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
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?
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.
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.
...when it was learned that it contains small parts, not suitable for children under three.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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 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
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.
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.
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]