[Junior]

A "Science at work" piece

[Junior]

Ping

[Asclepius]

... 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.

This is the absolute worst outcome for an academic, by the way.

[Cicero]

Well, actually, you have to admire the honesty and remarkable speed with which these papers seem to have been retracted. Usually when this happens things go back and forth for years, the perp never confesses, and everybody pretends not to know whether it was fraudulent or not. And the whistle-blower probably loses his job.

What Haddon says is perfectly plausible. He contributed to an idea that another scientist seemingly took further, so he thought he deserved to be listed as a co-author. Probably he didn't have the lab setup required to check out Schon's supposed findings so he accepted them on good faith.

Hundreds of thousands of technical papers come out, and no one can read or check all of them. So fraud may not be suspected until someone tries to duplicate an experiment or make further use of an idea.

At least Haddon had some reason to allow his name to appear as co-author, because he thought he had contributed to a discovery. As an outsider I am somewhat more bewildered by cases where senior scientists or lab heads take credit from junior ones although they had no actual input at all into the experiments. But I suppose if scientists think that's OK there's no point in arguing with them.

[LiteKeeper]

bump for later

[js1138]

Can't wait for the "all science is fraud" crowd to check in. I give this thread about 30 more posts before meltdown.

[Aracelis]

Interesting evidence that science continues to be self-correcting.

[FreedomPoster]

I wonder when more of Bellesiles past lies will be unearthed. I'm not holding my breath.

[VRWC_minion]

If it works why did it get published ? This is like saying Arthuer Andersens audits worked because 2 years later we discovered the fraud. Were are the reviewers on this ?

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.

[RikaStrom]

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.

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.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Funny, the morality of this "scienctific genious" seems a bit lacking ....

- I wonder what his political affiliation was .....

[wayoverontheright]

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.

Hmm....cooking up more propaganda for the enviro-wackos?

[Old Professer]

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.

B.S! Peer-review is not supposed to be a "rubber-stamp."

This reflects badly on Science magazine, what I thought was the only true journal left, even after they refused to print so much as a letter to the editor from S. Fred Singer back in the ozone wars after they publicly pooh-pooh'ed his research and credentials.

How one is now expected to believe the amazing claims is going to be problematic at best.

[AndrewC]

A "Science at work" piece

Bull. It was "police" work. Science at work is DNA evidence correcting the bone-readers false theories.

But not everything was as it seemed. Many scientists were unable to reproduce Schön's results. In April, a small group of physicists noticed that graphs in three unrelated papers appeared identical down to what should have been random noise. Bell Labs rapidly launched an independent investigation, which soon expanded to include two dozen papers.

[gore3000]

But after the committee investigation showed Schon's data was suspect, Haddon said he had no choice but to retract the paper.

Seems pretty irresponsible for Haddon to sign on to something he did not know was true. Does he also go around signing blank checks? Bet he does not. Yet he lent his reputation without examining the evidence. Sounds to me like backscratching not science.

This guy Shon was quite a character. There was a long piece about him in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back. He was really a promoter, not a scientist. He got fired from numerous positions for phonying up experiments. However the employers because of fear of lible suits never revealed the misdeeds or said anything bad about him. Also many of his subsequent employers, impressed by his BS and his unearned fame would hire him without even asking for references. He had been pulling this nonsense for over a decade without getting caught. Quite a shame on the scientific profession.

What the article certainly does show is that because something is in a scientific journal does not mean it is true or that it has been checked for truthfullness. So until the research has been verified independently by others or by subsequent research, it cannot be considered scientifically correct. For this reason any extravagant new claims need to be considered with an analytic mind and taken with more than a grain of salt.

[gore3000]

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.

Well the article clearly showed it is not very well peer-reviewed and that many of the 'landmark findings' are just nonsense. Sorta shows that editors go for headlines instead of truth in 'science' magazines just as much as in the yellow press.

[glc1173@aol.com]

How many more Bellesileses are there out there?

[dixie sass]

All these years I have been under the mistaken impression that scientist ALWAYS duplicated and verified anothers work before publishing. Not just once but several times. Sad to think that even science is taking shortcuts now just to get "15 minutes of fame".

Once is not always enough just like maybe never gets anything done.

Sighhhhhhhhhhh, another rude awakening.