Slashdot Mirror
Key Researcher Agrees To Retract Disputed Stem Cell Papers
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "After several months of fiercely defending her discovery of a new, simple way to create pluripotent stem cells, Haruko Obokata of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, has agreed to retract the two Nature papers that reported her work. Satoru Kagaya, head of public relations for RIKEN, headquartered in Wako near Tokyo, confirmed press reports today that Obokata had finally agreed to retract both papers. He said the institute would be notifying Nature and that the decision to formally retract the papers would be up to the journal."
Another article I read about this mentioned that she confessed to fabricating "at least some results". Now, there are various reasons why a researcher would fabricate results, from the pressure to publish to just literally being evil, but in this case how would she ever expect to get away with it? This is not like a paper in my sub-field, which if I'm lucky five people will ever read. EVERYONE wants pluripotent stem cells, so of course a simple method to create them is going to be tested and replicated over and over and over.
HAY! Haruko san; you've got a good idea, just go back to the lab and finish it.
If Haruko were a guy, I'd say, "get your head, out of your ass, and FINISH." Girls react differently than guys.
And this is Nature fer chrissakes; not the Journal of Homeopathic Chiropractic Aroma Therapy and Crystal Meditation.
It also only looks at the data and methodology. if the data is wrong, they have no way of knowing that unless they actually do the experiment.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It is an example of corruption in science. This was a high profile paper. Now everything she's ever published is suspect. If she had the balls to do this on a discovery of this magnitude, just think of all the "little white lies" in less prolific papers not just by her but by others. It's epidemic, especially in Asian countries.
Since others have tried and failed to duplicate the results specified in the paper, it seems that the only way to really resolve this is to have Obokata-san duplicate her experiment. The process should be closely monitored so that there is no question about fabricated data and no chance the process is sabotaged by someone else.
Part of me is still holding out hope that there is some truth to the paper's overall result - if only because here was someone who could have been a great inspiration for kids (particularly girls) to get into science and also because I hate to believe people are so stupid as to fabricate something this important and think it won't be uncovered. Yeah, my naivete is showing.
I think we're confused by the exact semantics, because neither of you is particularly wrong.
This is an example of corruption in the scientific _community_.
This is an example supporting the way science outs truth, supporting the scientific _method_.
Re: point two, though, it sounds like she cut corners or fuzzed details more than deliberately skimped or lied; it's wrong but not malicious.
-AC.Falos
Part of me is still holding out hope that there is some truth to the paper's overall result - if only because here was someone who could have been a great inspiration for kids (particularly girls) to get into science
What the fuck does her gender have to do with anything?
Look girls, this woman, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??
Further, what the fuck would her success have to do with kids in general?
Look kids, this adult, one out of billions, became a successful scientist! You can, too, if you're extremely lucky and you really try! Don't you want to be a scientist now? You want to be a scientist, right??
You can't choose a role model for your child. A person (such as a child) can either choose to respect / admire / aspire to other people or not.
Trying to foist a particular person off as a role model comes across as disingenuous, fake, and stupid to even the dumbest and youngest of kids.
Further, selecting said role models for your kids based on their success, rather than their behavior, ethics, character, etc. will get you poor results, all while speaks volumes about your own priorities. She fabricated data, at the very least, and published. Even if she ends up being right she's a terrible role model.
This whole thing has been very large in Japanese media, largely due to the fact that it was initially reported as a huge discovery by a young female researcher.
The latest article I read just now is about how she (through her lawyer) claims that she was forced to agree to this through huge pressure, that she's very sad about how it leaked out, etc.
I don't doubt the pressure part, and I imagine that there's a lot of feelings involved for her and that she believes she's right and that she thinks that the things she did weren't really "in bad spirit", but knowing how easy it is to fool oneself it all seems a bit like someone who doesn't want to accept that it might not quite be what she wanted it to be.
It also only looks at the data and methodology.
Except they didn't look at the methodology or do a sanity-check on the data.
From academia to congress to joining a gym, no one fucking reads or thinks - they just sign it to get it off their plate.
I think a lot of these cases of fabricating results started relatively small and innocent. Maybe you slacked off all week and your professor is asking you for the results of that experiment you were supposed to run. Maybe you'll just make a little graph that seems reasonable, after all, you'll get those results this week for sure... Next thing you know your boss is asking for the follow up experiments and you're in over your head. The longer this go on the harder it is to come clean and you end up publishing your fabricated results in Nature...
My statement has nothing to do with Nature. It's a statement on the peer review process in general. Many people think publication is the end of peer review and that a published paper means its been fully vetted.
Nature has over 10,000 people that volunteer. It looks like the ones that did this peer review messed up.
IT's a hard problem. You get peer reviewers, you do your best to be sure they are good. You can't peer review there peer review so you trust them.
That also applies to any organization that has peer reviewers.
Don't confuse my wanting things to be clear, and waiting for more informaiton before damning anyone as excuse making. It is not.
1) Did nature follow their own policy when determining who to peer review the paper?
2) Did Nature have a good reason to trust that peer reviewer initially?
3) Did other peer reviewers bring up issues that were unreasonably dismissed?
and so on.
Like I said, it is a hard problem.
I assure you I am not out of my depth.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Exactly.
Makes no difference to me. I prefer all-natural, organic stem cells, the way God intended, not some Franken-stemer cells cooked up in a lab.
Whether someone is anti-science or not, pointing out corruption in the field of science is a good thing. Corruption wastes time, money, and can hurt people.
The same thing can be said of gross errors that drastically change results.
It is a reasonable example of science working. I say reasonable because it wasn't initially a lack of duplication of results that sparked concern, it was alleged plagiarism and image manipulation.
It's a pity all research results weren't required to be duplicated by an independent team as a prerequisite to being published. And then peer reviewed in light of the secondary results.
I completely agree that children will choose their own role models or choose how they are inspired by others. I never said otherwise.
How do they find role models - either real or fictional? Often is it through the media: movies, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, whatever. Making a major scientific announcement will get you media attention (whether you want it or not) and make you a potential role model (again whether you want it or not). The child will choose.
With regard to Obokata-san, she became a media darling for some weeks. Of all the children who saw that, I cannot believe that none drew any inspiration from her. That none said: "Wow, I want to be like her". And when they see that same media turn on their new-found idol with equal zeal, tear her apart and ultimately wear her down, what then? Undoubtedly, some children were left discouraged, perhaps now seeing science in a negative light. That is unfortunate. So, to answer your second question, her success is relevant.
As for gender, if you believe it has no influence when choosing a role model, kindly reconsider. Beginning early on, children are very perceptive to even subtle social cues and that certainly includes gender. People also gravitate towards "like" things and that includes gender. They may find it easier to imagine themselves as that role model because they "look like me". From time to time, do we not see articles on Slashdot and elsewhere about attempts to encourage girls to consider STEM-related careers? To that extent, a female role model can be a great asset. So, to answer your first question, her gender is relevant.
You seem to have already convicted Obokata-san. There certainly seem to be irregularities in the papers and some stupidly naive mistakes (plagiarism?), but as yet I have not seen absolutely conclusive evidence that the paper's assertions are invalid. I choose to believe Obokata-san is innocent until proven guilty. While fraud is certainly a possibility, don't forget that hatred, jealousy, and professional assassination are not unknown in the realm of research and academia. Egos and money are involved after all.
Give her the chance to prove her and her team's assertions. It is the best choice for science.