Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday May 01 2017, @04:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the oops dept.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-microplastics-harm-fish-should-be-retracted-report-says

It took more then 10 months, but today the scientists who blew the whistle on a paper in Science about the dangers of microplastics for fish have been vindicated. An expert group at Sweden's Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN) has concluded that the paper's authors, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University (UU), committed "scientific dishonesty" and says that Science should retract the paper, which appeared in June 2016.

Science published an editorial expression of concern [DOI: 10.1126/science.aah6990] [DX]—which signals that a paper has come under suspicion—on 3 December 2016, and deputy editor Andrew Sugden says a retraction statement is now in preparation. (Science's news department, which works independently of the journal's editorial side, published a feature about the case in March.)

The report comes as a "huge relief," says UU's Josefin Sundin, one of seven researchers in five countries who claimed the paper contained fabricated data shortly after it came out.

Related: Study Demonstrates Harm to Fish Caused by Microplastics (oops)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:20AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:20AM (#502123)

    Is there anything those deceitful liars won't lie about for fame and funding? Shit-on-legs, every scientist is.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Funny=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:45AM (#502126)

    Lügenwissenschaft!

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:57AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @04:57AM (#502128)

    You just failed statistics.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @05:19AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @05:19AM (#502131)

      Nope, got an A in statistics, although I really don't understand the appeal of that class, since the calculator does most of the work. It's glorified data entry, and statistics should be eliminated from the curriculum, just like typing class was eliminated.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 01 2017, @06:48AM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday May 01 2017, @06:48AM (#502158) Journal

        Just wondering, are you one of those guys who would scribble a moustache on the Mona Lisa because "art is for fags?" There is a word for you in Russian: "nekulturny." And it's a much stronger word than its direct translation of "no culture" would imply. I wish to crap we had something so direct in English. The closest we have is "philistine" and that doesn't begin to convey the low-key simmering resentment of anything more refined than monster truck shows your type holds.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:07AM (#502161)

          Nope, I'm the guy firing a shotgun at the Mona Lisa [smbc-comics.com] in the name of modern art.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:37AM (#502185)

        Let me guess... That was high school statistics.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Monday May 01 2017, @08:14AM

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Monday May 01 2017, @08:14AM (#502178)

    I am in academia and do have publication pressure, so I think your err... criticism is directed at people like myself. Unfortunately, there are enough stories of scientific misconduct to make your point stick (but incompetence is much more prevalent still). What I can state though is that there is also an intrinsic will to collaborate and share knowledge. OTOH there is temptation of shortcuts, and there are the aggressive types who just try to play the game. All in all, misconduct will always be there (and has always been there) but if the incentives do not evolve into obscene pressure the majority of research is sound (for some meaning of sound). How can I state this? Look at where we are: scientific understanding has evolved a lot, the well-publicized errors have been corrected, and 90% of research (in terms of papers more in terms of actual experiments) is ignored and forgotten eventually (so that they do not partake in the fame game).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @12:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @12:48PM (#502243)

    Lying is IMHO a bit too strong word here. As a scientist I know there is often a thin line to be carefully walked. These authors seems to have misstepped a bit during the process.

    It seems there are various issues:
    1) People at the same research station claim the experiments were never performed. I have plenty of colleagues who don't watch my shoulder continuously when I'm at work, so they also don't know fully what I did or didn't do.
    2) Raw data stolen AFTER publication... that's sloppy, but data should also been stored BEFORE publication, which is IMHO also a responsibility of their university AND journal.
    3) Not mentioning detergent was washed from plastics. Failure from the authors and also peer reviewers (they should have caught that). Not sure why there was detergent on them, but a control with only the detergent (wash off of the beads) would IMHO be sufficient.

    Point 2 is the largest issue, why the article could be retracted... but then again... a lot of research could be retracted as well for the same reason. And repeating those experiments should be done and tested again.
    Point 3 should not result to retraction, but an erratum would be required.

    I would also not be surprised if "the industry" put effort into getting this paper retracted.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:16PM (#502461)

    Without scientists you can kiss your modern way of life goodbye and go back to living in the dark ages. I always find it ironic when someone disparages the entire scientific community while taping away on their computer.