Posted on 11/04/2002 8:56:30 AM PST by Junior
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the largest block retraction ever published in the prestigious journal Science, eight papers by discredited researcher J. Hendrik Schon are being withdrawn at the request of his co-authors.
Schon, 32, was a science superstar at Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs. He published more than 80 papers in top journals, such as Science and Nature, and was sought out by other researchers because of his reputation for spectacular results with difficult problems in material sciences and electronics.
But when his work was questioned by other scientists last spring, an outside investigating committee appointed by Bell Labs concluded that Schon had fabricated data or altered experimental results in at least 16 projects between 1998 and 2001.
Schon, the committee found, "did this intentionally or recklessly and without the knowledge of any of his co-authors."
At least eight of Schon's research reports were published in Science and co-authors on the studies announced in this week's issue of the journal that they were retracting all of the papers.
"As a result of the committee's findings, we feel obligated to the scientific community to issue a retraction of the ... articles," the co-authors announced.
The articles dealt with exotic electronic experiments involving such things as organic molecular semiconductors, lasers and high temperature superconductivity.
Robert C. Haddon, a professor of chemistry and chemical and environmental engineering at the University of California, Riverside, said he agreed to become a co-author on one paper after Schon claimed success in a superconductivity experiment that Haddon originated.
"There was an experiment I tried myself in 1996 and I couldn't get it to work," said Haddon. "I heard about Hendrik's devices that seemed to work better so I suggested the experiment to him. Six weeks later, he send me an e-mail and said he got it to work."
After Schon sent him data that seemed to show success in the experiment, "I agreed to be a co-author," said Haddon.
But after the committee investigation showed Schon's data was suspect, Haddon said he had no choice but to retract the paper.
"This data (in the paper) cannot be trusted," said Haddon. "While some of it may be correct, one can't be sure."
Haddon said that when researchers combine their studies to produce a single paper, each scientist depends upon the honesty of work contributed by the other co-authors. That, he said, is the way science is supposed to work.
As the result of the questioned work, Bell Labs announced earlier this month that it was withdrawing six patent applications that had been based on Schon's research. Schon has made no public comment on the matter.
Bill O'Shea, president of Bell Labs, said in a statement last month the Schon investigation uncovered the first case of scientific misconduct in the 77-year history of the famed research organization. The lab, which until 1996 was part of AT&T, has generated more than 28,000 patents in communications and electronics and was the research home of six Nobel Prize winners in physics.
Science, published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (news - web sites), is one of the top peer-reviewed journals in the world, routinely printing landmark findings in many fields of science.
___
On the Net:
Science: www.sciencemag.org
Bell Labs: http://www.bell-labs.com
... Schon, the committee found, "did this intentionally or recklessly and without the knowledge of any of his co-authors" ...This seems to happening a lot lately in academia. At least they tend to police themselves, i.e. you hear no calls for congressional hearings or regulatory intervention etc.
-------------------------
It's been going on for decades and longer.
... It's been going on for decades and longer ...Around 250 years, actually. Peer reviewing as a hedge against bad science or shoddy research, as a formal, as a programmatic, institutional practice goes back at least to the Port Royal Society. What I meant was simply that the pendulum appears to be swinging toward greater rigor and higher standards, this after years of it swinging in the other direction, toward really, really questionable research.
Perhaps, as a show of solidarity with their fellow researchers, the clowns at the Creation Research Institute will now withdraw each and every one of their bogus claims.
As a CPA, this wouldn't work in my business. If you folks look at this as some endorsement of your faith in published science I would ask you to rethink your conclusion. How are you so sure that other peer reviewed articles are not also suspect ? If you really believe in a system that polices itself you ought to be outraged about this gey getting so many for so long.
It has been known to happen from time to time.
I'm sorry, but if I were going to put my name on a document, especially as a co-author, I would make damn sure that everything in it was correct and provable. (walking away, shaking my head)
Trust, but verify.
It's sad, really - the guy was a "superstar" - always treat this with suspicion in science - whose career in independent research is essentially over. I can' imagine a more effective way to poison a grant application now than to put his name on it anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.