| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| 107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud |
| 2017-04-24 |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #11 Whatever his ethics, GWB hugely advanced the field of immunology and human repair by constraining the stem cell lines to those already existing. His action forced the research community to seek other sources than cannibalized dead infants. Now, autoimmune cures exist for cancer, vision degeneration, organ failure, joint repair and heart regeneration. Spinal damage is on the way. Abuse him and his intellect as you will. The decision process worked. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2017-04-24 23:15 |
| #10 Our research did not support their favored design and was reported as such. We did not get the follow-on research. Posted by JohnQC I seem to recall a team of microbiologists dispatched to Baghdad some years ago to examine potential WMD trailers belonging to Saddam. Their findings did not support the gov't WMD narrative either. The team lead, a contractor, was quietly dismissed a few months later. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2017-04-24 17:10 |
| #9 I've come to be suspect of projects funded by government dollars. A few year ago, I headed up a project funded by the feds. The project involved the evaluation of several competing designs. The government had a "favored design." Our research did not support their favored design and was reported as such. We did not get the follow-on research. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2017-04-24 17:03 |
| #8 G. W. Bush destroyed science by ... lessseee ... restricting nearly-human parts for stem-cell research? Or was he one of those science-settled-skeptics, too? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2017-04-24 12:54 |
| #7 Seems most "scientific" papers of the last 20 years are suspect. Gee, what changed about then? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2017-04-24 10:15 |
| #6 I generally see it now as taxpayer grant extraction in exchange for state narrative support. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2017-04-24 10:10 |
| #5 Science, she is not what she used to be. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-04-24 09:35 |
| #4 You may also look up Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5), e5738. Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PloS one, 5(4), e10271. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028-17033. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2017-04-24 09:34 |
| #3 Thinking constantly about the evolution of language has caused her to forget how to look at humans as anything other than another species of ape. Or as my father often injected: "Monkey see, monkey do!" |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2017-04-24 08:57 |
| #2 Other publications by O'Grady found at this Ars link. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2017-04-24 08:48 |
| #1 About the author: Cathleen O'Grady is Ars Technica's contributing science reporter. She has a background in cognitive science and evolutionary linguistics. Great detective work and quite interesting fields of study. Love to sip a pint or two with her. Thanks g(r)om. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2017-04-24 08:46 |