SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the science,-but-not-as-it-should-be-done dept.
Germany's main research-funding organization, DFG, has determined that a high-profile neuroscientist committed scientific misconduct in his DFG-funded work. That work concluded it is possible to interpret yes-or-no answers from the brain waves of fully paralyzed patients with "locked-in syndrome" due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, aka Lou Gehrig's disease).
[...]Birbaumer's team, included incorrect information in three cases, did not completely record patient examinations by video as they reported, and failed to provide full data on patients.
The DFG opened its investigation in 2018 after whistleblower Martin Spüler, at the time a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Tübingen, said that he could not replicate the researchers' findings when he reanalyzed their data. An independent expert commissioned by the DFG as well as two other whistleblowers subsequently said that they too could not replicate the findings.
[...]An independent investigation at the University of Tübingen likewise concluded in June that the researchers committed scientific misconduct. The investigation found evidence of selective data collection, missing and incomplete data, and possible data corruption due to flawed analysis.
In statements to Nature, Birbaumer said he accepted the investigations findings but that he stands by the work, which he say still shows "that it is possible to communicate with patients who are completely paralyzed, through computer-based analysis of blood flow and brain currents."
The DFG noted in its statement that the investigators did not draw any conclusions on whether the researchers' approach is valid. Nevertheless, the DFG and the University of Tübingen both recommended that PLOS Biology retract both papers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nishi.b on Thursday October 03 2019, @04:12PM
I performed an fMRI study and also an EEG experiment, and the two accused researchers happen to have worked in the same building as myself, even if I don't know them.
From what I can read here, they are accused of having selected only the parts of the data that confirmed their hypothesis, not keeping all the records they were supposed to and so on. So basically fraud.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but they would not be the first to do things like that, when having results like this might give them access to celebrity, more funding and a better career. I don't really get why this is of general interest outside the domain as it is only one study.
There are numerous studies on locked-in patients trying to show communication using EEG, MEG or fMRI (e.g. Steven Laureys in Belgium) which are done correctly.