Slashdot Mirror
Stem Cell Research Paper Recalled
MattSparkes writes "One of the best-known stem cell papers describes adult cells that seemed to hold the same promise as embryonic stem cells. Now some of the data contained within the paper is being questioned, after staff at a consumer science magazine noticed errors. It shows how even peer-reviewed papers can sometimes 'slip through the net' and get to publication with inaccurate data."
Stem Cell Research Paper Recalled
Yes, I remember it quite vividly myself.
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
"It shows how even peer-reviewed papers can sometimes 'slip through the net' and get to publication with inaccurate data." Perhaps this is a phenomena Slashdot should take note of?
Peer review isn't about the accuracy of the data. It's about how the data supports the conclusions and whether the paper is notable enough for the journal. Peer reviewers don't have the time and money to duplicate every experiment they review.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
I find it interesting that these are the very reports the anti fetal stem cell people always quote. Seems like a consistent theme of anti global warming and anti fetal stem cell factions, psuedoscience.
This is exactly how the system is *supposed* to work. Dr. Verfaillie publishes her team's findings, and others try to replicate it. If they can, the original finding is supported. If not, the failure to replicate usually leads to other insights. My old boss was usually more excited when an experiment failed than when it worked, because was what led to breakthroughs instead of mere confirmation.
Yes, the process can take time, and god forbid you were the poor grad student that spend 3 years heading down a blind alley, but this episode just reaffirms that overall, the process works.
Stem cells are a hot topic, so people are willing to publish sloppy research or even fake date (remember Dr Hwang Woo-suk) just to get published fast and first. The same turns out to be true with other hot topics like flu research, where claims that the 1918 flu pandemic was of avian origin are severely overblown (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7088/f ull/nature04824.html; a free version is here: http://www.amherst.edu/~mhood/pubs.htm). Most scientifc research is solid, and most review processes work, but publications like Science and Nature often publish articles based on how sexy they are and can curtail the review process if they think the story will be a hit. Most other journals keep things steady and have very solid review proceedures.
RTFA. New Scientist noticed that 6 graphs were duplicated exactly across two paper that were describing different cells. They questioned the results, and a panel of experts reviewed the data. Nowhere does it say that New Scientist magazine got their hands on even a single stem cell.
Anyone who's read a significant number of journal articles has spotted some huge errors that somehow got published. I know of one paper (not naming any names!) where in explaining how a calculation was done it had the line: 18-7=9. Clearly (from context) the line meant to say 17-8=9, but I found it humorous that such a fundamental error got past both the original authors proof-reading and the peer-review process. These things go back and forth a couple times, usually.
Peer review isn't a perfect process. It just helps reduce the noise-to-signal ratio.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The true test of a PhD is how convincingly s/he can make the data, no matter what it is, say whatever s/he wants it to say.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
The title for this post is misleading. The paper has not been recalled. Some of the data are in despute and it reads as though there will be some corrections posted by Nature. But if you had read the paper to the end you would have noticed that Nature is still deciding on the paper. Oh, and might New Scientist have anything to gain by overhyping a technical error in a Nature paper... hmmm?
What appears to be described in the article could not have been discovered by the peer reviewers since they were being reviewed at roughly the same time. Similarly it is insane to expect anyone to read and remember every graph from all the papers published in any given field. In my field there are at least 50 a day, I would do nothing but read papers if I was going to be familiar with them all.
Prof. Farnsworth: Is it true that stem cells may fight the aging process?
Stem Cell Clinic Worker: Well, yes, in the same way that an infant may fight Muhammad Ali, but....
Prof. Farnsworth: (slapping down $300 Tricky Dick Fun Bill) One pound of stem cells, please!
(Prof. Farnsworth begins slathering the stem cells all over his face.)
Stem Cell Clinic Worker: Of course, any age-reversing effects will be purely temporary--euuugh!
It's kind of obvious, but popular science journals such as Nature (where this paper was published) and Science will publish what will sell issues. Its not always about the quality of the science. If a paper has shock value but has clear problems, these journals will publish it anyway in many cases. Peer review doesn't enter into the process as much as one would think when a topic is hot. It is just like crazy extremists who get all sorts of publicity for saying something outrageous.
Then leave...
(sorry I wasn't signed in properly with my last reply, I'm not an anonymous coward)
Maybe it is time to drop secret peer-review all together. How about open review of scientific papers? Not to mention the so needed open access to scientific knowledge, altogether.
Why should a citizen be asked to leave when the politicians are the traitors?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
cowards leave; patriots stay and correct the problem.
It shows how even peer-reviewed papers can sometimes 'slip through the net' and get to publication with inaccurate data."
How about the misandry-filled assertations about how women use more words than men, have brains more "wired" for communication, etc? Turns out that everyone's been quoting each other and nobody can even stick to facts interview to interview.
What's appalling is that the author, Dr. Brizendine, not only holds a top academic position, but also has a best selling book that is full of "facts" that are complete fabrications.
Please help metamoderate.
I still like this country. The people running it are complete and total assholes. I'd rather stick around and do my small part to fix things. I have faith that the system will kick them out (and hopefully, imprison some of them) relatively soon, and the US will get back on track. We're seeing a low point in the history of the US right now, and time will tell if the system initially put in place will be resilient enough to recover from the damage done to it by our current "leaders".
I don't respond to AC's.
I recently had an article that was about to be published where the entire caption was missing from a table. Luckily I caught that in the proofs before it was actually published.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
not very much apparently. The author of the paper has tried to fix the inacuracies, but it seems from the article that the author still has evidence that adult stem cells are just as viable as embryonic stem cells.
I really hope they can advance this area of study, I would hate to think that we use human embryos to solve other human's problems just because it was harder to do it with adult stem cells.
...when it was learned that it contains small parts, not suitable for children under three.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Well I can understand someone having a different opinion than myself, and you do have that right. But seeing as how past administrations have done much worse (or better yet, haven't done enough good) and yet those administrations are praised when measured against the current amdinistration, simply shows how biased we Americans are. My side is right cuz it's my side, and your side is wrong cuz it's not my side. That's what America has become in my eyes, forget what's right and what's wrong. Everything's red or blue. I get pretty ticked when I think about it all but you know, "though we be in the world, we be not of it". (oops, did I give it away that I'm saved?)
Describes Republican politics since 1987, in high gear since 1992...
The whole "stem cell debate" thing makes me embarrassed to tell people that I'm American.
See, people like you trolling a debate they know nothing about would make me ashamed to be an American (if I was one). Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells, which has no significance at all in regard to the current political/moral question of embryonic stem cells. They're two totally different things, obtained through totally different processes.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I think you're being too literal. Replace "stem cells" with "guts". Laugh. It's funny. :P
I think the word you were looking for is prestigious science journals. Nature and Science are the ultimate targets for many fields; a publication in either of these journals can drastically increase one's scientific reputation, which is everything in academia. Popular science denotes a magazine targeted to those not involved in the field, such as Scientific American. Science and Nature depend on their reputation as premier journals for revenue; the people who subscribe to Science and Nature do not do so because their articles contain shock value, but because their articles are thorough, novel, and relevant. When do you think the last time someone wandered past a Nature on the magazine stand and thought, "Wow, this article on the molecular markers of HSCs and their potential pluripotency shocks me; I have to buy it!" Do magazine stands even carry Nature?
There is certainly a bias in both Nature and Science towards novel, groundbreaking research, along with an emphasis on sexy (nanotechnology and stem cells are very hot right now, so the threshold to publish these papers has dropped). This does not have anything to do with the quality of science in the papers that are published - I challenge you to find an article in either Nature or Science that has "clear problems" in the science presented.
As someone mentioned previously, peer-review checks for a correlation between the conclusions and the data they are drawn from; it is not meant to verify results prior to publication. You, sir, are talking out of your ass.
My side is right cuz it's my side, and your side is wrong cuz it's not my side.
Both sides are wrong. There, does that make you feel better? It isn't the sides that are the problem. It is that there are sides.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, we Americans are also embarrassed to tell people that you're an American too. Hey, consensus! Bonus!
That's what I was saying, man. Everything's red or blue.
I might cite the work of twice Nobel nominated Dr. Robert O. D. Becker. His groundbreaking work in understanding the flow of electric current in nerves, injuries, fractures, bone marrow etc. and the differentiation between formation of regenerated limbs or a mere scab have long been overlooked by the academic and formal establishment for so long yet the results can be clearly seen when repeated (with salamanders or dogs or anything with bone marrow). If you have not read his books I humbly suggest that you read them: The Body Electic, Cross Currents. My creed is that you look at the evidence and then make theories and assumptions from there, not make assumptions and instead of making the creed fit the assumptions.
Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells
Come on - he SAID he was American. You expect him to have a clue?
Oh I am burning Karma tonight, hehehe. Please, feed the trolls!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
people like you trolling a debate they know nothing about would make me ashamed to be an American (if I was one). Here's a hint: this story is talking about adult stem cells, which has no significance at all in regard to the current political/moral question of embryonic stem cells.
Actually, they are completely relevant to the moral/political question of embryonic stem cells, in so far as embryonic stem cell opponents have been using these adult stem cells to have their cake and eat it too.
Specifically, they've been tying the hands of researchers due to their religious beliefs and then shielding themselves from criticism by claiming "oh, we don't need embryonic cells anyway, because adult stem cells are just as good." Here is one example.
Saved from what? Is that some religious thing? If so, why include a reference to that in your comment? All you do is totally discredit yourself.
For a very illuminating read on this whole business, have a look at "Fabulous Science" by John Waller. Even illustious organisations such as the Royal Society - set up for goal of providing peer review - have been conned or biased (political correctness, partiotism, religious beleifs...). Even Nobel prizes have been awarded for massaged experiments.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Yes it's a religious thing. I'm a Christian. And I included that in my comment since I was quoting scripture: John 15:19. I'll be sure to include references such as this in the future.
True story.
Several years ago I wrote a paper and submitted it to a prestigious conference. Within a few days of submitting my paper, I received a "Dear Colleague" email, asking me to volunteer to "peer review" submissions because they were short of reviewers. I respectfully declined.
Why? Because my paper was based upon a new interpretation of findings reported in a 50 year old journal article by a famous researcher. In it, he presented then unexplainable observations about physiology. I am not a physiologist. I do not have a PhD. I do not have an MD. I have no formal experience in the field. I don't even have an M. Sc. I'm a geek with strengths in analysis and synthesis. But I was able to come up with a well-supported hypothesis that he had lacked the perspective to see.
So I wrote my paper. It was eventually rejected; no reason given. I submitted a letter about this experience to a medical journal. They publish letters, but only in the on-line version of their journal. They declined to publish my letter - claiming lack of space. I guess the Internet is full.
Hence my question, "Was it really peer reviewed?"
There are so many comments on the nature of peer review. Let's call a spade a spade. From the lazy reviewer (jeez my review has 12 major flaws the oter reviewer corrected 3 misspelled words) to the one who knows nothing about the topic to the "trickle down review" where the chair gives it to a fellow to do -- here are what I see as the basic flaw of the peer review system! http://docinthemachine.com/2007/02/15/flawedpeers/
The big time multi-disciplinary journals such as Science and Nature really are some of the most well respected journals in many fields. These are journals we're talking about here, not newsstand rags. They have very high standards for submissions and target an audience of scientists, even though they tend to gravitate toward more popular topics.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
How could the parent post be moderated -1 overrated down to -1 from 0? It was right on target. Was the moderator a sock puppet for the GP?
Nature and Science are not popular rags.
Dean
I'm boggled there's a published popular print medium that has employed on staff someone who could spot that.
I'm hoping it wasn't the doctor from India who does the floors at night.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I'm a Stats major and professors enjoy once in a while talking about the bad stats they've seen in published papers. One such paper, in a journal that was a described as "if it publishes your paper you're nearly guaranteed tenure in the field," used statistical methods that were inherently flawed (it downright failed on simple examples).
Another one published in a prestigious journal and with a few million in government backing found 100+ genes that were significantly linked to cancer. The statistics was the type that anyone who has taken even a couple courses could find flaws in. So someone redid the analysis and found ~8 such genes at best and possibly fewer. Due to the profile of this one the proper analysis is being done as a follow-up with the original researchers help (otherwise the flaws would have been much harder to identify).
So yeah, published papers can and do have flaws but they usually they get caught after a while, the point of publishing in some ways. At the same time more researchers should release their data so it can be verified more accurately (this has its own problems as if too many people run too many methods on the same data there will be spurious results of one sort or another).
I remember a great article in the British Medical Journal about a randomized, double-blinded crossover study using placebos, where the investigators tested the effectiveness of parachutes on statisticians. Needless to say it was a roaring success.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
I still like this country. The people running it are complete and total assholes. I'd rather stick around and do my small part to fix things. I have faith that the system will kick them out (and hopefully, imprison some of them) relatively soon, and the US will get back on track.
Was FDR imprisoned for sending 120,000 innocent Americans to detention centers?
Was Truman imprisoned for using nuclear weapons to wipe out two cities?
Was Hoover imprisoned for 48 years of wiretapping without warrants?
I voted against Bush in 2004. But you have to admit, in the historical view, Bush's abuses of power are small potatoes.
Fascinating. I did not know this man's name but heard of these ideas in many medical documents I read frequently. I will make the time to read some of his books. By the way, in searching for those references, I noticed you misspelled "ElectRic" (which google caught for me anyways). Thanks for the information.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
I'd rather test a few placebo parachutes on lawyers thrown out at about 3000m.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Describes all politics since ever.
Republicans may be guilty of this, but don't be fooled into thinking the Democrats, or any other political party for that matter, are innocent.
And those are some ridiculously arbitrary dates you chose. The US was practically founded on the idea that our side was right because it was our side, and if you can think of any war in record that didn't have that as the cause, one way or another, you probably just haven't looked into it enough. It's practically the human condition, you anonymous, specious ass.
Apathy; it does a body good.
I was replacing "stem cells" with "balls" but that's just me.
I know New Scientist is "just" a consumer science magazine, but such publications can play an important role. Scientists, being human (mostly) are also prone to human failings, and even a lowly consumer science mag can point them out.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In this case I've actually worked with both authors, and when I mentioned it (I read it shortly after it came out), the author who wrote that bit realized that the error was in the original. You are correct that errors are often introduced during the editing stage (as you add minor points to please the peer reviewers, etc.), but it wasn't true in this case. As for peer reviewers not being copy editors, you are absolutely correct, but with so many eyes on the paper, you would have thought that someone would have caught it and pointed it out. I know that when I get my proof back, I check every equation against the original to make sure they haven't messed it up. Of course, in this case, you'd just look and see that they copied what you had down without thinking about the fact that the math was wrong.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If adult stem cells prove to be as useful as embryonic stem cells[1], then the only reason to harvest embryonic stem cells would be the sheer joy of killing unborn babies.
[1] It should be noted that adult stem cells have already proven extremely useful in treating many diseases, whereas embyonic stem cells have proven useful in treating exactly zero so far.
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
You mean that we are a backwater scientifically because George W. Bush became the first President to fund stem cell research? Or because the U.S. develops 40% of the new drugs in the world (even though we are only 5% of the world's population)?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Actually, embryonic stem cells will never be useful in therepeutics; they would still suffer from the problem of rejection (you could never use your own embryonic stem cells in a therapy, as the only method of collection we have involves the destruction of the embryo). The only area they are claimed to be useful in is pure research, where they are easier to work with. Any discoveries made with embryonic stem cells, however, would have to be translated to adult stem cells when it came to therapy, as I understand things.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
This is one mistake in one paper on adult stem cells. It's important for those working in that field, but it hardly invalidates the whole notion of adult stem cell therapies. And in terms of therapies, adult stem cells are better than embryonic, as they don't suffer from rejection. Embryonic stem cell research is pretty much just that - purely research. They're easier to perform research with, as I understand it, but any discoveries made have to be translated back into adult stem cells for therapeutic uses. The whole point of stem cell therapeutics is that you use the persons own cells to repair the injury. And given that harvesting stem cells kills the embryo, the only way you could benefit from an embryonic stem cell therapy would be if you were one of a pair of twins, and they harvested the cells from your twin and left you alive.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Let's not forget that there is also a big push from the right to publish anything that will make adult stem cells seem as promising as fetal stem cells. The fact that this paper is recalled will not deter stem detractors. The mainstay of scientific luddites is always old, discredited studies that they keep propogating regardless of how many times they've been told that it is wrong. You get exactly the same garbage from anti-evolutionists and the anti global warming crowd.
There is just WAY too much money invested in the current trajectory of the Cancer/Stem-cell research and medicine behemoth to let some upstart new ideas about curing people easily get in the way of the billions of dollars currently flowing.
Remember how Exon Mobile has been deliberately muddying the waters with regard to global warming using bad science and unscrupulous scientists. PR firms can be hired to pull this kind of illusion-casting for any issue if there is enough money and fear of change behind it.
Discretion!
-FL
I believe the theorical application is that you take a fertilized egg, use it to clone the patient by Cell Nuclear Replacement and harvest stem cells from the resulting clone embryo, which will have the patients DNA and thus be rejection-proof.
Of course, this would mean destroying several embryos in order to treat the patient. And no, I don't see that as ethically justifiable.
The authors are friends of mine, the math mistake has no impact on the conclusions of the paper, and it's not really that unusual of an event (as witnessed by other comments on this thread). I hardly think having a math mistake in a paper is anything like screwing over a customer. Nor am I trying to enhance their ability to make further math mistakes. Maybe you're just being sarcastic, in which case, never mind.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No, because fiction has no requirement that it be accurate, or scientific, or even readable.
And the bible proves that it doesn't have to even lack utter stupidity.