8 ms·

So a likely extremely controversial paper being shared publicly to a non-expert audience prior to any peer-review. Is this going to be yet one more of those “w

by jgeada 4y ago

So a likely extremely controversial paper being shared publicly to a non-expert audience prior to any peer-review. Is this going to be yet one more of those “will be withdrawn after peer scrutiny but by then it is too late because the false meme has been injected into the public consciousness” things?

johnwdefeo 4y ago
I sincerely hope not. From one of the authors: "Scientists publish papers not because the paper is the end of science, but because it is a unit of research that is valuable to share with others so that others can use this brick of knowledge and either build with it… or find its weakness and break it down...We wrote our entire analysis in R and shared our code with the world. I tried SO hard to check every single line of code and make our pipeline clear & easy to reproduce. However, despite nearly giving myself stomach ulcers checking every line and stressing about these findings, it’s possible someone finds a mistake in our work. We don’t share this work happily - this is the saddest paper I’ve ever written. We’ve shared our code precisely for that reason: we want you to see exactly what we’ve done, and if we’ve done something wrong we are open to hearing it." As to your original concern, it is a valid one. I wrote this is response to pre-prints popularized via the press earlier this year: -> Make bold, unjustifiable claims in the preprint; -> Ensure widespread coverage in the science press; -> Walk back those claims during peer-review; -> Get published; and then -> Watch blue checks tout original claims as "Fact!"
- iso1337 4y ago
  Any publicity is good publicity. Sprinkle in some words about "this needs further study" and hope someone comes along to fund the next few years of your lab.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  Lazy question. Is there a git url for the code?
  - kens 4y ago
    To save you the two clicks, the code is at https://github.com/reptalex/SARS2_Reverse_Genetics https://github.com/reptalex/SARS2_Reverse_Genetics
graeme 4y ago
They did share it with scientists. Here’s Francois Balloux saying he replicated the results, tried to find holes, couldn’t https://mobile.twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1583165259799412737 https://mobile.twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1583165259...
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Here's another blue check immunologist on twitter with a substantially different take: https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1583252866394771456 https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1583252866394771456
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    The authors of this paper are confused about the technology they're using... it's not a good sign about their conclusions.. https://twitter.com/matias_kaplan/status/1583235087067336704 https://twitter.com/matias_kaplan/status/1583235087067336704 https://twitter.com/NoahOlsman/status/1583275862442807299 https://twitter.com/NoahOlsman/status/1583275862442807299
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      Oh dear... Yeah, the author affiliations on the title paper made me wonder if they knew what they were doing at all.
      - tripletao 4y ago
        Their terminology would indeed seem wrong, but the WIV has apparently used a similar assembly strategy (leaving the sites in the final assembly) before: https://twitter.com/jbkinney/status/1583267221047869441 https://twitter.com/jbkinney/status/1583267221047869441 I'd worry about their false discovery rate, for the same reason I worry about the large number of parameters in Pekar's epi model. It's still an interesting result, though.
        4y ago
spookthesunset 4y ago
> Is this going to be yet one more of those “will be withdrawn after peer scrutiny but by then it is too late because the false meme has been injected into the public consciousness” things? They only get withdrawn if they go against the narrative. Any kind of paper that says masks work, lockdowns work, or any paper suggesting Covid is worse than any virus ever… it’s totally cool to share publicly. Doesn’t even matter if it is poorly constructed or turns out to be false.

by jgeada 4y ago

johnwdefeo 4y ago

I sincerely hope not. From one of the authors: "Scientists publish papers not because the paper is the end of science, but because it is a unit of research that is valuable to share with others so that others can use this brick of knowledge and either build with it… or find its weakness and break it down...We wrote our entire analysis in R and shared our code with the world. I tried SO hard to check every single line of code and make our pipeline clear & easy to reproduce. However, despite nearly giving myself stomach ulcers checking every line and stressing about these findings, it’s possible someone finds a mistake in our work. We don’t share this work happily - this is the saddest paper I’ve ever written. We’ve shared our code precisely for that reason: we want you to see exactly what we’ve done, and if we’ve done something wrong we are open to hearing it." As to your original concern, it is a valid one. I wrote this is response to pre-prints popularized via the press earlier this year: -> Make bold, unjustifiable claims in the preprint; -> Ensure widespread coverage in the science press; -> Walk back those claims during peer-review; -> Get published; and then -> Watch blue checks tout original claims as "Fact!"

iso1337 4y ago
Any publicity is good publicity. Sprinkle in some words about "this needs further study" and hope someone comes along to fund the next few years of your lab.
alchemist1e9 4y ago
Lazy question. Is there a git url for the code?
- kens 4y ago
  To save you the two clicks, the code is at https://github.com/reptalex/SARS2_Reverse_Genetics https://github.com/reptalex/SARS2_Reverse_Genetics

graeme 4y ago

They did share it with scientists. Here’s Francois Balloux saying he replicated the results, tried to find holes, couldn’t https://mobile.twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1583165259799412737 https://mobile.twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1583165259...

lamontcg 4y ago
Here's another blue check immunologist on twitter with a substantially different take: https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1583252866394771456 https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1583252866394771456
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  The authors of this paper are confused about the technology they're using... it's not a good sign about their conclusions.. https://twitter.com/matias_kaplan/status/1583235087067336704 https://twitter.com/matias_kaplan/status/1583235087067336704 https://twitter.com/NoahOlsman/status/1583275862442807299 https://twitter.com/NoahOlsman/status/1583275862442807299
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    Oh dear... Yeah, the author affiliations on the title paper made me wonder if they knew what they were doing at all.
    - tripletao 4y ago
      Their terminology would indeed seem wrong, but the WIV has apparently used a similar assembly strategy (leaving the sites in the final assembly) before: https://twitter.com/jbkinney/status/1583267221047869441 https://twitter.com/jbkinney/status/1583267221047869441 I'd worry about their false discovery rate, for the same reason I worry about the large number of parameters in Pekar's epi model. It's still an interesting result, though.
      - 4y ago

spookthesunset 4y ago

> Is this going to be yet one more of those “will be withdrawn after peer scrutiny but by then it is too late because the false meme has been injected into the public consciousness” things? They only get withdrawn if they go against the narrative. Any kind of paper that says masks work, lockdowns work, or any paper suggesting Covid is worse than any virus ever… it’s totally cool to share publicly. Doesn’t even matter if it is poorly constructed or turns out to be false.