WHEN 'SCIENCE' PLAYS POLITICS

New York Post ^ | February 28, 2006 | Michael Fumento

[billorites]

LAST May, a Korean report in Science magazine prompted headlines around the world by declaring it had made tremendous advances in the heretofore disappointing field of embryonic-stem-cell research. News that it was faked has now prompted much soul-searching in media land. "How could we have been fooled?" reporters are asking themselves in print. Well, wake up guys, because the major science and medical journals have been fooling you for years. And what appeared to be a trickle when I first wrote on it in 1999 has become a torrent.

In fairness, for many submitted papers it's quite difficult for journal editors and assigned peer-reviewers to spot data manipulation. This is especially true for that generated from a single lab. But not so if it's pulled from some public source.

Last September, after Hurricane Katrina, activists in lab coats saw a grand opportunity to tie the exceptionally violent hurricane season to global warming. A study in Science declared, "A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5."

But the researchers simply cut off their data at 1970, though public statistics go back to 1850. Using the full data set would have reversed the conclusion. Why did the editors and peer-reviewers at both JAMA and Science not insist on use of the full data set? Because slicing off inconvenient data is a time-honored tool of advocacy science.

Editors can even ignore papers in their own publication if it serves their purpose. A report in a recent (Feb. 17) issue of Science uses a computer model to show that glaciers along the coast of Greenland are rapidly melting and leading to rapid sea level rise; the study (naturally) blames global warming. Yet, just three months earlier, Science published a study based on actual data that

[ghost of nixon]

I just saw a peice on PBS about stem-cell research & an article in Smithsonian magazine - both took jabs at Bush for restricting federal funding & made embyonic stem cells seem like a surefire panacea for any kind of cellular repair. Are embryonic stem cells being over-hyped?

[ahayes]

Maybe, maybe not. However, we shouldn't base our objection on the uncertain grounds that we don't think they'll work anyway. There's no problem with pointing out the successes of adult stem cell research, though.

[Mamzelle]

Even after the fraud of the South Korean Stem-Cell Genius--California is fighting over the $3Billion allocated for the research. Science goes out the door with money come innuendo.

That'd be like the taxpayers footing a billion dollar "Dan Rather Research for Honest Journalism" grant.

The fraud's stem-cell bogusity was peer-reviewed by Science magazine.

[palmer]

Still here? This article should demonstrate that Science has lost some prestige by politicizing science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Because slicing off inconvenient data is a time-honored tool of advocacy science.

It's a time-honored tool of many disciplines. Part of being human.

[bvw]

It's a moonbat triple play!

• Embryonic stem cells = Abortion Rights.
• Embryonic stem cells = Right To Death.
• Embryonic stem cells = Seperation of Church and State.

[ahayes]

Have you read the coverage in Science? Before you go blaming them or saying they're complicit, you should know exactly what happened. When cases of academic misconduct come up many journals will make their articles on the topic open access so that all of the public can read them. There has been an article almost every week for the past several months on this situation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1886
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5757/22
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5757/23
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5762/754
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5763/928

[G Larry]

YES!! They are useless! If they had ANY promise there would be sufficient PRIVATE funding to study them. That's why ADULT Stem Cell research doesn't need GOVERNMENT funding. The PRIVATE funding is adequate for the research WHICH IS YIELDING RESULTS! The LIE associated with EMBRYONIC Stems Cells is there to rationalize ABORTION, and suggest that there is a "GREAT BENEFIT" attributed to it.

[Mamzelle]

Please forward links to the state guv of CA--some white coats smell taxpayers' money. The Holy Temple of Science just might be in the business of buying indulgences.

Complicit? I wouldn't need to make that argument. How about fallible? Fallible is easy to demonstrate, but you'll find that scientists find that charge hard to take.

[ghost of nixon]

However, we shouldn't base our objection on the uncertain grounds that we don't think they'll work anyway

I'm just trying to understand the issue and whether most of the hoop-la is driven by a desire to poke a stick in the eye of conservatives, or by actual medical break-throughs.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But the researchers simply cut off their data at 1970, though public statistics go back to 1850. Using the full data set would have reversed the conclusion. Why did the editors and peer-reviewers at both JAMA and Science not insist on use of the full data set? Because slicing off inconvenient data is a time-honored tool of advocacy science.

[Bender2]

Re: "How could we (MSM) have been fooled?"

Film at 11...

The times change, but The New York Slimes just stays the same...

[DougJ]

Most of what passes for science these days is nothing more than left-wing propagnda. There's hardly any sound science anywhere anymore.