The reckoning

Cathleen O'Grady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp0437

IF: 56.9

2024-03-09

Science

Abstract:Didier Raoult and his institute found fame during the pandemic. Then, a group of dogged critics exposed major ethical failings

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Eduardo Garcia-Garzon,Ariadna Angulo-Brunet,Oscar Lecuona,Juan Ramón Barrada,Guido Corradi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6

IF: 2.8

2022-02-28

Current Psychology

Abstract:Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers’ research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others’ colleagues’ research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs’ definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Science and a global conscience: remaking the world we broke

Kamran Abbasi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076820985813

2021-01-01

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Abstract:A vaccine from scratch to stab in under 12 months was the scientific success of 2020 – but it opened up a world of new issues. First, the success, the achievement of scientists globally, the universities, governments, and companies who supported them, and the public who volunteered to enter trials. In record time, these collaborators cut through the fog and noise of pandemic chaos to deliver hope of a return to health and prosperity.

medicine, general & internal
'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8

IF: 64.8

2024-10-15

Nature

Abstract:A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan. A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan.

multidisciplinary sciences
Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00202-9

IF: 64.8

2024-01-26

Nature

Abstract:Nature talks to Sholto David about his process for flagging image manipulation and his tips for scientists under scrutiny. Nature talks to Sholto David about his process for flagging image manipulation and his tips for scientists under scrutiny.

multidisciplinary sciences
Deep and fascinating insights into whistleblowing

Richard Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1147

2024-05-23

BMJ

Abstract:Why do people become whistleblowers? Why do most people not become whistleblowers? What becomes of whistleblowers? These are three of the questions that Carl Elliott, a professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, sets out to answer in the context of medical research in his beautifully written book The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No. (I suspect that the publisher rather than Elliott chose the title.)Elliott was inspired to try and answer these questions by his experience as a whistleblower against his own university. In June 2008 he read a newspaper account of the death by suicide of Dan Markingson. Markingson had been a participant in a clinical trial of an antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, funded by AstraZeneca. He had been experiencing full blown psychosis when admitted to the trial, raising questions about informed consent. His mother had not wanted him entered into the trial,...

medicine, general & internal
A Critical Assessment of Some Recent Work on COVID-19

Jörg Stoye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.10237

2020-05-26

Abstract:I tentatively re-analyze data from two well-publicized studies on COVID-19, namely the Charité "viral load in children" and the Bonn "seroprevalence in Heinsberg/Gangelt" study, from information available in the preprints. The studies have the following in common: - They received worldwide attention and arguably had policy impact. - The thrusts of their findings align with the respective lead authors' (different) public stances on appropriate response to COVID-19. - Tentatively, my reading of the Gangelt study neutralizes its thrust, and my reading of the Charité study reverses it. The exercise may aid in placing these studies in the literature. With all caveats that apply to n=2 quickfire analyses based off preprints, one also wonders whether it illustrates inadvertent effects of "researcher degrees of freedom."

Applications,Physics and Society,Populations and Evolution
Daily briefing: Meet the data sleuth who spurred the Dana-Farber retractions

Flora Graham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00251-0

IF: 64.8

2024-01-25

Nature

Abstract:‘There’s a pretty simple way to prevent all of this,’ he says. Plus, troubled times at Fermilab and when whales walked the Earth.

multidisciplinary sciences
Whistleblower’s decades long fight to save patients from dangerous research

Mun-Keat Looi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q526

2024-03-06

BMJ

Abstract:Nancy Olivieri chose to safeguard patients rather than protect her career when she blew the whistle on a drug trial she was leading. She tells The BMJ of her near 30 year fight for transparency and safety and why it will probably never be over

medicine, general & internal
Retraction: The anti-vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis

The PLOS ONE Editors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279796

IF: 3.7

2022-12-24

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Following the publication of this article [1], concerns were raised regarding the methodology, results, and conclusions presented in this article. The editorial team and a subject expert have re-evaluated the article and determined that the concerns listed below remain unresolved.

multidisciplinary sciences
US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01129-x

IF: 64.8

2024-04-17

Nature

Abstract:Politicians spar over whether academic publishers colluded with government scientists to suppress the lab-leak hypothesis. Politicians spar over whether academic publishers colluded with government scientists to suppress the lab-leak hypothesis.

multidisciplinary sciences
The Question of the Origins of COVID-19 and the Ends of Science

Paul A Komesaroff,Dominic E Dwyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10303-1

Abstract:Intense public interest in scientific claims about COVID-19, concerning its origins, modes of spread, evolution, and preventive and therapeutic strategies, has focused attention on the values to which scientists are assumed to be committed and the relationship between science and other public discourses. A much discussed claim, which has stimulated several inquiries and generated far-reaching political and economic consequences, has been that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then, either inadvertently or otherwise, released to the public by a laboratory worker. This has been pursued despite a clear refutation, through comprehensive genomic analysis, of the hypothesis that the virus was deliberately engineered and the failure of detailed investigations to identify any evidence in support of a laboratory leak. At the same time a substantial, established body of knowledge about the many factors underlying the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases has been largely ignored-including climate change and other mechanisms of environmental destruction, tourism, patterns of trade, and cultural influences. The existence and conduct of these debates have raised questions about the vulnerability of science to manipulation for political purposes. Scientific discourses are vulnerable because: (i) claims can be made with no more than probabilistic force; (ii) alleged "facts" are always subject to interpretation, which depends on social, ethical, and epistemological assumptions; and (iii) science and scientists are not inherently committed to any single set of values and historically have served diverse, and sometimes perverse, social and political interests. In the face of this complexity, the COVID-19 experience highlights the need for processes of ethical scrutiny of the scientific enterprise and its strategic deployment. To ensure reliability of truth claims and protection from corrupting influences robust ethical discourses are required that are independent of, and at times even contrary to, those of science itself.
Blow that whistle at your own risk

Sara Reardon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02743-5

IF: 64.8

2024-08-22

Nature

Abstract:Physician scientist Nancy Olivieri describes hard-won lessons from decades of fighting for scientific integrity. Physician scientist Nancy Olivieri describes hard-won lessons from decades of fighting for scientific integrity.

multidisciplinary sciences
WHO Refers $29m Oxford Research Project to GMC for Misconduct

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5971

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The World Health Organization has referred leading Oxford University researchers to the UK General Medical Council after an independent review found that they committed research ethics misconduct. The referral is the culmination of a long running dispute involving Jose Villar of the Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Oxford and Stephen Kennedy, head of the department and professor of reproductive medicine. They lead Intergrowth-21st, an international study of fetal growth funded by a $29m (£23.2m; €26m) grant from the Gates Foundation. Ever since they won the grant in 2008 there have been grumbles from rival researchers that they did so by exploiting ideas developed as part of a WHO project with the same aim. Villar worked at WHO as coordinator of maternal and perinatal health before his appointment to an Oxford chair in 2006, and both men were involved in developing the protocol for a proposed extension of WHO’s child …
COVID-19 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

Lidia Morawska,William Bahnfleth,Philomena M. Bluyssen,Atze Boerstra,Giorgio Buonanno,Stephanie J. Dancer,Andres Floto,Francesco Franchimon,Charles Haworth,Jaap Hogeling,Christina Isaxon,Jose L. Jimenez,Jarek Kurnitski,Yuguo Li,Marcel Loomans,Guy Marks,Linsey C. Marr,Livio Mazzarella,Arsen Krikor Melikov,Shelly Miller,Donald K. Milton,William Nazaroff,Peter Nielsen,Catherine Noakes,Jordan Peccia,Xavier Querol,Chandra Sekhar,Olli Seppanen,Shin-ichi Tanabe,Raymond Tellier,Tham Kwok Wai,Pawel Wargocki,Aneta Wierzbicka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad068

IF: 20.999

2023-01-01

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions. In April 2020, 36 experts alerted the WHO about the importance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. WHO dismissed this advice until it was published in an international journal in July 2020. This delay has consequences extending throughout the pandemic.
Reputation, review, . . . and other stories

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2568

2022-11-04

The BMJ

Abstract:Biases of peer reviewAuthors' reputations have a strong influence on peer reviewers' recommendations, according to the results of an experiment in which 3000 researchers were invited to comment on a paper jointly written by a Nobel laureate and a junior research associate. When the junior researcher was the only name shown on the manuscript, 65% of reviewers recommended rejection. When the more famous moniker was revealed, only 23% of reviewers wanted to reject the paper (SSRN doi:10.2139/ssrn.4190976).Salt content of foodSurveys of packaged food products sold in the UK show that, between 2015 and 2020, mean salt content fell by a nugatory 4%. The reduction wasn't statistically significant and might represent no more than random variation over time (PLOS Med doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004114). It looks as if voluntary salt reduction targets for the UK food industry are having little effect, which is disappointing since reducing salt intake is a declared public health priority.Stages...
In testy hearing, Anthony Fauci confronts critics

Jocelyn Kaiser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq8857

IF: 56.9

2024-06-07

Science

Abstract:Republicans attack retired research institute head, while Democrats rally to his defense

multidisciplinary sciences
COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754

2020-06-10

Abstract:Scientific integrity is a learned skill. When researchers and students learn integrity in laboratories or in the classroom, they are empowered to use similar principles in other aspects of their lives. This commentary reviews the concepts related to scientific integrity at a time when science faces important challenges related to the increase number of articles produced regarding research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ignited another parallel viral pandemic, with science ranging from robust studies to dishonest studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate. A balance is needed between the benefits of the rapid access to new scientific data and the threat of causing panic or erroneous clinical decisions based on mistakes or misconduct. The truth is that the "scientific research has changed the world" but now, and more than ever, "it needs to change itself". A pandemic with a "paperdemic" will be even more complicated to manage if it progresses in an uncontrolled manner and is not properly scrutinized.
Retrovision

Howy Jacobs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-024-00087-9

IF: 9.071

2024-02-08

EMBO Reports

Abstract:The Covid pandemic is long past, but its detrimental effects on science still linger.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology
In which wretched part of the world? A glimpse into western drug- and device-makers (and others) behaving badly

John J Gillon Jr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2013.051

Abstract:A bioethics colleague wrote of the efforts of those in India "who struggle each and every day in this wretched part of the world" to eliminate corruption from the clinical and research practice of medicine, and from medical education. Wretchedness is the human condition. Corruption is endemic- and is a pandemic. Both have anchors as firm in the West as anywhere else in the world. The record of wretchedness-whether personal, corporate, institutional, or a combination thereof-is not measured in events, weeks, or months, but in patterns of practice often across decades. The conditions have no single home, residence, or country of origin. They exist when and where one abets acts or omissions that take advantage of power, or access to it, and adulterate or debase a system-particularly one of governance. The answer is to identify and share information on the problems and problem-makers, and so cooperate in efforts to increase transparency at all levels of medical research, care, and education. A reasoned first step in this regard would be the institution of a central website at which, inter alia, questioned research might be identified by journal, article, subject matter, publication date, and authors-and, where appropriate, company; specifics as to questioned data elements and history regarding communication to and with the authors as to the questioned data elements might be set forth; and some resolution of a matter might be posted.
Mike Richards: “sometimes People Can Trade Too Much on Reputation”

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5965

2015-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:The shock rating of world renowned Addenbrooke’s Hospital as inadequate was chief inspector Mike Richards’s most controversial decision to date. But, he tells Nigel Hawkes, the backlash won’t force a relaxation of his regime

The reckoning

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Science and a global conscience: remaking the world we broke

'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers

Deep and fascinating insights into whistleblowing

A Critical Assessment of Some Recent Work on COVID-19

Daily briefing: Meet the data sleuth who spurred the Dana-Farber retractions

Whistleblower’s decades long fight to save patients from dangerous research

Retraction: The anti-vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis

US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat

The Question of the Origins of COVID-19 and the Ends of Science

Blow that whistle at your own risk

WHO Refers $29m Oxford Research Project to GMC for Misconduct

COVID-19 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

Reputation, review, . . . and other stories

In testy hearing, Anthony Fauci confronts critics

COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Retrovision

In which wretched part of the world? A glimpse into western drug- and device-makers (and others) behaving badly

Mike Richards: “sometimes People Can Trade Too Much on Reputation”