Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you grouping MIT into the same group as Stanford?
They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
> They’re all wrought with dishonesty and self preservation.
Citation needed.
Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
41–50 of 143 posts
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#42> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
The replication crisis and data colada showed there's tons of dubious science. About half of papers results don't hold up to replication.
About 1/2 (1/3?) of papers in a specific field, when replicated, produced similar results but less strong statistical measures of them.
It's fun to hear people complain about accuracy in this way.
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#43> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
Add this point from the article for context: "This retraction is Tessier-Lavigne’s fourth in as many months, a stunning turn of events for a researcher of his stature."
That begs the question, how did at least four such cutting-edge research works with fabricated data and results go through the review process unscathed?
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jennifer Doudna [1], who helped characterize* CRISPR, worked at Yale: > Doudna joined Yale's Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry as an assistant professor in 1994. ... and now works at UC Berkeley. David Liu [2], who pioneered base editing, a generational improvement on classic CRISPR, works at Broad Institute (which is a collab between Harvard and MIT): > He is the Richard Merkin Professor, Director…
Doudna didnt discover CRISPR; her fellow Nobel recipient Emmanuelle Charpentier did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuelle_Charpentier?wprov=s...
Yes, "discovered" was too way strong of a word there, and apologies to Charpentier. Thanks for the correction.
However, she did win the Nobel prize and I have found source after source that suggests she seemed to be fundamental to the development of the science.
My point remains -- you could literally substitute her name with one of a thousand names associated with high profile biomedical miracles to have originated from prestigious universities.
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#45> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. Reading HN, one might get the impression that it's much higher.
Its not because most of stuff is not retracted that its valid. Most studies are never replicated...
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#46> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
> Is this number much less than it should be?
Maybe it's more than it should be, or just about right.
If we are just going to assume our biased preconceived notion is correct and the conflicting data is wrong, why have data? But if we use that method, what is the likelihood that our claim will eventually be retracted?
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#47Still a good place to study, though.
Thats what they want you to believe
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#48> This retraction is Tessier-Lavigne’s fourth in as many months, a stunning turn of events for a researcher of his stature. That says a lot about how worthless the whole science journal and peer review process is. At this rate your assumption is that 50% of what is published is complete junk.
That would be a far less scientific, and true, conclusion than what was in the papers. From the article: > Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database.
If retractions are exceedingly rare, it could imply that, once published, fraudulent papers have a tendency to persist.
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#49> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
Since most stuff is never replicated it should be much higher than that.
Re: Blockbuster Alzheimer's paper retracted by former Stanford president
#50> Retractions remain exceedingly rare for scientific papers: Just eight out of every 10,000 are retracted, according to a Retraction Watch database. This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
Add this point from the article for context: "This retraction is Tessier-Lavigne’s fourth in as many months, a stunning turn of events for a researcher of his stature." That begs the question, how did at least four such cutting-edge research works with fabricated data and results go through the review process unscathed?
You just discovered that the peer review process is a big farce. Well done.