be ashamed. (A minor footnote to this affair is our removal of Hwang from the 2005 Scientific American 50 list; see the retraction on page 16.)
In recent years, fabricated data and other fakery have been uncovered in work on materials, immunology, breast cancer, brain aneurysms, the discovery of new elements and other subjects. As the volume of publication rises, fraud will probably rise with it. Because of the growing financial ties between university researchers and corporations, not to mention the jockeying for leadership among nations in high-stakes areas such as stem cells, some scientists may feel more pressure to deliver results quickly -- even if they have to make them up.
These affairs have something in common with the Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass scandals that not long ago rocked mainstream journalism: all these scams exploited the trust that editors extend to submitting authors. The editors and peer reviewers of scientific journals cannot always verify that a submitted paper's results are true and honest; rather their main job is to check whether a paper's methodology is sound, its reasoning cogent and its conclusions noteworthy. Disconfirmation can only follow publication. In that sense, the Hwang case shows how science's self-correcting mechanism is supposed to work.
Yet it is important not to brush off the Hwang case as a fluke without considering its lessons for the future. For instance, Hwang's papers had many co-authors, few of whom seem to have been party to the cover-ups. But what responsibilities should co-authors have for making sure that papers bearing their names are at the least honest?
We should also think hard about whether Hwang's deceit went undetected for months because so many scientists and science journalists wanted to believe that ESC research was progressing rapidly, because that would hasten the arrival of miraculous therapies and other biomedical wonders. Extraordinary results need to be held suspect until confirmed independently. Hwang is guilty of raising false expectations, but too many of us held the ladder for him.
Perhaps, though I know of none. If you want to make this accusation, the burder of proof is on you. Please cite an example of a textbook continuing to use the fraudulant drawings. Otherwise, retract your accusation.
Perhaps, though I know of none. If you want to make this accusation, the burder of proof is on you. Please cite an example of a textbook continuing to use the fraudulant drawings. Otherwise, retract your accusation.
Actually, there is one creationist website that has a list of really horrible arguments that should not be used:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use From Answers in Genesis.
They include the "Lady Hope" tale that Darwin recanted on his deathbed. And they even have the Darwin quote about "How could an eye evolve?" It's the only bogus quote they include on this list. Of course, creationists routinely use these anyway.
Younger than me.
while we are on an ontogeny/phylogeny kick, a side-issue:
I recall hearing that all land mammals have a normal complement of seven cervical vertebrae. I don't know that this is so, and do not know if it holds true for marine mammals, but I do know that it holds true for several rather widely separated species of land mammal.
Is it so? Is it so, including the marsupials and the monotremes?
If it is so, set it aside for a moment.
What is the normal cervical vertebrae number for birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles?
What were the normal complements for the sauropods, therapods, etc...
depending on the data, it seems to me that the uniform land mammal complement of cervcal vertebrae, used so diversely and *contrasted with different complements in different classes of animals to perform similar tasks* forms a rather strong argument in favor of common descent.
thoughts?
that, complaints about Haekel nonwithstanding, embryonic development does indeed suggest common descent.
While, I won't try to address intent here's what Center for Science Education at Education Development Center says:
A recent review of middle school physical science textbooks provides a particularly vivid example of problems with science textbooks. A panel including nationally recognized physics educators reviewed many physical science textbooks for middle school, including some very prominent and frequently used texts. This expert panel found that all of the textbooks they reviewed were rife with errors, inaccuracies, misleading diagrams, and other problems.
quite possible: at 36 I am younger than many.
"quite possible: at 36 I am younger than many."
But not younger than me, old man!
<< 34 :)
"We fixed one problem. That proves we fix all problems."
well... you are still technically "middle-aged" junior!
The only mammals without seven cervical vertebrae are manatees and sloths (both with six). Birds and reptiles have wide variations in the number of cervical vertebrae. I don't know about fish or amphibians.
Ah yes. I'm glad you mentioned that. Permit me to enlighten you:
In the Old Testament there are the seven altars of Baalam; oxen and rams for sacrifice; trumpets; circuits of Jericho; seven times Naaman bathed in the Jordan. Seven is the number of Samon's bonds; the child raised by Elisha sneezed seven times. The Ark rested on the seventh month and the dove was sent out after seven days.
The number seven is used 55 times in Revelation. It usually means fullness or completeness as in seven days of the week. God rested on the seventh day. Examples abound: seven churches, seven trumpets, seven seals, seven bowls, seven eyes etc etc.
And many other ancient references. Source.
thanks, that's a start.
Have you seen it? Does it provide any evidence that the errors it uncovers are deliberate and/or politically motivated?
That there are errors doesn't surprise me. That they would be politically motivated and deliberate I would find shocking.
dude, I'm pleasantly buzzed on protein and pinot noir.
you are harshing my buzz, dude.
I didn't make an accusation. I expressed an opinion.
Otherwise, retract your accusation.
Sorry, friend. My opinion is what it is. Since our textbooks publishers waited decades before dumping Haeckel, why should I not have the opinion that there is a chance they may still be negligent?
A better question is why do you trust them?
come again, n00B?
Yes you did. You accused biology textbook authors of carrying innacurate drawings after they were exposed. That's called an accusation, not an opinion.
Since our textbooks publishers waited decades before dumping Haeckel,
They didn't wait. All the textbooks I know of dumped them in the next edition after 1997, the year it was exposed. Do you know of one that had a post-1997 edition that went to print with the inaccurate drawings?
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.