Esta página se destina a mostrar as evidências mais fortes já registradas para a reencarnação. Tais pesquisas foram inclusive publicadas em revistas indexadas pelo ISI e com fator de impacto na comunidade científica.
Se apenas publicar um artigo em revistras de Impact garantisse a confiabilidade da informação cientifica ...
Scientist faces irreproducible results
RNA researcher defends experiments others have found impossible to repeat.
Ichiko Fuyuno
© Nature
After the spectacular case of fraud involving stem-cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang, Asia has been hit by another, more low-key scandal.
The head of an investigating committee at the University of Tokyo announced on 27 January that at least one of the experiments performed by a Japanese RNA researcher, whose credibility stands in doubt, has failed a first test to reproduce the results.
In April last year, the RNA Society of Japan asked the University of Tokyo to examine 12 papers written by Kazunari Taira and his team between 1998 and 2004. This was in response to a number of complaints from international researchers that they could not reproduce the experimental results.
The main focus of Taira's work is RNA interference technology, in which small pieces of RNA, either naturally present or introduced into cells, regulate expression of genes. The work, which has been questioned for some time, addresses smaller aspects of RNA research and is not considered central to the field.
The university has set up an investigating committee, which includes outside experts. They first asked Taira to submit raw data, but he could not do so. His assistant and first author of most of the papers, Hiroaki Kawasaki, admitted that he had not kept his notebooks. It also seems that some data stored in a computer had been deleted (see 'Lack of lab notes casts doubt on RNA researcher's results').
So the committee asked Taira and his team to reproduce experiments described in 4 of the 12 papers, chosen because they looked relatively easy to perform. These included two Nature papers1,2, the first of which had already been retracted, and the second corrected.
Mixed results
Now the results are in from the first of these tests. On 13 January, Kawasaki reported that he could repeat the results outlined in their 2003 paper published in Nucleic Acids Research3. But an independent company also attempting it could not.
The investigating committee has decided not to accept Kawasaki's new results, in part, they say, because the team did not use the same materials as outlined in the original paper. They also note that while Kawasaki's notebooks indicate that he used Rosetta-gami bacteria in the new experiment, it seems that he used Rosetta-gami DC3 instead; a potentially worrying discrepency.
Taira says that Kawasaki is willing to do the test again in front of witnesses.
Officials from the university did not discuss whether scientific fraud or fabrication were involved. Kimihiko Hirao, head of the School of Engineering and spokesperson for the committee, said at a press conference on 27 January "there are many things that look doubtful".
"I didn't do anything wrong," Kawasaki says, adding that he didn't know the importance of keeping notebooks until recently.
Last week, various news outlets reported that Taira said that an assistant may have fabricated some data.
Try, try again
Taira's team is working on re-doing a second of the four papers. They have not yet tackled the third and fourth.
ADVERTISEMENT
The investigating committee originally said it would deliver a final verdict in March. Meanwhile the university has set up another committee to specifically investigate who in Taira's team, which includes about 30 people, was responsible for what aspects of the various papers.
Taira says he does not intend to resign from his post but will follow any advice from the investigation. He adds that he has no plan to retract the 2003 paper. There's no complete evidence of wrongdoing, Taira says. "The biggest problem is the absence of notebooks."
fonte:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060123/ ... 23-14.htmlEspecial sobre as fraudes de Woo Suk Hwang ( ele tb tinha artigos publicados na NATURE bem como em outras revistas de alto impacto ):
Woo Suk Hwang The South Korean stem-cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang has been at the centre of one of the largest investigations of scientific fraud in living memory.
In January 2006, Hwang's home research institution, Seoul National University, delivered a damning report about Hwang's work on cloned human embryos, concluding it was all based on fraudulent data. The revelation has destroyed the best evidence so far that stem cells can be extracted from a clone matched to a specific patient. With Hwang discredited, both the field of therapeutic cloning and the public's trust in science have suffered a serious setback.
Here
news@nature.com collects all our material about the case.
11 January 2006
fonte:
http://www.nature.com/news/specials/hwang/index.htmlNota do texto abaixo: Jan Hendrik Schon estava cotado ao Nobel por suas pesquisas
Scientific fraud found at Bell Labs
Star researcher fired for falsifying data
By LINDA A. JOHNSON
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
TRENTON, N.J. -- A series of extraordinary advances claimed by scientists at Bell Labs are based on fraudulent data, a committee investigating the matter reported yesterday.
The findings, in effect, dismiss as fiction results from more than a dozen papers that had been promoted as major breakthroughs in physics, including claims last fall that Bell Labs had created molecular-scale transistors.
Jan Hendrik Schon, a star researcher in electronics, was fired after the outside committee found he falsified experimental data.
The review committee concluded Schon, 32, made up or altered data at least 16 times between 1998 and 2001 -- the first case of scientific fraud in the 77-year history of the Nobel Prize-winning laboratory, Lucent Technologies said yesterday. Bell Labs is the research arm of Lucent, which makes telecommunications gear; the labs used to be part of AT&T.
The research involved work by Schon and other scientists in the fields of superconductivity, molecular electronics and molecular crystals, which could bring improvements to computers and telecommunications in a decade or more. The findings were published in several prominent scientific publications, including the journals Science, Nature and Applied Physics Letters.
The committee cleared about 20 other researchers from Bell Labs and other institutions who worked on the research or helped write reports on it.
"The evidence that manipulation and misrepresentation of data occurred is compelling," the committee said in a report made public yesterday. Schon "did this intentionally or recklessly and without the knowledge of any of his co-authors."
In a response appended to the report, Schon wrote that he disagreed with several of its findings, but "I have to admit that I made various mistakes in my scientific work, which I deeply regret."
Schon blamed some mistakes on the work's complexity or errors he did not notice before publication. But he said all the scientific publications he prepared were based on experimental observations.
A phone message left at Schon's New Jersey home yesterday was not immediately returned.
Malcolm Beasley, an applied physics professor who headed the committee, said yesterday that Schon's motive remained unclear.
Scientists began questioning the validity of the research because they could not reproduce the experiments.
In May, Bell Labs retained five prominent scientists and engineers to investigate. The committee's 125-page report, submitted to Bell Labs late Tuesday, concludes that Schon did not maintain proper laboratory records, and devices that might have been used to confirm his results were all either damaged or discarded.
Schon, a German native and a rising star in the field of nanoelectronics, or creating molecule-sized electronic components, cooperated with the investigators and continued his work at the lab until the firing.
fonte:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... l261.shtmlSe não me engano a revista de maior impacto que Stevenson publicou seus trabalhos foi na Lancet ( matéria saida do forno, publicada em 28/01/2006):
Journal Accuses Researcher of Data Fraud in NSAID-Oral Cancer Study
By Peggy Peck, Managing Editor, MedPage Today
January 20, 2006
LONDON, Jan. 20 - Once again a major medical journal is backing away from published research. This time The Lancet says a study that concluded use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs cuts the risk of oral cancers was based on fabricated data.
The study, led by Norwegian cancer researcher Jon Sudbø, M.D., Ph.D., D.D.S., of the Norwegian Radium Hospital in Oslo, reported that smokers who regularly used drugs like Motrin, Advil (ibuprofen), and Aleve (naproxen) for up to five years reduced the risk of oral cancer by half, and the protective effect was even greater for smokers who used NSAIDS for more than five years.
Dr. Sudbø reported the same data at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in April 2005. At that time, as reported by MedPage Today, Dr. Sudbø said that while NSAID use dramatically reduced smokers’ risk of oral cancers, NSAIDS were also associated with a doubling of the risk of cardiovascular events.
In an interview at the April AACR meeting, Dr. Sudbø said that the data on cardiovascular risk were so surprising that "we thought the data were corrupt. We spent two months trying to find the problem."
The Lancet said officials at the Norwegian Radium Hospital informed them that the data were manipulated.
The Lancet article in October 2005 listed four co-authors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and another at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in New York. The paper noted that the study was funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda.
Statements from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and Weill Medical College said that neither institution is involved in the current investigation by the Oslo hospital officials.
According to the Research Council of Norway, Dr. Sudbo is on sick leave. But the Research Council said he formally agreed to give an external investigating committee access to all his data.
The council added that the committee will investigate both fabricated data upon which The Lancet article was based, as well as research data used in 38 other articles previously published internationally by the scientist.
Late Friday, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that in the NEJM issue of April 26, 2001, a study by Dr. Sudbo and colleagues included photomicrographs said to represent two different patients and stages of oral epithelial dysplasia. But, added the NEJM, they “are in fact different magnifications of the same photomicrograph.”
fonte:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyO ... ls/tb/2527Um interessante artigo do Times sobre o caso acima com uma critica ao atual sistema de Peer Review que talevz necessited e um revisão em seu processo:
Junk medicine: scientific peer review
Fraud's the only fool
The disgrace of Woo Suk Hwang, the South Korean cloning pioneer who faked his data, had already placed the integrity of medical science and its peer-reviewed journals under close scrutiny. Both are reeling again this week from another scandal. On Monday, Jon Sudboe, of the Norwegian Radium Hospital, confessed to fabricating a study of mouth cancer, published last year in The Lancet.
Every one of the 908 patients in the trial had been invented, his lawyer said.
The exposure of a second big fraud so soon after Hwang’s downfall has raised fresh questions about the scientific publication process that is supposed to screen out dodgy research. Despite vetting by expert referees, journals with the clout of Science and The Lancet were taken in by a pair of charlatans. This failure of quality control has led critics to argue, with Wildean logic, that science’s peer-review system is deeply flawed.
For one study to be revealed as fiction might be regarded as misfortune. For a second to go down looks like carelessness.
The deceptions of Hwang and Sudboe reveal a weakness in the way science works. But they also prove its enduring strength as a provisional, self-correcting method of explaining and understanding the world.
Peer review, by which journals such as The Lancet send papers to independent experts to check before approving them, is an important safeguard that prevents the circulation of much misleading research. But it is not perfect. Referees can and do challenge methods and interpretations, but it is hard for them to detect a meticulous fraud. They must, to an extent, take on trust the raw data on which a paper’s conclusions are based.
Innocent mistakes sometimes slip through, and clever manipulation is fiendishly difficult to spot.
What happens next, however, raises an almost insurmountable bulwark against fraud and demonstrates the peculiar rigour of science. A published paper must contain all the data on which its conclusions rest, and the protocols needed to repeat the experiments. It will be pored over by experts across the world, many of whom will try to replicate it. Any errors, whether accidental or fraudulent, will come to light under such intensive scrutiny. When the results of an experiment prove impossible to repeat, alarm bells ring.
This process is remarkably efficient and ensures that outlandish mistakes or manipulations are corrected, often with surprising speed.
While really bad science might take in a few editors and referees, and win plaudits for a while, it never stands the test of time. The recent frauds are cases in point. Hwang’s Science paper on cloned stem cells tailored to individual patients was published online last May. Serious doubts about its authenticity had emerged by November and he was forced to withdraw it before the year was out. Sudboe’s exposure came faster still: his Lancet study was discredited within three months of appearing.
The system is so robust because it demands openness. To win kudos for work, to have it accepted by the rest of the community, and to win funding for future efforts, a scientist has to publish. This means placing data and conclusions on public record so that anyone who wants to can pick holes. Science then proceeds in Darwininan fashion: the good ideas thrive, while the flawed and fraudulent ones are exposed and abandoned.
The only sure-fire way to beat the checks and balances of publication is to dodge them altogether, a route well trodden by the likes of the phantom cloners of the Raelian cult and the peddlers of quack cures. The staggering thing about Hwang and Sudboe is not that they managed to fool two great journals; it is that they imagined they could get away with their fabrications.
Mark Henderson is the Times science correspondent
fonte:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 66,00.html
Reprodutibilidade, a maior garantia da ciência !
[ ]´s
