4 ms·

I disagree with your assertion, due to the consequence of a similar series of faked results first reported on earlier this week. Essentially, people wasted 2 m

I disagree with your assertion, due to the consequence of a similar series of faked results first reported on earlier this week. Essentially, people wasted 2 months of distributed computing time trying to use the data from a fake crystal structure. Unsurprisingly, these were unsuccessful. Hundreds of thousands of compute hours were wasted and people were diverted from making real discoveries because the structure was already 'solved'. This is a huge setback, in my opinion.

hga 17y ago
We disagree on how huge of a setback it is, "how significant this is in the scheme of things" as the original question put it. A setback, yes. Huge for those who wasted their time? Maybe. But compare it to, say, Lysenkoism. That was a huge setback for Soviet biology.
- carbocation 17y ago
  That's like saying a supernova is not significant because it's not the Big Bang.
gort 17y ago
a similar series of faked results first reported on earlier this week Wait, is this a separate scandal? What's with all this bogus crystallography?
- carbocation 17y ago
  I'm wondering the same thing. Makes me nervous for noncrystallographic sciences, too. The results were certainly different but perhaps the lab is the same. I'll check when I'm not on my iPhone.
- adw 17y ago
  A crystallographic paper is more or less just a structure determination in a common file format (CIF - the article talks about it). There's very little in the way of interpretation. As such, they're way easier to falsify than papers in even really closely related fields. I've spent plenty of time pulling structures from ICSD and other databases populated off Acta Cryst; my PhD was in computational mineralogy - but a raw simulation isn't a publishable result in the way data hot off the diffractometer can be. By the way, if anyone here gets the chance to visit a neutron source (eg Isis, isis.rl.ac.uk), take it! Amaaaazing machines.
  - gort 17y ago
    That web address requires www: http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/ http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/
bbgm 17y ago
I've wasted 2 months of distributed computing time on just bad assumptions made by mistakes I made, so as noted below, in the big picture, that's a relatively minor loss. Does it set back science. Of course, but is it catastrophic, no. As someone pointed out above, in fields where you collection and analysis times are measured in years if not decades you could run into trouble, but for chemistry and biology where you are at significantly shorter collection timescales, it isn't that big of an issie

hga 17y ago

We disagree on how huge of a setback it is, "how significant this is in the scheme of things" as the original question put it. A setback, yes. Huge for those who wasted their time? Maybe. But compare it to, say, Lysenkoism. That was a huge setback for Soviet biology.

carbocation 17y ago
That's like saying a supernova is not significant because it's not the Big Bang.

gort 17y ago

a similar series of faked results first reported on earlier this week Wait, is this a separate scandal? What's with all this bogus crystallography?

carbocation 17y ago
I'm wondering the same thing. Makes me nervous for noncrystallographic sciences, too. The results were certainly different but perhaps the lab is the same. I'll check when I'm not on my iPhone.
adw 17y ago
A crystallographic paper is more or less just a structure determination in a common file format (CIF - the article talks about it). There's very little in the way of interpretation. As such, they're way easier to falsify than papers in even really closely related fields. I've spent plenty of time pulling structures from ICSD and other databases populated off Acta Cryst; my PhD was in computational mineralogy - but a raw simulation isn't a publishable result in the way data hot off the diffractometer can be. By the way, if anyone here gets the chance to visit a neutron source (eg Isis, isis.rl.ac.uk), take it! Amaaaazing machines.
- gort 17y ago
  That web address requires www: http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/ http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/

bbgm 17y ago

I've wasted 2 months of distributed computing time on just bad assumptions made by mistakes I made, so as noted below, in the big picture, that's a relatively minor loss. Does it set back science. Of course, but is it catastrophic, no. As someone pointed out above, in fields where you collection and analysis times are measured in years if not decades you could run into trouble, but for chemistry and biology where you are at significantly shorter collection timescales, it isn't that big of an issie