[ExI] Scientific Frad was Re: Vampires?

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Sat Oct 27 14:43:46 UTC 2012

----- Original Message -----
> From: Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Vampires?
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:16 AM, The Avantguardian
> <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  I would appreciate it if somebody with an institutional subscription could 
> please forward me the primary article offlist.
> I'll do you one better: it's been retracted by 3 of the 4 original 
> authors.
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/nature09474.html
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08749.html
> The benefits of waiting for review before jumping to conclusions about
> newly-published research.

Well back when I was doing publically-funded research, peer-review came *before* publication as well as after. That is, after all, the point of refereeing an manuscript before publication. Also back then, publication in either Nature or Science was considered the holy grail of academic science. I guess age-related disillusionment is not bounded from below. 
Also I am not sure what conclusions you think I was implying, My only conclusion was a that a nature paper deserved to be read. However I do have a hypothesis and business model at stake in the matter and therefore the interest on my part. In any case thanks to you and BillK for the update. In my opinion journals should only publish a study with positive results if that study has been at least once replicated by an independant lab and should also be required to publish any well-designed study that furnished negative results even if it wasn't sexy.
It is irrational to throw away negative results to experiments instead of publishing them and treating them as expensive *knowledge* paid for by tax dollars. By penalizing. researchers for negative results, you are simultaneously discarding an informative prior distribution and settling for a flat prior, selecting against honest researchers, encouraging fraud, and the overzealous reporting of false positives. This should be considered a sin in Bayesian reasoning and public policy.
Stuart LaForge

"Prisons are built with stones of Law. Brothels with the bricks of religion." - William Blake

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list