a********h
发帖数: 245 | 1 The sad and sobering tale of how allegedly fabricated results of research
led by a Johns Hopkins University lab led to the suicide of a scientist in
Taiwan,and the dismissal of the man who blew the whistle, are the focus of a
feature in yesterday's Washington Post.
The story is the tale of Daniel Yuan, formerly a genetics researcher in Jeff
Boeke's lab at Hopkins. For years, Yuan suggested that data being generated
in the lab's studies of gene interactions in yeast were suspicious.
Yuan was dismissed from Hopkins in 2011, and last summer one of the members
of the research team, Yu-yi Lin, was found dead in his new lab in Taiwan of
an apparent suicide.
Lin was an author of a paper published in Nature last year that now,
according to the Washington Post, may soon be corrected by the journal. At
age 38, Lin left behind a wife and three daughters.
The article suggests that Yuan was fired because of his concerns that the
data that was used to write the Nature paper and others did not support the
conclusions reported. Yuan also reached out to the editors at Nature,
warning the journal of the weakness of the data behind the paper, saying
that its results were overstated and that some of the analyses outlined in
the paper may not have been conducted at all.
After Lin was found dead, Yuan received an e-mail "essentially blaming him
for driving Lin to suicide," the Post reports.
The Post feature also suggests that the saga of Yuan and Lin are part of a
larger trend of falsified research and unfounded research conclusions being
published because of the immense pressure caused by an increasing number of
scientists who are racing to win grants in an environment of diminishing
funding.
original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/doubts-about-joh | a***y
发帖数: 19743 | 2 emmm
a
Jeff
generated
members
of
【在 a********h 的大作中提到】
: The sad and sobering tale of how allegedly fabricated results of research
: led by a Johns Hopkins University lab led to the suicide of a scientist in
: Taiwan,and the dismissal of the man who blew the whistle, are the focus of a
: feature in yesterday's Washington Post.
: The story is the tale of Daniel Yuan, formerly a genetics researcher in Jeff
: Boeke's lab at Hopkins. For years, Yuan suggested that data being generated
: in the lab's studies of gene interactions in yeast were suspicious.
: Yuan was dismissed from Hopkins in 2011, and last summer one of the members
: of the research team, Yu-yi Lin, was found dead in his new lab in Taiwan of
: an apparent suicide.
| w**********s
发帖数: 8 | 3 Yuan is simply attacking the first fig of Lin et al Nature paper. And the
paper is really focused on AMPK and its acetylation regulation.
Yuan and Washington Post also admitted "he is questioning the first part.
and even if the first part is wrong, the second part of the paper can still
be right".
Lin should simply leave the genomics and statistics out of this paper.
What a pity. | h****u
发帖数: 480 | 4
still
Leaving this paper aside, hypothetically if an author "knowingly" put some
shaky data in one part of the paper, as a reader, do you trust the paper as
a whole?
【在 w**********s 的大作中提到】
: Yuan is simply attacking the first fig of Lin et al Nature paper. And the
: paper is really focused on AMPK and its acetylation regulation.
: Yuan and Washington Post also admitted "he is questioning the first part.
: and even if the first part is wrong, the second part of the paper can still
: be right".
: Lin should simply leave the genomics and statistics out of this paper.
: What a pity.
| f*******7
发帖数: 1019 | 5 It seems that Yuan is questioning the analysis and interpretation of data -
that's quite different from somebody forging data intentionally. It's not
uncommon that statisticians will analyze the same data differently. This
report only tells Yuan's side of the story.
With that said, it does smell bad that the Boeke group cannot produce a
rebuttal
in a timely manner.
as
【在 h****u 的大作中提到】
:
: still
: Leaving this paper aside, hypothetically if an author "knowingly" put some
: shaky data in one part of the paper, as a reader, do you trust the paper as
: a whole?
| a********h
发帖数: 245 | 6 The sad and sobering tale of how allegedly fabricated results of research
led by a Johns Hopkins University lab led to the suicide of a scientist in
Taiwan,and the dismissal of the man who blew the whistle, are the focus of a
feature in yesterday's Washington Post.
The story is the tale of Daniel Yuan, formerly a genetics researcher in Jeff
Boeke's lab at Hopkins. For years, Yuan suggested that data being generated
in the lab's studies of gene interactions in yeast were suspicious.
Yuan was dismissed from Hopkins in 2011, and last summer one of the members
of the research team, Yu-yi Lin, was found dead in his new lab in Taiwan of
an apparent suicide.
Lin was an author of a paper published in Nature last year that now,
according to the Washington Post, may soon be corrected by the journal. At
age 38, Lin left behind a wife and three daughters.
The article suggests that Yuan was fired because of his concerns that the
data that was used to write the Nature paper and others did not support the
conclusions reported. Yuan also reached out to the editors at Nature,
warning the journal of the weakness of the data behind the paper, saying
that its results were overstated and that some of the analyses outlined in
the paper may not have been conducted at all.
After Lin was found dead, Yuan received an e-mail "essentially blaming him
for driving Lin to suicide," the Post reports.
The Post feature also suggests that the saga of Yuan and Lin are part of a
larger trend of falsified research and unfounded research conclusions being
published because of the immense pressure caused by an increasing number of
scientists who are racing to win grants in an environment of diminishing
funding.
original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/doubts-about-joh | a***y
发帖数: 19743 | 7 emmm
a
Jeff
generated
members
of
【在 a********h 的大作中提到】
: The sad and sobering tale of how allegedly fabricated results of research
: led by a Johns Hopkins University lab led to the suicide of a scientist in
: Taiwan,and the dismissal of the man who blew the whistle, are the focus of a
: feature in yesterday's Washington Post.
: The story is the tale of Daniel Yuan, formerly a genetics researcher in Jeff
: Boeke's lab at Hopkins. For years, Yuan suggested that data being generated
: in the lab's studies of gene interactions in yeast were suspicious.
: Yuan was dismissed from Hopkins in 2011, and last summer one of the members
: of the research team, Yu-yi Lin, was found dead in his new lab in Taiwan of
: an apparent suicide.
| w**********s
发帖数: 8 | 8 Yuan is simply attacking the first fig of Lin et al Nature paper. And the
paper is really focused on AMPK and its acetylation regulation.
Yuan and Washington Post also admitted "he is questioning the first part.
and even if the first part is wrong, the second part of the paper can still
be right".
Lin should simply leave the genomics and statistics out of this paper.
What a pity. | h****u
发帖数: 480 | 9
still
Leaving this paper aside, hypothetically if an author "knowingly" put some
shaky data in one part of the paper, as a reader, do you trust the paper as
a whole?
【在 w**********s 的大作中提到】
: Yuan is simply attacking the first fig of Lin et al Nature paper. And the
: paper is really focused on AMPK and its acetylation regulation.
: Yuan and Washington Post also admitted "he is questioning the first part.
: and even if the first part is wrong, the second part of the paper can still
: be right".
: Lin should simply leave the genomics and statistics out of this paper.
: What a pity.
| f*******7
发帖数: 1019 | 10 It seems that Yuan is questioning the analysis and interpretation of data -
that's quite different from somebody forging data intentionally. It's not
uncommon that statisticians will analyze the same data differently. This
report only tells Yuan's side of the story.
With that said, it does smell bad that the Boeke group cannot produce a
rebuttal
in a timely manner.
as
【在 h****u 的大作中提到】
:
: still
: Leaving this paper aside, hypothetically if an author "knowingly" put some
: shaky data in one part of the paper, as a reader, do you trust the paper as
: a whole?
| | | l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | | s******y
发帖数: 28562 | | l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 13 Your query reminded me that on a couple of months after above null floor
post,
pls go to your computer HD
check beolow
http://ipv6.weiming.info/zhuti/Biology/31704723/
21st floor noted Nature letter pdf file...:)))
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: Matrix 很牛，这么老的帖子都默默的记在你的硬盘上了。呵呵。
| s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 14 笑死。幸好我当时没有认真的follow 那个文章。
【在 l**********1 的大作中提到】
: Your query reminded me that on a couple of months after above null floor
: post,
: pls go to your computer HD
: check beolow
: http://ipv6.weiming.info/zhuti/Biology/31704723/
: 21st floor noted Nature letter pdf file...:)))
| l**********1
发帖数: 5204 | 15 That Boeke recent Cell paper , be careful to it too,please
HTTP ://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/nature-yanks-controversial-
genetics-paper-whose-co-author-was-found-dead-in-lab-in-2012/#more-16409
HtTp: ://download.cell.com/pdf/PIIS0092867413005308.pdf?intermediate=true
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 笑死。幸好我当时没有认真的follow 那个文章。
|
|
