3 ms·
I disagree with your assessment. There's no evidence of malfeasance, just poor judgment with regards to publicity and possibly some oversights in the lab. It wo
by bhickey 16y ago
I disagree with your assessment. There's no evidence of malfeasance, just poor judgment with regards to publicity and possibly some oversights in the lab. It wouldn't be reasonable to deeply fault the authors on a technical basis -- it's the job of peer review to catch mistakes before unfounded or embarrassing claims are made. I've seen disputes over conclusions unfold in two ways:
1. The party disputing the finding contacts the corresponding author with specific objections and suggests followup work that would meet those objections. If the objections appear substantive, the author('s lab) may then attempt to validate the finding.
In the case I observed, the lab had fallen victim to a technical artifact. My PI suggested an approach for remedying the error. At the end of the process, he ended up co-authoring a retraction with the author.
2. Someone with specific objections writes to the publication. Generally the publication will give the author an opportunity to produce a rebuttal piece.
This, on the other hand, resembles a slug match.
- bbgm 16y agoWhy should post-publication peer review be limited to working through Science. That will happen in due course (e.g. Rosie Redfield has already written a letter), but it is perfectly fine for scientists to dispute the paper via their blogs, etc. We live in an era where you do have to be ready for post-publication peer review, especially if you make far reaching claims and choose to do them in a very public manner
- bhickey 16y agoI never claimed that it should be. I was just pointing out those cases that I am familiar with. What they did (press-conferences, etc.) was in poor form.
- jacquesm 16y ago> This, on the other hand, resembles a slug match. I think that is a direct consequence of how the initial findings were presented, it suggests that the peer review process was fast tracked in order to present these results as fast as possible and with as much fanfare as possible instead of going the slow and cautious route. I may be wrong about that but it certainly seems strange to read about this wide and far in the mainstream press before the results have been thoroughly vetted. It smacks of cold fusion all over again.
- bhickey 16y agoOh! I'm sorry for causing confusion. "This" referred to the example I was giving, rather than the situation at hand. I think that the NASA team is getting every bit they deserve. The only claim I dispute is the bit about their careers being ruined.
- Gatsky 16y ago3. Someone publishes research, holds a self-congratulatory press conference, ignores criticism. Eventually evidence is refuted and the scientist disgraced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy/ for an example.
- bhickey 16y agoThe difference is that Wakefield committed fraud. There's a world of difference between slipshod work and just making things up.