Con Men in Lab Coats [how science corrects itself]

Scientific American ^ | March 2006 | By the editors

[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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

From one of the reviews:

"Hoyle suggests that the real explanation for macroevolution is found in what he calls "genetic storms". In the book he presents two arguments (1) the inadequacy of mutations in natural selection and (2) the necessity of imported material"

He doesn't appose descent with modification (evolution). He apposes Darwinian mechanisms for it. Again, he was not a creationist.

He was also way over his head. He should have stuck with something he actually knew, physics.

[King Prout]

one note: TASMANIANRED is good people. treat her politely, and I believe you will find her honest.

[VadeRetro]

Moderator compliant FReepspeak is not moderator compliant behavior. Calling people liars by using different terms is not *being nice* as you well know. *A rose by any other name*...

Honesty will at times compell noting that someone is a serial frequently-repeated-error utter of the most extreme degree.

[King Prout]

well... slashing and burning sure doesn't seem to give 'em much pause, true 'nuff.

[TASMANIANRED]

You are kidding about bamboo ....

[TASMANIANRED]

Everything is relative...

If you hate them that bad, then round up is cheap at twice the price.

Actually by cutting the vines near the base you reduce the amount needed. You aren't defoliating them...

[VadeRetro]

Always remember that your endorsement may be the kiss of death.

[Virginia-American]

Since we've been discussing drawings of embryos, here's

one of my favorites: the laryngeal nerves.

With the exception of the cricothyroid, all of the intrinsic muscles of the larynx are innervated by the recurrent laryngeal nerve. An important anatomic consideration is the location of the left and right branches of the recurrent laryngeal nerve; after leaving the vagus, the right recurrent laryngeal nerve loops around the subclavian artery, while the left recurrent laryngeal nerve loops around the arch of the aorta. Source

Basically, what happens is that the embryonic heart is in the neck; as the embryo develops, the nerve on the left is forced to loop around the aorta.

In a giraffe, this adds 15-20 feet to the length of the nerve!

Totally explicable in evolutionary terms, makes no sense as an intelligent design

[VadeRetro]

a serial frequently-repeated-error utter

... a serial frequently-repeated-error utterer ...

[King Prout]

nope - I love the way bamboo looks, sounds, smells... I love the way it discourages uninvited visitors... I love the way it breaks up noise and blocks unwanted light.

and... I'd like to have it growing so conveniently near, for the next time(s) I decide to make a bow.

[King Prout]

well... I didn't stipulate that I wanted them to die *easily* or *cheaply*

*smacking brow*

[TASMANIANRED]

They tried to hook me through the nose and lead me to a desired response by asking a phony question.


Are you in favor of an Arab contry taking control of 6 US ports.

They are soliciting a false result by asking question that has no basis in reality.

Must have screwed the pooch...The automated system went silent for a few moments . I thought it disconnected me.

Went from question 2 to 4 ...

[King Prout]

well, she IS good people

[King Prout]

ah

[VadeRetro]

Never in doubt.

[Havoc]

You mean it's more like science tosses out garbage, the stock market goes nuts on the garbage they threw out, a whole industry arises based on underinformed opinion stated as fact by science, then a year later, they come clean and say the opposite is true and the industry falls on it's face and everyone looks at science and rolls their eyes once more. Yep.. cleaning your own house.. sounds more like stacking stocks to me; but...

[TASMANIANRED]

I'm touched Dear Heart.

[King Prout]

honesty, leave aside friendship, required no less :)

[TASMANIANRED]

Bamboo is a subject that I have done a fair amount of research on.

It is a pain in the arsh.

It is profoundly invasive . It may be kudzu in disguise.

If you intend to grow it then containerize it for goodness sake.

You will wish for your grapevines back.

[King Prout]

okers.