Advertisement

Top Science Scandals of 2011

A list of this year's most high-profile retractions and controversies in science

By | December 19, 2011

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, JULO

Science is no stranger to controversy. This year, some high profile scientists have been accused of widespread misconduct, while other headline-grabbing research has been retracted after technical errors or sloppy techniques were pointed out by critics.The scientific field may deal with aftershocks of the misconduct or retraction for years.

Here are five of the biggest science scandals of the year, as well as updates on some of the juiciest scandals of years past.

Five New Scandals in 2011:

More than 100 retractions expected

The work of Diederik Stapel, who headed the Institute for Behavioral Economics Research at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, epitomizes the old saying that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Stapel routinely came out with counterintuitive findings that seemed to capture human nature, peppering the headlines of media outlets around the world. But at least 30 of Stapel’s papers were retracted after evidence of massive data fabrication was uncovered, and many scientists expect that number to continue to grow. In total, more than 100 published papers could be affected by the fraud. Among the most novel of his findings to be retracted: that thoughts of meat make people surly, and that a chaotic environment makes people more likely to stereotype.

Mouse virus and chronic fatigue

The link between a mouse leukemia virus and chronic fatigue syndrome made waves when it was first announced in 2009. But after several labs failed to recreate the link, the paper, which was cited 200 times, was retracted. The story took a turn for the dramatic when Whittemore Peterson Institute director Judy Mikovits, who led the retracted 2009 study, refused to hand over key lab notebooks. She allegedly had an underling take the notebooks, then skipped town to California. She has been arrested on counts of felony theft,  jailed overnight, and is now awaiting trial.

Short-lived longevity paper

Boston University biostatistician Paolo Sebastiani retracted a splashy paper identifying 19 genes associated with extreme longevity in centenarians. Within days of publication, critics wondered whether the strong correlation they found was due to an error in the sequencing chip the team used. After reworking their data to eliminate the source of error, the researchers found that the magnitude of the correlation was less impressive, and Science ultimately retracted the paper, which was cited 25 times in just a year. The researchers have resubmitted the revised findings to another journal.

Arsenic-based life

In late 2010, NASA researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues reportedly uncovered a species of bacteria in Mono Lake that not only survived in unusually high levels of arsenic and low levels of phosphorus, but also appeared to incorporate arsenic into its DNA backbone. However, critics were soon questioning the results, citing poor DNA extraction techniques and a supposedly phosphate-free growth medium which actually did contain phosphate. Science published 8 technical comments about the work in May, though the paper, which has been cited 26 times, has yet to be retracted.

Climate change-up

A controversial climate change paper was retracted when it was found to contain passages lifted from other sources, including Wikipedia. The paper, published by climate change skeptic Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis in 2008, showed that climatology is an inbred field where most researchers collaborate with and review each other’s work. But a resourceful blogger uncovered evidence of plagiarism, and the journal retracted the paper, which was cited 8 times, in May.
 

Five Updates of High Profile Cases from 2010:

University president retracts paper

Virologist Naoki Mori of the University of the Ryukyus in Japan was suspended from his job last year for image duplication that led to the retraction of 20 papers. Now it seems that one of the papers being retracted, a report on the discovery of a downregulator of apoptosis published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, was co-authored by the president of the university, Teruo Iwamasa. The president denies knowing anything about the image duplication. The study was cited 5 times.

The not-so-moral mind

Harvard cognition researcher Mark Hauser resigned in July, after his colleagues voted to bar him from teaching this fall and restrict his research duties. In his letter, he cites private sector opportunities as well as an interest in working with at-risk teenagers. The well-known researcher, whose work includes Moral Minds, retracted a 2002 Cognition paper last year showing that cotton-top tamarins could generalize patterns. Questions were also raised about two other papers, one of which was corrected, while the findings for the other were confirmed.

Immune system fraud

Another paper from immunologist Sylvia Bulfone-Paus has been retracted for incorrect image information. Last year, the Research Center Borstel director retracted 12 articles and was forced to step down after an investigation found widespread data and image manipulation. That investigation pointed to two former post-docs in her lab, Elena Bulanova and Vadim Budagian, as the culprits, but the newly retracted paper, which was cited 5 times, does not include Bulanova or Budaigian as co-authors and predates Bulfone-Paus’s tenure at the Research Center Borstel.

Duke University sued

The families of breast cancer patients who died are suing Duke University for fraudulently and negligently allowing a flawed cancer trial to continue. The patients were enrolled in a trial led by oncologist Anil Potti, who last year admitted to pretending to be a Rhodes Scholar and to fabricating a statistical analysis of chemotherapy response in breast cancer. The plaintiffs claim that Duke knew of problems with Potti and his colleague cancer geneticist Joseph Nevins’ work, but allowed the trial to continue.

Science saboteur

In May, the Office of Research Integrity announced its finding that postdoc Vipul Bhrigu is guilty of misconduct. Grad student Heather Ames thought she was going crazy when her experimental results kept messing up. But after conducting experiments in her boyfriends’ lab and getting solid results, she suspected foul play. Sure enough, her colleague Brighu was caught on tape sabotaging her samples. In July 2010 he pled guilty to malicious destruction of property and received 6 months of probation and a $10,000 fine.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: hruhs

hruhs

Posts: 9

December 19, 2011

I had a sense that this was the way things were headed based on my experience doing pre-med at UCB.  The petty criminality was intense amongst the premeds.  In the organic chemistry lab one could expect an "accident" (chlorine gas release for instance) about half way through the lab exercise.  We were graded on the amount and purity of our product and those perpetrating the "accident" had rushed through the process and hoped to get the highest grade with their small, impure sample.  Seeing this coming my friend and I would sneak out onto the balcony for a break before the evacuation and go back in and finish in the deserted lab.  We got the highest two scores but the bad guys came in right behind us.  Leaders of the twenty first century claiming their power.

Avatar of: Ellen Hunt

Ellen Hunt

Posts: 74

December 19, 2011

You make a claim about petty criminal behavior being rampant. Then you cite an example of simple error due to rushing things.

Then, you state that you, yourself, committed what is the only ethical breach in the example you cite?! YOU cheated by hiding out on the balcony so you wouldn't have to evacuate!

Not only are you somewhat lacking in ethical character, but you are utterly incapable of self-criticism.

Avatar of: hruhs

hruhs

Posts: 9

December 19, 2011

Thanks, that was entertaining.  Nothing like a little holiday passion.

Avatar of: david.harrison

david.harrison

Posts: 28

December 19, 2011

When introducing high school students to science, I emphasize that honesty is required:  "If you cheat and lie to get ahead, go into fields where that is expected (business, etc). In science, people need to replicate your work if it has any importance, and you will be caught."

Avatar of: Mezentseva

Mezentseva

Posts: 3

December 19, 2011

That statement will only work on high school students.:-)

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

December 19, 2011

I have always perceived that scientists and religious clergy are not any more immune to sociopathic motives, and acting on them, than members of any other overly-trusted  credentialed class.  Not all of them are serial killers, exactly, but each class pretends to greater trustworthiness of thought and action, and to greater certainty about things no one really knows, than most.  Nothing is more to be pitied than one of either of these categories who has fallen in the eyes of both peers and lesser peons.  (:>)    

Avatar of: Robin Day

Robin Day

Posts: 1457

December 19, 2011

At least science is self-correcting. Religious clergy can keep spewing the same nonsense for centuries, even in the face of contradictory evidence. To imply that they occupy the same level is disingenuous.

Avatar of: GeoffDownes

GeoffDownes

Posts: 1

December 19, 2011

Take the origin of life for example.  The evolutionary clergy have been have been "spewing this nonsense" for over 100 years now despite the scientific evidence.

Avatar of: JohnMashey

JohnMashey

Posts: 1

December 19, 2011

As one minor nit, "The paper, published by climate change skeptic Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis in 2008, showed that climatology is an inbred field where most researchers collaborate with and review each other’s work."
might be more accurately stated as:

the paper tried to show that, but in fact mis-applied social network analysis techniques badly enough to have been panned by SNA experts.  I.e., they did not show that, but tried.   Canadian blogger "deep Climate" found this.

Ironically, the paper was accepted in less than a week, after a cursory review by the Editor-in-Chief, Stanley Azen, and old friend of Wegman's.

For details, see the PDF at http://www.desmogblog.com/mash...

This derives from one of many plagiarism/falsification complaints lodged with George Mason University.  That one was sent March 2010, 21 months ago.
GMU is still reviewing the situation.

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

December 19, 2011

I agree whole heartedly with the observation that some fanatics spew nonsense. 

Anyone can spew nonsense.  Some who perceive themselves to be immune to emotional commitments to unfalsifiable predilections fault other for doing so. 

Three friends of mine, two PhDs in Physics and the other a PhD in chemistry, often make lists of things of which we are certain, and challenge items on each other's lists.

The first time we did that, we ended up in a shouting match.  As time has gone on, however, each of us has ended up striking things off until our lists are very short.

It gets humorous sometimes.  One of the physicists wrote originally that he was certain the uncertainty principle is valid.  After one uproarus discussion we all agreed to a rule that we would not use a conditional such as "may" or "possible" or "likely" or "unlikely" or a qualitative adjective such as "valid."  We thought early on that we would be able to pin down some things if we defined them with sufficient rigor and with an exhaustive list of subsumptive relations appended to the definitions.  But we found we were unable to add enough subsumptives to remove any and every possibility of an unobserved exception.  Karl Popper, we all agree, has tossed a monkey wrench into the machinery of logical argumentation no one we know of has found any antidote for. 

Another PhD friend met with us for lunch one day and stormed off without finishing his pasta, saying, "All that philosophy crap is a waste of time; and I have no time to waste."

The only problem is that our angry friend had laid down several assertions that can never be tested, as though they could be, and had been.  Later he apologized and said he found some of Kuhn's reasoning compelling, and found he is "intellectually satisfied" by such conventions as, say, that among particle physicists that alpha 5 was "close enough" to "establishing" if something such as the Higgs particle or something like it exists.  Any circumstantial collection of evidence is "intellectually satisfying" and "close enough."

We have agree that it is an overstatement to assert that science is "self correcting."  It can be more accurately described as "forensically cybernetic" ever adjusting itself to new evidence and where extrapolation from any current direction of effort and financing is reframed and re-aimed toward where our best guesses about what extrapolative model intellectually satisfies the most of us (or, in respect to financing, satisfy the goals and ambitions of vested interests which often are political or financial in motive).

Perhaps you have explored and have thought through all these things and are satisfied
that you know what lies beyond current models and what does not lie beyond them.

I quite thoroughly agree with your opinion that some people have little grasp of just how much we humans are groping along based on what few certainties we have, and how ignorant we are of what lies beyond.

Only a fanatic would deceive himself that he knows things just because he does not have any patience with examining that knowledge and realizing how little certainty it provides. 

It's strange how emotional and defiant some people can become upon being confronted with things they take for granted in their worldview and believe their illusions of certainty are "scientifically grounded."

Frustrating -- provided we take a really close look -- ain't it.

Avatar of: J_Louis

J_Louis

Posts: 1

December 19, 2011

Well, premeds are a whole other category.

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

December 19, 2011

Herb, you make perfect sense to me.  I love science.  Though retired, I probably read and think as near to rigorously as I can -- fully aware that all logic by definition is circular and leads back to our initial postulates, by way of the operations we constrain it to adhere to -- even if they are wrong.

I enjoy Thomas Kuhn's "science-view" (worldview of science, or whatever we wish to call it), warts and all; and there are some formidable "problems" with it, as pointed out by other science historians and philosophers.  But, as you know, there are holes in every argumentation, as there appear to be holes in ever emergent plateau of scientific progress.  Just as you intimate, and in perfect accord with Kuhn, some credit is due to the track record of science.

If, in my eighties, I am able to remain cogent and productive, I hope to set out what I aspire to make a fairly well-linked argumentation as to the assertion that we humans, to the extent we have been shaped by our evolution, have not been drawn forward toward truth but, quite otherwise, toward efficiency in coping and re-adapting continually to the constraints of changes in the coping-requisites.

Power, of any and every kind, has a two-edged character, providing us humans at once both the means to update and upgrade our methodologies (both inside science and outside where we live in ways we hope to enable us to keep on living).  But with each advance in science and technology, every new added increment of "knowledge" increases our power to self-destruct as a species.

To think of science as taking us ever upward and outward in our understanding of nature (what physicists mean by god with a small g) and/or a higher being (that horrid word with a capitalized first letter) we also come closer to the likelihood of species-acide.

Certainty consists not only in what we can rule in as certainly so, but also in what we can rule out as certainly not so.

I find it frustrating for any human who asserts himself/herself to know it is absurd to ponder something not ascertainable as certainly so, would turn right around and be dogmatic about claiming something else as "scientific" which, in turn, is not acertainable.

We humans do have our worldview problems, and our ego problems.  But the species "man" might deserve some credit (both scientists and non-scientists) for not going extinct yet.  We might do well to consider that non-scientists do not seemed to have found ways to be quite so prone to enabling total species-acide outside the "accomplishments of science as inside it.  (But please don't suspect me of intending any social model based upon that observation.  It's just an observation.)

(: > )  And thank you for your thoughtful response. 

Avatar of: hruhs

hruhs

Posts: 9

December 19, 2011

I had meant to make my comment as a reply to yours, which I totally support.  Sorry if I got Ellen in a tizzy unnecessarily.  The role of "sociopathic motives" is rarely mentioned in discussions and I find it very refreshing.  What is less addressed is the tendency of sociopathic motives to suppress honest ones.  In an individualistic competitive system, barriers to sociopathic motives succeeding will be eroded - inevitably.  What is more of note, I think, is that Science has stood up so well to this point to the assaults that have so damaged the legitimacy of so many professions.  Having been involved in forensics I tend to see skull skulduggery more often than some others.  Intelligent people with sociopathic motives will outmaneuver the rest of us eventually in a competitive environment awash in corporate money.  It's the system.

herb

Avatar of: fatman3

fatman3

Posts: 1

December 19, 2011

As someone who has been a grad student for more than 6 years in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry labs I can assure you that the level of honesty amongst some members of the scientific community is certainly not as high as I had idealized it should be when I was younger and nieve as well as what I believe the general lay public understands it to be.  To be brief, don't believe much of what you read in scientific journals as 100% truth--of course some of it is brilliant reliable work--but very little of it is as truthful as scientist present it; it is always made to look better in order to get published I believe.  I think this is wrong but I have seen evidence to support this.  Overall, it is close to the truth but not 100%.

Avatar of: Ellen Hunt

Ellen Hunt

Posts: 74

December 19, 2011

    There is precedent in Mikovits case. PI's have been ruled to be owners of their data. And if I recall correctly, anyone who performs work has rights to the data and conclusions that they generate. I think the university committed a felony by filing a false police report.

    The arsenic work is not a scandal. That is a difference of opinion, and the fact that there was phosphate does not negate the findings about arsenic in the backbone. That one should be removed.
    Just because you want to get to 10 does not mean you should commit libel to do it!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I had a sense that this was the way things were headed based on my experience doing pre-med at UCB.  The petty criminality was intense amongst the premeds.  In the organic chemistry lab one could expect an "accident" (chlorine gas release for instance) about half way through the lab exercise.  We were graded on the amount and purity of our product and those perpetrating the "accident" had rushed through the process and hoped to get the highest grade with their small, impure sample.  Seeing this coming my friend and I would sneak out onto the balcony for a break before the evacuation and go back in and finish in the deserted lab.  We got the highest two scores but the bad guys came in right behind us.  Leaders of the twenty first century claiming their power.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

You make a claim about petty criminal behavior being rampant. Then you cite an example of simple error due to rushing things.

Then, you state that you, yourself, committed what is the only ethical breach in the example you cite?! YOU cheated by hiding out on the balcony so you wouldn't have to evacuate!

Not only are you somewhat lacking in ethical character, but you are utterly incapable of self-criticism.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Thanks, that was entertaining.  Nothing like a little holiday passion.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

When introducing high school students to science, I emphasize that honesty is required:  "If you cheat and lie to get ahead, go into fields where that is expected (business, etc). In science, people need to replicate your work if it has any importance, and you will be caught."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

That statement will only work on high school students.:-)

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I have always perceived that scientists and religious clergy are not any more immune to sociopathic motives, and acting on them, than members of any other overly-trusted  credentialed class.  Not all of them are serial killers, exactly, but each class pretends to greater trustworthiness of thought and action, and to greater certainty about things no one really knows, than most.  Nothing is more to be pitied than one of either of these categories who has fallen in the eyes of both peers and lesser peons.  (:>)    

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

At least science is self-correcting. Religious clergy can keep spewing the same nonsense for centuries, even in the face of contradictory evidence. To imply that they occupy the same level is disingenuous.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Take the origin of life for example.  The evolutionary clergy have been have been "spewing this nonsense" for over 100 years now despite the scientific evidence.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I had meant to make my comment as a reply to yours, which I totally support.  Sorry if I got Ellen in a tizzy unnecessarily.  The role of "sociopathic motives" is rarely mentioned in discussions and I find it very refreshing.  What is less addressed is the tendency of sociopathic motives to suppress honest ones.  In an individualistic competitive system, barriers to sociopathic motives succeeding will be eroded - inevitably.  What is more of note, I think, is that Science has stood up so well to this point to the assaults that have so damaged the legitimacy of so many professions.  Having been involved in forensics I tend to see skull skulduggery more often than some others.  Intelligent people with sociopathic motives will outmaneuver the rest of us eventually in a competitive environment awash in corporate money.  It's the system.

herb

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

As someone who has been a grad student for more than 6 years in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry labs I can assure you that the level of honesty amongst some members of the scientific community is certainly not as high as I had idealized it should be when I was younger and nieve as well as what I believe the general lay public understands it to be.  To be brief, don't believe much of what you read in scientific journals as 100% truth--of course some of it is brilliant reliable work--but very little of it is as truthful as scientist present it; it is always made to look better in order to get published I believe.  I think this is wrong but I have seen evidence to support this.  Overall, it is close to the truth but not 100%.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

    There is precedent in Mikovits case. PI's have been ruled to be owners of their data. And if I recall correctly, anyone who performs work has rights to the data and conclusions that they generate. I think the university committed a felony by filing a false police report.

    The arsenic work is not a scandal. That is a difference of opinion, and the fact that there was phosphate does not negate the findings about arsenic in the backbone. That one should be removed.
    Just because you want to get to 10 does not mean you should commit libel to do it!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

As one minor nit, "The paper, published by climate change skeptic Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis in 2008, showed that climatology is an inbred field where most researchers collaborate with and review each other’s work."
might be more accurately stated as:

the paper tried to show that, but in fact mis-applied social network analysis techniques badly enough to have been panned by SNA experts.  I.e., they did not show that, but tried.   Canadian blogger "deep Climate" found this.

Ironically, the paper was accepted in less than a week, after a cursory review by the Editor-in-Chief, Stanley Azen, and old friend of Wegman's.

For details, see the PDF at http://www.desmogblog.com/mash...

This derives from one of many plagiarism/falsification complaints lodged with George Mason University.  That one was sent March 2010, 21 months ago.
GMU is still reviewing the situation.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I agree whole heartedly with the observation that some fanatics spew nonsense. 

Anyone can spew nonsense.  Some who perceive themselves to be immune to emotional commitments to unfalsifiable predilections fault other for doing so. 

Three friends of mine, two PhDs in Physics and the other a PhD in chemistry, often make lists of things of which we are certain, and challenge items on each other's lists.

The first time we did that, we ended up in a shouting match.  As time has gone on, however, each of us has ended up striking things off until our lists are very short.

It gets humorous sometimes.  One of the physicists wrote originally that he was certain the uncertainty principle is valid.  After one uproarus discussion we all agreed to a rule that we would not use a conditional such as "may" or "possible" or "likely" or "unlikely" or a qualitative adjective such as "valid."  We thought early on that we would be able to pin down some things if we defined them with sufficient rigor and with an exhaustive list of subsumptive relations appended to the definitions.  But we found we were unable to add enough subsumptives to remove any and every possibility of an unobserved exception.  Karl Popper, we all agree, has tossed a monkey wrench into the machinery of logical argumentation no one we know of has found any antidote for. 

Another PhD friend met with us for lunch one day and stormed off without finishing his pasta, saying, "All that philosophy crap is a waste of time; and I have no time to waste."

The only problem is that our angry friend had laid down several assertions that can never be tested, as though they could be, and had been.  Later he apologized and said he found some of Kuhn's reasoning compelling, and found he is "intellectually satisfied" by such conventions as, say, that among particle physicists that alpha 5 was "close enough" to "establishing" if something such as the Higgs particle or something like it exists.  Any circumstantial collection of evidence is "intellectually satisfying" and "close enough."

We have agree that it is an overstatement to assert that science is "self correcting."  It can be more accurately described as "forensically cybernetic" ever adjusting itself to new evidence and where extrapolation from any current direction of effort and financing is reframed and re-aimed toward where our best guesses about what extrapolative model intellectually satisfies the most of us (or, in respect to financing, satisfy the goals and ambitions of vested interests which often are political or financial in motive).

Perhaps you have explored and have thought through all these things and are satisfied
that you know what lies beyond current models and what does not lie beyond them.

I quite thoroughly agree with your opinion that some people have little grasp of just how much we humans are groping along based on what few certainties we have, and how ignorant we are of what lies beyond.

Only a fanatic would deceive himself that he knows things just because he does not have any patience with examining that knowledge and realizing how little certainty it provides. 

It's strange how emotional and defiant some people can become upon being confronted with things they take for granted in their worldview and believe their illusions of certainty are "scientifically grounded."

Frustrating -- provided we take a really close look -- ain't it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Well, premeds are a whole other category.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Herb, you make perfect sense to me.  I love science.  Though retired, I probably read and think as near to rigorously as I can -- fully aware that all logic by definition is circular and leads back to our initial postulates, by way of the operations we constrain it to adhere to -- even if they are wrong.

I enjoy Thomas Kuhn's "science-view" (worldview of science, or whatever we wish to call it), warts and all; and there are some formidable "problems" with it, as pointed out by other science historians and philosophers.  But, as you know, there are holes in every argumentation, as there appear to be holes in ever emergent plateau of scientific progress.  Just as you intimate, and in perfect accord with Kuhn, some credit is due to the track record of science.

If, in my eighties, I am able to remain cogent and productive, I hope to set out what I aspire to make a fairly well-linked argumentation as to the assertion that we humans, to the extent we have been shaped by our evolution, have not been drawn forward toward truth but, quite otherwise, toward efficiency in coping and re-adapting continually to the constraints of changes in the coping-requisites.

Power, of any and every kind, has a two-edged character, providing us humans at once both the means to update and upgrade our methodologies (both inside science and outside where we live in ways we hope to enable us to keep on living).  But with each advance in science and technology, every new added increment of "knowledge" increases our power to self-destruct as a species.

To think of science as taking us ever upward and outward in our understanding of nature (what physicists mean by god with a small g) and/or a higher being (that horrid word with a capitalized first letter) we also come closer to the likelihood of species-acide.

Certainty consists not only in what we can rule in as certainly so, but also in what we can rule out as certainly not so.

I find it frustrating for any human who asserts himself/herself to know it is absurd to ponder something not ascertainable as certainly so, would turn right around and be dogmatic about claiming something else as "scientific" which, in turn, is not acertainable.

We humans do have our worldview problems, and our ego problems.  But the species "man" might deserve some credit (both scientists and non-scientists) for not going extinct yet.  We might do well to consider that non-scientists do not seemed to have found ways to be quite so prone to enabling total species-acide outside the "accomplishments of science as inside it.  (But please don't suspect me of intending any social model based upon that observation.  It's just an observation.)

(: > )  And thank you for your thoughtful response. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I had a sense that this was the way things were headed based on my experience doing pre-med at UCB.  The petty criminality was intense amongst the premeds.  In the organic chemistry lab one could expect an "accident" (chlorine gas release for instance) about half way through the lab exercise.  We were graded on the amount and purity of our product and those perpetrating the "accident" had rushed through the process and hoped to get the highest grade with their small, impure sample.  Seeing this coming my friend and I would sneak out onto the balcony for a break before the evacuation and go back in and finish in the deserted lab.  We got the highest two scores but the bad guys came in right behind us.  Leaders of the twenty first century claiming their power.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

You make a claim about petty criminal behavior being rampant. Then you cite an example of simple error due to rushing things.

Then, you state that you, yourself, committed what is the only ethical breach in the example you cite?! YOU cheated by hiding out on the balcony so you wouldn't have to evacuate!

Not only are you somewhat lacking in ethical character, but you are utterly incapable of self-criticism.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Thanks, that was entertaining.  Nothing like a little holiday passion.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

When introducing high school students to science, I emphasize that honesty is required:  "If you cheat and lie to get ahead, go into fields where that is expected (business, etc). In science, people need to replicate your work if it has any importance, and you will be caught."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

That statement will only work on high school students.:-)

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I have always perceived that scientists and religious clergy are not any more immune to sociopathic motives, and acting on them, than members of any other overly-trusted  credentialed class.  Not all of them are serial killers, exactly, but each class pretends to greater trustworthiness of thought and action, and to greater certainty about things no one really knows, than most.  Nothing is more to be pitied than one of either of these categories who has fallen in the eyes of both peers and lesser peons.  (:>)    

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

At least science is self-correcting. Religious clergy can keep spewing the same nonsense for centuries, even in the face of contradictory evidence. To imply that they occupy the same level is disingenuous.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Take the origin of life for example.  The evolutionary clergy have been have been "spewing this nonsense" for over 100 years now despite the scientific evidence.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

As one minor nit, "The paper, published by climate change skeptic Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis in 2008, showed that climatology is an inbred field where most researchers collaborate with and review each other’s work."
might be more accurately stated as:

the paper tried to show that, but in fact mis-applied social network analysis techniques badly enough to have been panned by SNA experts.  I.e., they did not show that, but tried.   Canadian blogger "deep Climate" found this.

Ironically, the paper was accepted in less than a week, after a cursory review by the Editor-in-Chief, Stanley Azen, and old friend of Wegman's.

For details, see the PDF at http://www.desmogblog.com/mash...

This derives from one of many plagiarism/falsification complaints lodged with George Mason University.  That one was sent March 2010, 21 months ago.
GMU is still reviewing the situation.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I agree whole heartedly with the observation that some fanatics spew nonsense. 

Anyone can spew nonsense.  Some who perceive themselves to be immune to emotional commitments to unfalsifiable predilections fault other for doing so. 

Three friends of mine, two PhDs in Physics and the other a PhD in chemistry, often make lists of things of which we are certain, and challenge items on each other's lists.

The first time we did that, we ended up in a shouting match.  As time has gone on, however, each of us has ended up striking things off until our lists are very short.

It gets humorous sometimes.  One of the physicists wrote originally that he was certain the uncertainty principle is valid.  After one uproarus discussion we all agreed to a rule that we would not use a conditional such as "may" or "possible" or "likely" or "unlikely" or a qualitative adjective such as "valid."  We thought early on that we would be able to pin down some things if we defined them with sufficient rigor and with an exhaustive list of subsumptive relations appended to the definitions.  But we found we were unable to add enough subsumptives to remove any and every possibility of an unobserved exception.  Karl Popper, we all agree, has tossed a monkey wrench into the machinery of logical argumentation no one we know of has found any antidote for. 

Another PhD friend met with us for lunch one day and stormed off without finishing his pasta, saying, "All that philosophy crap is a waste of time; and I have no time to waste."

The only problem is that our angry friend had laid down several assertions that can never be tested, as though they could be, and had been.  Later he apologized and said he found some of Kuhn's reasoning compelling, and found he is "intellectually satisfied" by such conventions as, say, that among particle physicists that alpha 5 was "close enough" to "establishing" if something such as the Higgs particle or something like it exists.  Any circumstantial collection of evidence is "intellectually satisfying" and "close enough."

We have agree that it is an overstatement to assert that science is "self correcting."  It can be more accurately described as "forensically cybernetic" ever adjusting itself to new evidence and where extrapolation from any current direction of effort and financing is reframed and re-aimed toward where our best guesses about what extrapolative model intellectually satisfies the most of us (or, in respect to financing, satisfy the goals and ambitions of vested interests which often are political or financial in motive).

Perhaps you have explored and have thought through all these things and are satisfied
that you know what lies beyond current models and what does not lie beyond them.

I quite thoroughly agree with your opinion that some people have little grasp of just how much we humans are groping along based on what few certainties we have, and how ignorant we are of what lies beyond.

Only a fanatic would deceive himself that he knows things just because he does not have any patience with examining that knowledge and realizing how little certainty it provides. 

It's strange how emotional and defiant some people can become upon being confronted with things they take for granted in their worldview and believe their illusions of certainty are "scientifically grounded."

Frustrating -- provided we take a really close look -- ain't it.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Well, premeds are a whole other category.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

Herb, you make perfect sense to me.  I love science.  Though retired, I probably read and think as near to rigorously as I can -- fully aware that all logic by definition is circular and leads back to our initial postulates, by way of the operations we constrain it to adhere to -- even if they are wrong.

I enjoy Thomas Kuhn's "science-view" (worldview of science, or whatever we wish to call it), warts and all; and there are some formidable "problems" with it, as pointed out by other science historians and philosophers.  But, as you know, there are holes in every argumentation, as there appear to be holes in ever emergent plateau of scientific progress.  Just as you intimate, and in perfect accord with Kuhn, some credit is due to the track record of science.

If, in my eighties, I am able to remain cogent and productive, I hope to set out what I aspire to make a fairly well-linked argumentation as to the assertion that we humans, to the extent we have been shaped by our evolution, have not been drawn forward toward truth but, quite otherwise, toward efficiency in coping and re-adapting continually to the constraints of changes in the coping-requisites.

Power, of any and every kind, has a two-edged character, providing us humans at once both the means to update and upgrade our methodologies (both inside science and outside where we live in ways we hope to enable us to keep on living).  But with each advance in science and technology, every new added increment of "knowledge" increases our power to self-destruct as a species.

To think of science as taking us ever upward and outward in our understanding of nature (what physicists mean by god with a small g) and/or a higher being (that horrid word with a capitalized first letter) we also come closer to the likelihood of species-acide.

Certainty consists not only in what we can rule in as certainly so, but also in what we can rule out as certainly not so.

I find it frustrating for any human who asserts himself/herself to know it is absurd to ponder something not ascertainable as certainly so, would turn right around and be dogmatic about claiming something else as "scientific" which, in turn, is not acertainable.

We humans do have our worldview problems, and our ego problems.  But the species "man" might deserve some credit (both scientists and non-scientists) for not going extinct yet.  We might do well to consider that non-scientists do not seemed to have found ways to be quite so prone to enabling total species-acide outside the "accomplishments of science as inside it.  (But please don't suspect me of intending any social model based upon that observation.  It's just an observation.)

(: > )  And thank you for your thoughtful response. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

I had meant to make my comment as a reply to yours, which I totally support.  Sorry if I got Ellen in a tizzy unnecessarily.  The role of "sociopathic motives" is rarely mentioned in discussions and I find it very refreshing.  What is less addressed is the tendency of sociopathic motives to suppress honest ones.  In an individualistic competitive system, barriers to sociopathic motives succeeding will be eroded - inevitably.  What is more of note, I think, is that Science has stood up so well to this point to the assaults that have so damaged the legitimacy of so many professions.  Having been involved in forensics I tend to see skull skulduggery more often than some others.  Intelligent people with sociopathic motives will outmaneuver the rest of us eventually in a competitive environment awash in corporate money.  It's the system.

herb

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

As someone who has been a grad student for more than 6 years in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry labs I can assure you that the level of honesty amongst some members of the scientific community is certainly not as high as I had idealized it should be when I was younger and nieve as well as what I believe the general lay public understands it to be.  To be brief, don't believe much of what you read in scientific journals as 100% truth--of course some of it is brilliant reliable work--but very little of it is as truthful as scientist present it; it is always made to look better in order to get published I believe.  I think this is wrong but I have seen evidence to support this.  Overall, it is close to the truth but not 100%.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 19, 2011

    There is precedent in Mikovits case. PI's have been ruled to be owners of their data. And if I recall correctly, anyone who performs work has rights to the data and conclusions that they generate. I think the university committed a felony by filing a false police report.

    The arsenic work is not a scandal. That is a difference of opinion, and the fact that there was phosphate does not negate the findings about arsenic in the backbone. That one should be removed.
    Just because you want to get to 10 does not mean you should commit libel to do it!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

This is just a test.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

This is just a test.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

The resistance of Science against solid criticism over the flawed research on arsenic life is more serious than the mistake itself.  If Science did not reject my Technical Comment which was published in Logical Biology and urged the NASA scientists to perform the experiments that I proposed, the invalidity of the bold claim of arsenic life should have been clearly demonstrated.  Ironically, on the one-year anniversary of this scandal, Science positively reported the deposition of the DNA sequence of the bacterium claimed of incorporate arsenic into DNA, rather than issue an "Editorial expression of concern".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

This just seems like proof that science is working, ie that results are questioned, and fail under scrutiny when weak.  "Hooray, science works!" should be the title, rather than the hysterical "Top Science Scandals".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

I love how you ignore all of the global warming/climate change scandals that pretty much prove it's bunk. Very nice cherry picking there.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

I must have missed something on the XMRV paper, the last I saw Silverman retracted his portion of the paper but had not heard that the paper was retracted.  I also keep seeing "discredited" by WPI.  Was there something on the Internet about the paper being retracted?  Please let me know where to find.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

This is just a test.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

This is just a test.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

The resistance of Science against solid criticism over the flawed research on arsenic life is more serious than the mistake itself.  If Science did not reject my Technical Comment which was published in Logical Biology and urged the NASA scientists to perform the experiments that I proposed, the invalidity of the bold claim of arsenic life should have been clearly demonstrated.  Ironically, on the one-year anniversary of this scandal, Science positively reported the deposition of the DNA sequence of the bacterium claimed of incorporate arsenic into DNA, rather than issue an "Editorial expression of concern".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

This just seems like proof that science is working, ie that results are questioned, and fail under scrutiny when weak.  "Hooray, science works!" should be the title, rather than the hysterical "Top Science Scandals".

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

I love how you ignore all of the global warming/climate change scandals that pretty much prove it's bunk. Very nice cherry picking there.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 20, 2011

I must have missed something on the XMRV paper, the last I saw Silverman retracted his portion of the paper but had not heard that the paper was retracted.  I also keep seeing "discredited" by WPI.  Was there something on the Internet about the paper being retracted?  Please let me know where to find.

Avatar of: Carolyn

Carolyn

Posts: 1457

December 20, 2011

I must have missed something on the XMRV paper, the last I saw Silverman retracted his portion of the paper but had not heard that the paper was retracted.  I also keep seeing "discredited" by WPI.  Was there something on the Internet about the paper being retracted?  Please let me know where to find.

Avatar of: rosinbio

rosinbio

Posts: 117

December 20, 2011

This is just a test.

Avatar of: rosinbio

rosinbio

Posts: 117

December 20, 2011

This is just a test.

Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 1457

December 20, 2011

The resistance of Science against solid criticism over the flawed research on arsenic life is more serious than the mistake itself.  If Science did not reject my Technical Comment which was published in Logical Biology and urged the NASA scientists to perform the experiments that I proposed, the invalidity of the bold claim of arsenic life should have been clearly demonstrated.  Ironically, on the one-year anniversary of this scandal, Science positively reported the deposition of the DNA sequence of the bacterium claimed of incorporate arsenic into DNA, rather than issue an "Editorial expression of concern".

Avatar of: Max Williams

Max Williams

Posts: 1457

December 20, 2011

This just seems like proof that science is working, ie that results are questioned, and fail under scrutiny when weak.  "Hooray, science works!" should be the title, rather than the hysterical "Top Science Scandals".

Avatar of: Mario

Mario

Posts: 1457

December 20, 2011

I love how you ignore all of the global warming/climate change scandals that pretty much prove it's bunk. Very nice cherry picking there.

Avatar of: psycros

psycros

Posts: 1

December 21, 2011

No doubt.  Ignoring the #1 sci-scandal of the last decade - Climategate - is pretty telling.  Worse, in serving the globalist agenda they render everything else they post suspect.  Pretty ironic, eh?  But we've known for quite a while that objective science and science reporting is well and truly dead.  Little wonder that the influence of the mainstream (i.e.  state controlled) media is waning so rapidly.

Avatar of: Michael J Findley

Michael J Findley

Posts: 1457

December 21, 2011

Robin, that is simply an untrue, anti-scientific statement.

Avatar of: cfs boston

cfs boston

Posts: 1457

December 21, 2011

What should be listed (for its 27th consecutive year) is the medical establishment's inability to acknowledge that HIV is not the of AIDS.   
While millions of ailing, immunodeficient CFS/ME patients are mindfully belittled & neglected, perfectly healthy HIV+ people are allocated billions of dollars in taxpayer money for research and services.  How does that make any sense to anyone? 
 
It is so easy to see that the medical establishment simply has the paradigms (CFS, HIV) inverted. Why can’t people see that AIDS patients are just more CFS patients, which as CFS patients’ we already know is not caused by HIV. 
 
It screams "top science scandal of the century" to me.  www.cfsstraighttalk.blogspot.c...

Avatar of: radiobob805

radiobob805

Posts: 1

December 21, 2011

It says scandals of 2011.  The climate gate thing was earlier.

Avatar of: raghul rajan

raghul rajan

Posts: 1

December 21, 2011

What about the Nobel prize (Immunolgy) issue?

Avatar of: John Weybright

John Weybright

Posts: 1457

December 21, 2011

How can you ignore the fabrication in climate research?!?  Easily the biggest scandal scientifically speaking in the last 25 years.  The entire article comes off as a joke with the failure to include such blatant misconduct.  

This article gets a 1/2 star for review.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

What should be listed (for its 27th consecutive year) is the medical establishment's inability to acknowledge that HIV is not the of AIDS.   
While millions of ailing, immunodeficient CFS/ME patients are mindfully belittled & neglected, perfectly healthy HIV+ people are allocated billions of dollars in taxpayer money for research and services.  How does that make any sense to anyone? 
 
It is so easy to see that the medical establishment simply has the paradigms (CFS, HIV) inverted. Why can’t people see that AIDS patients are just more CFS patients, which as CFS patients’ we already know is not caused by HIV. 
 
It screams "top science scandal of the century" to me.  www.cfsstraighttalk.blogspot.c...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

It says scandals of 2011.  The climate gate thing was earlier.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

What about the Nobel prize (Immunolgy) issue?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

How can you ignore the fabrication in climate research?!?  Easily the biggest scandal scientifically speaking in the last 25 years.  The entire article comes off as a joke with the failure to include such blatant misconduct.  

This article gets a 1/2 star for review.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

No doubt.  Ignoring the #1 sci-scandal of the last decade - Climategate - is pretty telling.  Worse, in serving the globalist agenda they render everything else they post suspect.  Pretty ironic, eh?  But we've known for quite a while that objective science and science reporting is well and truly dead.  Little wonder that the influence of the mainstream (i.e.  state controlled) media is waning so rapidly.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

Robin, that is simply an untrue, anti-scientific statement.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

What should be listed (for its 27th consecutive year) is the medical establishment's inability to acknowledge that HIV is not the of AIDS.   
While millions of ailing, immunodeficient CFS/ME patients are mindfully belittled & neglected, perfectly healthy HIV+ people are allocated billions of dollars in taxpayer money for research and services.  How does that make any sense to anyone? 
 
It is so easy to see that the medical establishment simply has the paradigms (CFS, HIV) inverted. Why can’t people see that AIDS patients are just more CFS patients, which as CFS patients’ we already know is not caused by HIV. 
 
It screams "top science scandal of the century" to me.  www.cfsstraighttalk.blogspot.c...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

It says scandals of 2011.  The climate gate thing was earlier.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

What about the Nobel prize (Immunolgy) issue?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

How can you ignore the fabrication in climate research?!?  Easily the biggest scandal scientifically speaking in the last 25 years.  The entire article comes off as a joke with the failure to include such blatant misconduct.  

This article gets a 1/2 star for review.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

No doubt.  Ignoring the #1 sci-scandal of the last decade - Climategate - is pretty telling.  Worse, in serving the globalist agenda they render everything else they post suspect.  Pretty ironic, eh?  But we've known for quite a while that objective science and science reporting is well and truly dead.  Little wonder that the influence of the mainstream (i.e.  state controlled) media is waning so rapidly.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 21, 2011

Robin, that is simply an untrue, anti-scientific statement.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

There are long-lived longevity papers on the benefit of activating SIRT1.  They have costed GSK nearly a billion dollar and some similar amount of NIH grants-thanks to the joint effort of MIT, Harvard, New York Times, and the National Institute of Aging.  Science described this scandal as a matter of different opinions where everyone involved is innocent.  It would be too complicated for them to blame the key players.  No one cares when losers are faceless investors and taxpayers.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

There are long-lived longevity papers on the benefit of activating SIRT1.  They have costed GSK nearly a billion dollar and some similar amount of NIH grants-thanks to the joint effort of MIT, Harvard, New York Times, and the National Institute of Aging.  Science described this scandal as a matter of different opinions where everyone involved is innocent.  It would be too complicated for them to blame the key players.  No one cares when losers are faceless investors and taxpayers.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

Another proof of the robustness of climate scare science must be when a no science blog ranks scandals in science – and comes up with Wegman. :-) The nostradamian era of AGW is coming to a scientific end, and it hurts all the believers that desperately reach out for a meaning higher than themselves, hence their faiblesse for apocalyptical visions, their need of scapegoats and chorals of fire and brimstone.

Soon the CO2-hypothesis will be back where it belongs – in "the lab" – no longer being scandalized and molested by politics and idealism.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

Climategate didn't turn up any scandals, fraud or "globalist agenda". The only serious misconduct was the theft, by persons unknown, of a lot of email.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

"the global warming/climate change scandals that pretty much prove it's bunk."

How does that, work, exactly? Even if the worst charges about the handful of scientists at one lab responsible for those emails were true, that would not prove that AGW is bunk ... but that is the sort of irrational, illogical, intellectually dishonest nonsense that the deniers engage in.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

Denier, More like educated. If we cause global warming and the SUN has nothing to do with this issue. How come Mars the moon and Saturns moons are getting warmer? We know this through NASA data collection. Were you driving your S.U.V. around there? Data now tells us that the warming trend is waning now. By the way by your standards jqb & Gram you are killing the planet by using your computer ( electricity) So cut it out now! You are the cause of global warming, bad posters, Bad.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

Let's have the details please. What "global warming/climate change scandals" are you referring to here? Sounds like the usual denier innuendo to me.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

What fabrication? Citations from the scientific literature demonstrating fabrication, please.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

Are you fond of parroting lies and innuendo?

Show the evidence for your claims!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

" the medical establishment's inability to acknowledge that HIV is not the of AIDS. "

This, like the claim that global warming is not real or not human-caused, is pure crackpottery.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

I'll echo what others have said here. Climate change + leaked e-mails admitting data manipulation X omitting scandal from this article = complete cover-up and untrustworthy publication.

Thanks for letting us know up-front where you stand, at least...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

"I'll echo what others have said here."

You are echoing ignorance and fabrication. The e-mails weren't "leaked", they were stolen, and they do not say what people misrepresent them as saying. There are numerous detailed explanations readily available of how these emails have been quote mined and misrepresented, but the global warming deniers do not bother to familiarize themselves with any of that, as they are not scientific truth seekers. 97% of climate scientists accept the reality of AGW and not a single reputable science organization denies it, because that's what the evidence overwhelming shows.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

OK, so we have another individual accusing the CRU of "data manipulation". Well, a few months ago, the CRU released all of the raw data demanded by skeptics.  We are talking about the raw, non-adjusted, non-homogenized temperature data that skeptics had been accusing the CRU of hiding.

You can find all of the data and documentation here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/d...

Everything anyone needs to perform an independent verification of the CRU's global-temperature results can be found at the above link.  Furthermore, all of the software tools that anyone needs to write his/her own global-temperature computation program are freely available on the web. (Google up "g++" for starters).

Writing a program that performs an independent "sanity check" of the CRU global-temperature results requires high-school math skills, lower-division college undergraduate computer programming skills, and the willingness to roll up one's sleeves and do some real work.  That's it.

I have yet to see anyone who has accused the CRU of fraud step up the plate and make an honest effort to do this. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

"The paper, published by climate change skeptic Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Computational Statistics and Data Analysis in 2008, showed that climatology is an inbred field where most researchers collaborate with and review each other’s work."

No, it didn't. At the very least you should say *purportedly* showed. But this paper had a lot more problems than just plagiarism.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

There are long-lived longevity papers on the benefit of activating SIRT1.  They have costed GSK nearly a billion dollar and some similar amount of NIH grants-thanks to the joint effort of MIT, Harvard, New York Times, and the National Institute of Aging.  Science described this scandal as a matter of different opinions where everyone involved is innocent.  It would be too complicated for them to blame the key players.  No one cares when losers are faceless investors and taxpayers.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

There are long-lived longevity papers on the benefit of activating SIRT1.  They have costed GSK nearly a billion dollar and some similar amount of NIH grants-thanks to the joint effort of MIT, Harvard, New York Times, and the National Institute of Aging.  Science described this scandal as a matter of different opinions where everyone involved is innocent.  It would be too complicated for them to blame the key players.  No one cares when losers are faceless investors and taxpayers.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

December 22, 2011

Another proof of the robustness of climate scare science must be when a no science blog ranks scandals in science – and comes up with Wegman. :-) The nostradamian era of AGW is coming to a scientific end, and it hurts all the believers that desperately reach out for a meaning higher than themselves, hence their faiblesse for apocalyptical visions, their need of scapegoats and chorals of fire and brimstone.

Soon the CO2-hypothesis will be back where it belongs – in "the lab" – no longer being scandalized and molested by politics and idealism.

Avatar of: Weberty Net

Weberty Net

Posts: 1457

December 22, 2011

I'll echo what others have said here. Climate change + leaked e-mails admitting data manipulation X omitting scandal from this article = complete cover-up and untrustworthy publication.

Thanks for letting us know up-front where you stand, at least...

Avatar of: jqb

jqb

Posts: 1457

December 22, 2011

"I'll echo what others have said here."

You are echoing ignorance and fabrication. The e-mails weren't "leaked", they were stolen, and they do not say what people misrepresent them as saying. There are numerous detailed explanations readily available of how these emails have been quote mined and misrepresented, but the global warming deniers do not bother to familiarize themselves with any of that, as they are not scientific truth seekers. 97% of climate scientists accept the reality of AGW and not a single reputable science organization denies it, because that's what the evidence overwhelming shows.

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Advertisement
Life Technologies