3 ms·
Absolutely not true. I’ve seen things become consensus because of one single questionable image in one paper from a “trusted” lab. In my alma matter field the
by ramraj07 4y ago
Absolutely not true. I’ve seen things become consensus because of one single questionable image in one paper from a “trusted” lab.
In my alma matter field the question was whether her2 receptor recycles (has implication of all breast cancer antibody therapies that target her2) and a paper from a Genentech lab had ONE FIGURE (where different data points from different experiments) as proof. An entire sub field including projects in my own lab were spawned assuming this.
Whenever I point out this flaw in lab meetings I’d be shut down by my professors as “they know the authors they trust them”.
- epgui 4y agoI think I'm going to continue disagreeing with you on this point, but I will point out that our difference of opinion is a semantic one. To say that everyone "believes in" a model could mean that everyone accepts it as plausible (and thus worthy of further exploration), or it could mean that everyone is justifiably certain that it maps properly to a real phenomenon. I never say that something is "consensus" in the first case: IMO, the term should be reserved for the latter case, or appropriately qualified. In any case, the situation you describe appears to lack meaningful triangulation. [1] [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-01023-3
- hcknwscommenter 4y agoThere is also the fact that anti-her2 is now know to be a very effective cancer treatment.