3 ms·

What far-reaching ripple effect? some grifters grifted and got found out and some investors lost their money. This is not far reaching. I guess the guy writing

What far-reaching ripple effect? some grifters grifted and got found out and some investors lost their money. This is not far reaching. I guess the guy writing the headline is a grifter too go figure

ProjectArcturis 2y ago
600 other papers cited it. Hundreds of other labs, professors, postdocs, and grad students had failed projects based on extending the research. Undoubtedly many of those people had their careers end in this hypercompetitive space due to this one paper.
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  Heres something that actually qualifies People trying to reproduce wild claims is just science https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368350/scientific-research-fraud-crime-jail-time https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368350/scientific-researc...
fasa99 2y ago
The impact didn't destroy society or anything, it damaged the field. It made people think "wow that's interesting, tumors have unique microbiomes". the article says: Meanwhile, research groups that, according to Salzberg, relied on the study’s data are dealing with the fallout, as are the journals that published the work. The publishers or journal editors of eight studies have begun reviewing the papers, according to spokespeople at Springer Nature, Frontiers, Wiley and the American Association for Cancer Research. The corresponding authors of these studies didn’t respond to requests for comment. Looking at the analysis critique, yes, the original paper had an awful analysis. It smacks of a wet lab or clinical administrator who knows nothing about bioinformatics, having work done by say a grad student who themselves are not experienced in the field but clever enough to stitch together a nice sounding pipeline and write a Nature paper about it, and perhaps a bit cocky. This, I have seen before first hand. The long and short of it is, they used a big database of all bacteria genomes, and guess what, if a human grinds in a wet lab sequencing a bacteria genome, sometimes a bit of human DNA slips into the bacteria genome assembly, particularly if this was done some 50,000 times for 50,000 bacteria. So their analysis made no consideration to removing alignments to the human (or any other contaminant) genomes. So maybe their system says "aha! this bacteria is Staph Aureus!" but actually the Staph Aureus sequence has a fragment of human genome because the sequencing project therein had light contamination. It's absolutely self evident that if they were sequencing bacteria DNA off tumors, they should have controlled for human DNA contamination, given that the tumor the bacteria is sitting on, that tumor has a lot of human DNA.

What far-reaching ripple effect? some grifters grifted and got found out and some investors lost their money. This is not far reaching. I guess the guy writing the headline is a grifter too go figure

ProjectArcturis 2y ago

600 other papers cited it. Hundreds of other labs, professors, postdocs, and grad students had failed projects based on extending the research. Undoubtedly many of those people had their careers end in this hypercompetitive space due to this one paper.

idunnoman1222 2y ago
Heres something that actually qualifies People trying to reproduce wild claims is just science https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368350/scientific-research-fraud-crime-jail-time https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/368350/scientific-researc...

fasa99 2y ago

The impact didn't destroy society or anything, it damaged the field. It made people think "wow that's interesting, tumors have unique microbiomes". the article says: Meanwhile, research groups that, according to Salzberg, relied on the study’s data are dealing with the fallout, as are the journals that published the work. The publishers or journal editors of eight studies have begun reviewing the papers, according to spokespeople at Springer Nature, Frontiers, Wiley and the American Association for Cancer Research. The corresponding authors of these studies didn’t respond to requests for comment. Looking at the analysis critique, yes, the original paper had an awful analysis. It smacks of a wet lab or clinical administrator who knows nothing about bioinformatics, having work done by say a grad student who themselves are not experienced in the field but clever enough to stitch together a nice sounding pipeline and write a Nature paper about it, and perhaps a bit cocky. This, I have seen before first hand. The long and short of it is, they used a big database of all bacteria genomes, and guess what, if a human grinds in a wet lab sequencing a bacteria genome, sometimes a bit of human DNA slips into the bacteria genome assembly, particularly if this was done some 50,000 times for 50,000 bacteria. So their analysis made no consideration to removing alignments to the human (or any other contaminant) genomes. So maybe their system says "aha! this bacteria is Staph Aureus!" but actually the Staph Aureus sequence has a fragment of human genome because the sequencing project therein had light contamination. It's absolutely self evident that if they were sequencing bacteria DNA off tumors, they should have controlled for human DNA contamination, given that the tumor the bacteria is sitting on, that tumor has a lot of human DNA.