[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.

[Billthedrill]

Mostly the reason some of this stuff makes it by peer review is that to replicate the entire experiment takes specialized gear or costs a good deal for the makin's. So the reviewer looks at methodology and logic flow and takes in on faith that the stated methods resulted in the stated results.

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.

[Junior]

Peer review consists of other researchers attempting to recreate a researcher's work. That is how frauds get caught. The other researchers cannot review the original researcher's work until that work is published.

[VOA]

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 ?

As a researcher, it doesn't work in my line of work (biochemistry)...at least not for long.
To some degree, I think this may be why academics are NOT well-compensated for the most
part.
Attaining any sort of retirement usually means keeping the career intact for multiple decades.
Generally speaking, there are no Michael Milkins who can score big, cough up a fraction
of their ill-gotten gains, serve a fraction of a jail sentence and emerge with millions
in the bank and job offers.

In real science, once someone does what this fellow did...it's OVER.

If you really believe in a system that polices itself you ought to be outraged about
this gey getting so many for so long.

Honestly, there is plenty of outrage when this sort of thing gets discovered.
Espeically in academia where there are probably at least a couple of groups that
DIDN"T get their grant funded, while a fraud got plenty of money.

While it is sometimes dispiriting to see these sort of episodes, what is generally
good about American/Western science is that the peer review does keep the standards high
enough to keep out MOST harmful fraud.

But over the years, one does grow philisophical.
The aged chairman of the graduate department that I attended once quietly told
me that he suspected that about 1/3 of published scientific papers were true and honest,
1/3 might have flaws that were the result of honest mistakes or flawed interpretation
that even experienced reviewers couldn't spot, and about 1/3 is either truly suspect or
fraudulent.

But...as Churchill said about democracy...it's an awful system...but not as bad
as any other one yet devised.