There's a big range between "grad student loaded the wrong file when making sub-panel 3d" and "explicitly falsified images to support an hypothesis". This article certainly makes it seem like the latter.
Science is a human endeavor and there will always be people trying to game the system The good news is, an awful lot of cheaters get caught these days and it's getting riskier all the time.
Yes, and moreover some of the images were not just swapped out with incorrect images.
When you take a look it seems inescapable some images were first copied then edited with a tool to move around sub-pieces like blocks in a puzzle, then presented as a different image along side the original.
Literally this seems like some kind of Photoshopping rather than misplacing images. Can’t see how this could be done accidentally.
Every endeavor has some grift, but this is extensive malfeasance by high ranking cancer scientists, following shortly after it happened in Alzheimer’s research:
Every first year grad student in the sciences should be introduced to Elizabeth Bix, before they have to submit their first manuscript and feel the temptation to try some slight-of-hand with their figures:
https://twitter.com/microbiomdigest
Those feeling tempted wouldn't care: I've had students insist on 'this is my own written text' when a full page of text was verbatim copied from a patent, with the only student contribution being to replace 'motor' with 'engine'.
- don't say "there is a concern the figure is wrong". Concern is not the salient point - correctness is. Is the data wrong or right?
- why are we focusing on the figures at all? Is the data correct but the figures don't represent? Or is the incorrect data correctly represented by the figures? This is a critical point left unaddressed
“Concern” in this context is an Improper Noun of sorts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673100 It’s academic speak for ‘I believe this may be incorrect’, and it’s very common to use this word in reviews. The reason “concern” is used over “incorrect” is partly to avoid a direct accusation, which can and sometimes does turn out very bad for the accuser. Note that it was not Semenza who wrote about the “concern”. In addition this word can help establish lack of culpability by the journal and/or publisher after the fact.
At CERN, I usually find people using this word more to describe q situation when something is not fully clear more than polite way to say wrong. Usually within the frame of particle physics where heavy statistical analysis is being used.
The retraction affirms the claims so it doesn't need anyone's reputation to stand on. Small wonder if the person doesn't want to be known. Groups of people always value community over ethics, correctness, or any other virtue. There is little reason to photoshop the figures risking destruction of reputation unless deeper issues lurk. We are going to see more damning evidence as fast as people can dig through prior results.
There is "Possible duplication of data between some of the figures". So some of the plots contain data from more that the column they're meant to be of.
This could be a fundamental problem with the experiments that possibly could invalidate the conclusions or just a bug when creating figures for the paper. But if it was the latter surely a correction could be made fairly quickly - which suggests it's the former.
Third possibility: they don't have the data on hand anymore to correct the figures with... It was a 2013 paper, after all. In their reaction statement they also provide a new citation which re-ran the experiments:
"Confirmatory experimentation has now been performed and the results can be found in a preprint article posted on bioRxiv, ‘Homeostatic responses to hypoxia by the carotid body and adrenal medulla are based on mutual antagonism between HIF-1α and HIF-2α’"
In many parts of medicine and biology, the data is the figure. The immunoblot assays described as problematic here ("possible duplication of data" in the retraction) are like that.
A lot of scientific communication reads very stilted. Keep in mind those are subject matter experts, not authors of prose or user manuals. Writing doesn't necessarily come easy to them and they might be inexperienced and insecure in it. Unlike many software engineers, researchers (at least in academia) rarely have access to a department of tech writers.
With a more conventional sentence structure, the sentence would have answered the question "_who_ is concerned that the figure is wrong?" I'm not enough of a language lawyer in English to say whether this is truly a passive-voice sentence in the most technical of senses, but I think the ancestor post was getting at a valid, er, concern about the writing.
Call it the exonerative voice instead of thinking that everything mangled to avoid accusing somebody must be the passive voice.
For bonus points, identify the use of the passive voice in the previous sentence--not every use of the passive is exonerative, just as you can be exonerative without using the passive.
Sure, you are right that this sentence is not a true passive voice. Instead, it implements the dummy subject [1] construction in English grammar, which shares certain qualities that leads to criticism of writing that uses a lot of the passive voice. E.g. There (dummy subject) <linking verb> <true subject> does not clearly imply who is criticizing what, and tends to diminish the magnitude or details of the nature of the criticism.
I don't mean to defend Strunk and White any more than the next guy, but comments like this one make me think the pendulum can also swing back too far. If my pedantry annoys you, please feel free to disregard... I'm cringing at the realization that I just spent the last 5 minutes writing out this comment.
But not mentioning the actor is what irked the commenters above me. The construction, on the other hand, doesn't matter. It can be done just as easily in an SVO sentence with a "real" agent: "Commenters raised concerns about ...". There, no information about the actor at all.
But people like to add some technical detail to their argument, such as stating that the sentence is written in the passive voice, as if that proves their point. Strunk and White (and the countless people that mindlessly copied them) have made the passive voice the perfect candidate for this, to the point where it becomes an accusation, and any accusation of hiding agency is simply called "passive voice."
But the analysis that the actor is missing is also shallow. In scientific communication, the actor often doesn't matter. It's the why, the how, the what a paper need to answer, not the who. The authors take responsibility for the (unconfirmed) fault. In that sense, there's little to critique about the passage, whereas the commenter makes it sound like a cover-up. If (s)he wants to know whose concerns they were, just say so, and state the reason, but don't hide it behind a (wrong) technicality. That just makes it look like the pot calling the kettle black.
While no irking took place, it's also the case that even "commenters" would be more information than what we have. It could be the study authors who realised it, or publishers, or reviewers, or commenters. That would be some information.
But we can get lost in technical subclassification, when saying something is written in the passive voice is not the most precise term, even when it's obvious what is meant. Strunk and White, and the countless people who've used their rules of thumb, have helped popularise common ways of identifying why communication is unsatisfying or vague, and how to fix them.
But you saying pot calling the kettle black is also shallow. In no way was the comment written in the (right and true, or Strunk and White) passive voice, which would be the correct way to deploy that phrase. If you want to disagree, then do so, but don't hide behind a (wrong) idiom. That just makes a hot potato look like a piece of cake.
The construction: “There is a concern…” is perfectly normal in either place. It’s not a dialect difference, I don’t even really understand how you can make this point, unless I’m misunderstanding.
It is hard to reproduce the values returned by various instruments. Using modern technology and analytics tools it’s easier to check for fraud in the western blots, so this is where the fraud is often proven. The problem is that this is ipso facto fraud - you can’t say “ohhh I got mixed up and accidentally made an image that perfectly lined up with my conclusions”. If the authors were willing to fraud there then the entire paper should be seen as fraud and the authors responsible shamed because they are undermining the fundamental scientific process.
Well, this seems to be the first retraction which happened a couple of days ago. Now there will be a more extensive search through all the rest of the papers with the same authors. Who knows if the Nobel prize will be retracted as well, no matter if they find more problematic papers or not.
A bit early to say "it worked" as everything here just happened.
Seems you're right, it's not mentioned in the statues that it can be retracted.
However, the spirit of the prize seems to be around prize-worthy effort or achievement of the past, like discoveries or inventions.
It makes sense that as long as those are truthful, it doesn't get retracted (like the peace prize going to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991, but later she helped with mass killings of Muslim Rohingya).
But in the case where the discovery/invention was not truthful and instead made up, there should definitely be a retraction as the discovery wasn't made/invention didn't work.
And then your market brand value skyrocket in the universities, because will increase the university rank, even if you are hired to just sit in a chair and play candy crush all day.
So, congratulations to Semenza for hacking the lottery.
Cheat to be a Navy seal? How? Are you talking about the off label viagra usage to pass hell week? Not that I am condoning the practice, but that is not cheating in my books. Desparate yes, dangerous but war is more.
There was also an interesting discussion on the r/navyseals forum, frequented by applicants and veterans, which corroborates the steroid use (looks credible, with a pinch of salt as always because the comments are anonymous): https://www.reddit.com/r/navyseals/comments/x1hvaz/death_in_...
> "Sobering read. I really hope steroid use at BUDS isn't as big as this article purports it to be"
>> "It’s pretty accurate, the instructors even make jokes about it “Your roid rage is showing sir”"
>> "How could it not be, anabolics increase performance far outside the natural range and/or let you maintain what you could achieve naturally with far less effort. The effects can last well beyond when you stop taking them.
You could take them from 18-21, keep training and join at 22 without testing positive but retaining a large (physical) advantage"
It's also very plausible from the NYTimes's article alone, from the report that the instructors had stopped testing for steroids, so there was no enforcement mechanism to stop the behavior.
In sports, there is an expectation of fair competition which is violated when someone is using any kind assistance, one type of which are performance enhancing drugs.
In military, on the other hand, there is no expectation of a fair competition, and exploiting any unfair advantage over the opponent is actively desired. There a genuine need to get things done, and the only concern is the impact on health - militaries have historically used all kinds of performance enhancing drugs, e.g. amphetamines as 'go pills' for USA Cold war pilots, Pervitin in WW2, etc.
Because it encourages recruits to cheat and hide things from leadership (instead of the only the adversary), and increases the risk of death.
In the military, one of the values is supposed to be integrity. The value of integrity isn't just idealistic: it's pragmatically important to military strategy to avoid committing war crimes, as it lessens public support for the military action among the citizenry. The public can then vote out the administration, where a future one can scale back the war effort. As evidence this is a value, the Navy SEALs in particular says [0]: "Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond."
On the health risk to recruits, from the NYTimes article : "It is hard to say what role performance-enhancing drugs played in one death when there are so many other complicating factors, said Dr. Matthew Fedoruk, the chief science officer of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. Even so, he said, the chemicals some sailors are relying on can interfere with the function of the heart, liver and other critical organs that are already under incredible stress from the brutal training.
"If enough people in a community are doping, he said, it spreads risk even to those who are clean, as the level of competition rises and more people are pushed to exhaustion and injury.
"“It makes it that much harder for the people doing the right thing to shine,” he said."
The military can either allow performance-enhancing drugs for all and provide adequate medical monitoring to avoid unnecessary deaths, or enforce the rules as written and test for it. Unnecessary deaths are in no one's interests within the country.
> “What am I going to do with guys like that in a place like Afghanistan?” said the leader. “A guy who can do 100 pull-ups but can’t make an ethical decision?”
Alternatively, through a very pragmatic lens: the interviewee is essentially saying that a military does not want unpredictable troops that violate rules of engagement, because it can cause a massive loss of public support among the citizenry and cause international pressure. This can force an end to the campaign before the military's objectives are reached.
The recruits believe it's a treatment for a lung condition where you cough up blood during training.
From the NYTimes article: "Many men were coughing up bloody fluid from a condition called swimming-induced pulmonary edema — a potentially life-threatening ailment that is so common among men training in the frigid water at BUD/S that SEALs refer to it casually by the acronym SIPE.
"[...] Seaman Mullen showed up for his second attempt at BUD/S in January with fresh determination and a used car. But by the end of the second week, he was spitting up bloody fluid and struggling to breathe.
"“I said, go to the hospital right away,” his mother recalled. “He said, ‘No, ma, if you want to go to the hospital, they will make you quit first. Besides, it’s just SIPE.’”
"Ms. Mullen said her son, on the advice of other SEAL candidates, started secretly taking the erectile dysfunction drug Viagra, which was against Navy rules but used by SEALs as a potential treatment for SIPE. He recovered enough to keep training.""
No. I think he means that people just lie about earning that distinction. Flat out lie. I don't think that the people actually do any of the hard stuff that makes the distinction worthy of esteem. They just want to brag.
Who is expressing doubt that some do? Such doubt cannot, for example, be deduced from the lack of a direct accusation over this case, especially given libel laws.
https://forbetterscience.com/2020/10/07/gregg-semenza-real-n...
There's a big range between "grad student loaded the wrong file when making sub-panel 3d" and "explicitly falsified images to support an hypothesis". This article certainly makes it seem like the latter.
Science is a human endeavor and there will always be people trying to game the system The good news is, an awful lot of cheaters get caught these days and it's getting riskier all the time.