Science Fraud Site Owner Suspends Site in Response to Legal Threats | Hacker News Reader

Science Fraud Site Owner Suspends Site in Response to Legal Threats

retractionwatch.wordpress.com

61 pointstokenadult20 comments

The problem is that they took it upon themselves to be judges, jury and executioner. If all they did was point out the potential mistakes under a less judgemental name they'd have been fine.

It looks like their plan for the future is a re-launch doing just that so let's see what they come up with.

Saying something is fraudulent is libelous, saying you think something is a mistake is just about as bad in the scientific world (the research is just as invalid) but does not carry with it a sense of judgement. Who knows whether something was a mistake or outright fraud, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference (see the certificate matter on the homepage right now).

Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence works just as well in the scientific world. Having to retract a paper is no fun at all.

Another maxim that applies: Show don't tell.

In other words, if something is a fraud, that should be made self evident after you've proven the case that mistakes were made. No need to label it as "fraud"...in the same way that a funny joke should not be prefaced with "This following joke is very funny"

Or at least restrict oneself to saying "The preceding data raise very serious questions about aspect x of y." Even in the most plaintiff-friendly environment it would seem difficult to mount a case for libel... But is the message then diluted? I suppose it depends on the audience.

OK, but as another commenter says, when you play the scientist, you must stick with the rules. Otherwise you are playing the journalist, which character has a quite different set of rules (and consequences).

It is as easy as saying: "This graph is in contrast with this data...". If it is overwhelming, it is by itself, not by the adjectives.

I would think that out of all audiences, a scientific one could respect the idea that facts without rhetoric, speak for themselves.

Saying something is fraudulent is libelous,

It's not libelous, unless you're referring to legal definitions in specific repressive countries (such as the UK). Libel is a malicious lie. This is someone speaking their conscience.

"Libel is a malicious lie."

There are other issues about your comment, but I'll start with just pointing out that your assertion here is false. A statement can be considered libel if gross negligence was involved, not just malice.

"It's not libelous"

Perhaps not, but PROVING that it's not is expensive.

In a similar vein: Ben Goldacre: What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe

www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html

The talk focuses on how peer reviewed journals provenly publish the positive test results, and not the negative results. He gives the example of Tamiflu, where the 50/50 split between actual positive/negative tests was not reflected in the journals at all - anyone reading the journals would get a remarkably positive view of the drug.

His blog is a regularly enjoyable read on these issues: http://www.badscience.net/

In the future, use conditional language: "it may be fraud", or "appears to be fraud". In fact, I would avoid the use of the word "fraud" and say "factually inaccurate" or "wrong".

No, even better: say what happened and leave the conclusion to the reader (unless it is tricky or depends on some little known facts, then you may hint the reader)

"Mr. Someone has been unable to provide the original data from where graph 5 was generated."

Which on the other hand means -- instead of black we better say gray or darker white. I don't think your position is factually accurate. Since there are words for it -- use them. Not right means wrong.

It's more like calling someone a whore versus calling them a prostitute. It's not less black, it's less specific.

"Fraud" is a specific legal conclusion that requires a certain state of mind. Someone just reviewing a paper isn't in a a place to level the highly specific term "fraud" versus the more general term "error" because he doesn't have any evidence about the author's state of mind.

I do believe that the usage of certain type of language depends from the place and the time. So from my point of view, it's one thing using "fraud" in scientific paper and completely different story using in a community platform. Should I write on my web site, just like I would talk in the court?

Its the not because its a legal term, its because its a highly specific term. You can freely call someone a whore. If you call them a prostitute, you had better have some evidence that they actually trade sex for money.

Isn't the need for a site like this suggesting that "peer review" is not working anymore for some reason? Why is that?

Scientific fraud is usually in things that aren't normally checked by peer review. For instance, suppose someone writes a fraudulent paper showing that broccoli leads to homosexuality.

The peer reviewers will be looking at the design of his experiment--could it actually show such a link, and does it control for other factors that might explain the result? Does the paper give enough detail for others to repeat the experiment? Is the analysis of the data sound statistically? Is the work original? Is it citing appropriate prior researchers?

Even in a fraudulent paper, those aspects of the paper should be OK. The fraud will generally be in lying about the results of running the experiment, which is beyond the scope of peer review.

Where that gets caught is after the paper is published, and other researchers try to replicate it and get different results.

Well, considering that Amgen could only reproduce 11% of "landmark" papers in cancer research, peer review is missing a lot. See "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research" http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a...

And some of the scientists insisted on non-disclosure agreement before agreeing to help Amgen reproduce published results, which proves most papers don't publish nearly enough details to reproduce main results.

Peer review is a social organization that necessarily never lives up to its ideals. At top journals such as Science, Nature, Cell, editors also consider PR values, popularity of topics, exclusivity. It is standard practice to obtain prior favorable impression by contacting editors before formally submitting manuscripts at these places. There are different standards of peer review; consortium such as ENCODE and TCGA have a different track for their papers.

Having spent some time reading what's left of his blog and how he carried himself while anonymous, this is a really interesting case of how a do-gooder can get in way over his head, partly from drinking his own Kool Aid

Reply on news.ycombinator.com