> Whether it was fraudulent or just incorrect is a different question. Sorry but good science should be reproducible an given the amount of major retractions a

> Whether it was fraudulent or just incorrect is a different question. Sorry but good science should be reproducible an given the amount of major retractions around this field I think this starts to become more than a passing question. Lots of work is built on top of the model which means a lot of money change hands and a lot of honesty hard work was done. Those who built the bad model should be being asked why a) they were so wrong (bad conclusions are fine) b) their data was so bad (this is not defensible) c) they didn't push for reproducing their work sooner to support the field (more of a daming statement of a field which treats a statistical analysis as a push button tool)...