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.

[AndrewC]

I had (and retain) every reason to believe you had read the conversation you decided to jump into, and thus were aware that we are operating under a Moderator-imposed limitation.

No you don't. I just told you I was not aware of a kid-glove treatment order. Now is your chance to "prove" that moderator-imposed treatment. Once you provide a link showing that event, I will be aware of it. Until then, it is a figment of your ... well, refer to post 326, item 2

[BlueDragon]

I wasn't jumping to his defense.

As one whom has handed out, over the years, many insults yourself, it is riduculous for you now to be speaking of raising other's "civility".

In the past, you have been one of the most viciously insulting contributors, these barbs being folded regularly into *most* of your posts---
I guess this still need to be explained to you.

After you own years of expressing hostility and derision, on this forum---is it really a wonder to you that you may have engendered strong animosity towards yourself?

[Virginia-American]

Post 1059 in the thread "Churches urged to back evolution"

[King Prout]

Yes, we are indeed operating under a Moderator-imposed constraint, one which I would violate if I were to fulfill the terms of Tribune7's challenge to cite specific lies posted on FR by specific creo FReepers.

here is the full text of that command:

To: PatrickHenry; DaveLoneRanger; Dimensio; nmh

Spread the word - KNOCK IT OFF!

Accusing other posters of being liars is not tolerable conduct and will have consequences.

Spamming the abuse button is also not tolerable and will have consequences.

1,059 posted on 02/21/2006 1:30:01 PM EST by Sidebar Moderator

Now, as you have already rather impolitely and ignorantly ascribed to psychotic imaginings my prior references to this decree, go to the Sidebar Moderator's post, read it, and then come back here and apologize directly to me... or don't - either way, you'll show the nature of your soul.

Actually, as you could have simply asked what I meant when you first traipsed in, but instead immediately elected to insult and deride my obedience to the expressed will of the Mods, you have already given ample evidence of the small, excremental, and icy nature of that particular squandered attribute.

[King Prout]

yes. see above.

[King Prout]

HA!
I stole your coveted "one-a-day" Prime!

[AndrewC]

That states anything resembling "fact: we have been ordered by the Mods to treat you creo gadflies with kid gloves. "???

Not on your life. And I didn't know DaveLoneRanger was one of you.

[King Prout]

That states anything resembling "fact: we have been ordered by the Mods to treat you creo gadflies with kid gloves. "???

no, try again. the phrase was:

the Almighty Mods have required us to abstain from too harshly nailing the creationist wing for their falsehoods. followed later, after several attacks from creo gadflies, by fact: we have been ordered by the Mods to treat you creo gadflies with kid gloves.

do try to avoid inaccuracy-by-omission.

[AndrewC]

You are truly lost in space.

That post "prohibits" accusing people of being liars. You do understand English? It does not prohibit pointing out specific "lies"(or errors if you prefer).

You do know that the number 2 means something? Reread post 326 with the number 2 in mind.

Also with the number 2 in mind, I will take your second option since kid gloves and creo gadflies are not in cited post 1059.

[King Prout]

citing the specific lies posted by specific FReepers *by definition* constitutes accusing those FReepers of lying

you are truly lost in sin.

[AndrewC]

no, try again

Thank you. You admit "fact: we have been ordered by the Mods to treat you creo gadflies with kid gloves. " is not true.

the Almighty Mods have required us to abstain from too harshly nailing the creationist wing for their falsehoods is also not in cited post 1059. You are still batting .000.

[AndrewC]

citing the specific lies posted by specific FReepers *by definition* constitutes accusing those FReepers of lying

Only in your mind.

[King Prout]

[duckpond in winter] placemarker

[King Prout]

[duckpond in winter] placemarker

[gobucks]

What you missing is that scientists exist in insufficient numbers who honor the system, and can be trusted with it.

But maybe you really believe scientists are more trustworthy, on the whole, than anyone else.


"But why should we trust them to correct themselves?"

Better, why should we trust any of them to 'honor the method'?

[PatrickHenry]

My freeper homepage appears to be gone. Is this a software glitch, or is it something else? Is there some way I can recover that material?

[Elsie]

I was just pointing out that, just as in the case of Piltdown man, it was an evolutionist and not a creationist who uncovered the fraud.

Is this like accountants finding fraud in a business?

Just WHO is in possession of the 'fossils' after all!?

[Elsie]

I have these wild muscadene(?) grapevines in my backyard, against which I have been fighting what amounts to a holding action.

I want to know how to kill them off entirely, as they are wasting space I'd rather have something nice and purty and useful growing in... like bamboo.

Good luck, as this is a PRIME example of 'evolution' in action.

You are making it EASIER for the Strong ones to survive, by weeding out the inferior - e on overdrive if you will.

If you TRULY want to make them go extinct, you must CULTIVATE them, as we ALL know, hot-house plants do not have much stomache for survival!

[gwhiz]

To: PatrickHenry
Haha, that's very funny. Haha.




If you think being made to look stupid
and have your own warnings spit in your face
that leaves little doubt you must be one
of the 350 strong.

[Elsie]

He does with me, and the links he provided are accurate. Do you dispute any of them or are you just going to hand-wave them away because you don't like the fact I linked to Ichneumon?

 

Dispute?  I comment; you decide.

---

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = small       J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIG       I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           less stubby    Teeth incisors = big       H. Eyes =           smaller    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = smaller         G. Eyes =           SMALL    Nose =           Pointer    Teeth incisors = Skinny           F. Eyes =           BIG    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Bigger         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Getting wider    Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           less broad    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           bigger again    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

---

---

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

 

[Some folks say the article discredits Creationism......]