IF this were Science or Nature I'ld be more inclined to agree than with PNAS. It is possible someone came back and disproved their findings or that the findings were limited to a small set of circumstances.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Warren W. Aney<[email protected]> wrote: > I am only a sometimes reader of scientific journals, preferring to read > synopses and rewrites in semi-scientific journals such as Frontiers in > Ecology, Conservation, The Wildlife Professional, or even Natural History > magazine. However, I do notice what might be a slight tendency towards > publishing scientific papers that counter accepted science, particularly in > high-prestige journals. These may get published because they bring notice > to the journal and the authors, not necessarily because they are better > science than some other potential papers. A case that may fit this category > is the 2005-2007 spate of papers claiming that temperate forests do little > to counter climate change, in particular a 2007 paper in the Proceedings of > the National Academy of Science by Gibbard et al, "Combined climate and > carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation" (PNAS 104:16). It got a > lot of press but apparently not much credence because I've heard nothing > about its claims in recent discussions of forests and climate change. I'm > not saying this article is fraudulent, I'm just saying that it may have been > published because it would get attention more than because it demonstrated > impeccable science. > > Warren W. Aney > Senior Wildlife Ecologist > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Monday, 07 September, 2009 17:37 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] falsifying results in clinical research, why so > common? > > It is also possible that there is fraud in ecology and evolution, but > it gets discovered at a very low rate. Most findings in these areas > probably don't get the sort of intense scrutiny that a potential > medical breakthrough gets. And if nobody can replicate the findings we > tend to figure that there is variation from population to population, > from year to year, etc. We would almost never suspect fraud. > > > Quoting "Judith S. Weis" <[email protected]>: > >> There's a lot more money to be made in this sort of biomedical and >> clinical research, of course, than there is in ecology and evolution. >> I recently read that the famous other "fake" - the midwife toad, may not >> have been a fake after all, but don't remember the details at the moment. >> >> >>> Why, do we continue to see this ticker tape of falsified studies >>> coming out of the clinical sciences? >>> The last ecological/evolution study I recall like this was Piltdown Man! >>> If it is "just human nature" why do we see so few in ecology and >>> evolution? >>> I thought this might be a good talking point! :) >>> >>> Looking forward to the discussion! >>> >>> (oops left off the article! see below!) >>> Malcolm >>> >>>> From the Chronicle of Higher Education: >>> >>> Company Says Research It Sponsored at Pitt and Hopkins Was Fraudulent >>> By Goldie Blumenstyk >>> Technology-transfer deals at universities can easily go sour, but >>> rarely do they end up with the corporate partner suing an inventor and >>> his institution for research fraud. >>> >>> The University of Pittsburgh and the Johns Hopkins University now find >>> themselves in that unusual situation, as a company that says it spent >>> millions of dollars sponsoring research by a prominent scientist, >>> expecting to use his promising inventions as the basis for a new test >>> for prostate cancer, is now accusing the professor and the >>> institutions of falsifying his results. >>> >>> The company, Onconome Inc., says the professor, Robert H. Getzenberg, >>> lied about his findings and progress from 2001 through 2008. Mr. >>> Getzenberg has been a professor of urology and director of research at >>> a urology institute at Johns Hopkins since 2005; previously he held >>> similar posts at Pitt. He was also a paid scientific adviser to >>> Onconome. >>> >>> Onconome, of Redmond, Wash., was founded in 2001 to turn Mr. >>> Getzenberg's work into a cancer-detection test. In addition to >>> financing some of Mr. Getzenberg's research, the company had obtained >>> licenses from Pitt and Johns Hopkins for rights to commercialize his >>> research. It says it spent more than $13-million supporting the >>> research and on licensing fees. >>> >>> A Company's Suspicions >>> As recently as 2007-when Johns Hopkins issued a news release about a >>> study Mr. Getzenberg published in the journal Urology that suggested >>> his work could produce a better test for prostate cancer than the >>> existing PSA test-there were no obvious signs of trouble. >>> >>> At the time, however, a writer familiar with the biotechnology >>> industry wrote a commentary questioning the wisdom of John Hopkins's >>> decision to issue a news release about such preliminary work, noting >>> that the university's reputation might have given the study more >>> prominence than it would have otherwise received if only Onconome had >>> publicized it. >>> >>> According to separate lawsuits filed by Onconome against Johns Hopkins >>> and against Pitt, the company soon after that began to suspect Mr. >>> Getzenberg's findings because they couldn't be replicated by other >>> scientists. Onconome, which says investors put money into the company >>> because they believed in Mr. Getzenberg's findings, is seeking >>> repayment of its money and other damages. >>> >>> Mr. Getzenberg did not return telephone and e-mail messages seeking >>> comment. Officials at Pitt said they had not yet been served with the >>> lawsuit, which was filed just days ago in federal court in Pittsburgh, >>> and declined to comment. >>> >>> Johns Hopkins also declined to comment. But it has filed a answer to >>> the lawsuit, which was filed in state court in July. In its answer, >>> the university cites a number of defenses, including one that seeks to >>> bar Onconome's claims because of its "fraud" on the university, on Mr. >>> Getzenberg, or both. It also says all research was conducted in >>> conformity with scientific standards. >>> -- >>> Malcolm L. McCallum >>> Associate Professor of Biology >>> Managing Editor, >>> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >>> Texas A&M University-Texarkana >>> Fall Teaching Schedule: >>> Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; >>> Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm >>> Office Hourse- TBA >>> >>> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >>> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >>> and pollution. >>> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >>> MAY help restore populations. >>> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >>> >>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >>> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >>> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >>> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >>> destroy all copies of the original message. >>> >> > > > > Daniel (Max) Taub > Associate Professor and Chair of the Biology Department > Southwestern University > 1001 East University Ave > Georgetown TX 78626, USA > > email: [email protected] > phone: (512) 863-1583 > fax: (512) 863-1696 > -- Malcolm L. McCallum Associate Professor of Biology Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology Texas A&M University-Texarkana Fall Teaching Schedule: Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm; Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm Office Hourse- TBA 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
