Another Fraudulent Scientific Paper
This time, in the Lancet. It would seem that the current methods of peer review definitely need reviewing.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:57 PM
4 Comments
Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human
This WEB log considers issues involving assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Previous Posts
- Comments about Gonzales v. Oregon from Dr. Eric Ch...
- Another Case of Bad Reportage
- It's Not Over 'Till It's Over
- More Bad News From Korea: This Time About Umb. Cor...
- The First Calls Are Heard for Robert Klein's Head
- Gonzales v. Oregon: Much Less Than Meets the Eye
- The Constitutional Right to Clone
- Gonzales v. Oregon a Very Narrow Ruling
- On Mike Gallagher Show Tomorrow
- U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Oregon
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
4 Comments:
"Officials at the Norwegian Radium Hospital told The Lancet they had information that the data was manipulated."
Personally, I think this is the most important sentence in the entire piece. Why are you so quick to blame the peer review process when we have clear evidence for a lack of institutional oversight? If the hospital had exercised oversight before the manuscript was submitted, it seems this whole fiasco could have been prevented. The journal receives a finished product (notebooks and raw data are not provided), so there is really no conceivable way for them to know that the entire study was fabricated. Since it would be cost-prohibitive for journals to scrutinize the authors' notebooks, there are no easy solutions which can be implemented to prevent fraud in the peer review process.
Institutional oversight is another matter entirely. At most research institutions, individual laboratories operate as sovereign nations. The lab head is royalty in this metaphor, and he submits to no greater authority. It is a system which contains few checks and balances, leaving enormous room for abuse. I'm not arguing that universities should inspect every piece of research their scientists produce, but an occasional audit would go a long way to preventing persistant and flagrant scientific fraud.
I am not blaming peer review. I am saying that I think peer review needs to be reviewed to see whether it can be strengthened and improved. Why is that a problem? Without a reliable peer review system, where will we be?
The same should apply to Institutional oversight.
How many papers published last year -- 10,000? 100,000?
How many had problems with manipulated results, or other issues that might qualify as fraud?
Compare that with the peer-review system for theology papers -- there are not even standards to prevent ethical problems.
The current system provides better than 99.9% "okay" papers. Strengthening peer review is a good idea. Such strengthening would be better recommended by someone who doesn't think such an efficient system broken and seriously in need of repair.
Why are you so threatened by investigating whether the peer review system needs reform? A scientist would want the system to be as solid as possible, it seems to me. I know I do.
Post a Comment
<< Home