Honestly, while I agree retractions take too long in almost any case, having something retracted doesn’t stop people from using it to underline their course of action.
I mean, do I have to mention the Wakefield vaccine paper even? Everyone knows its a load of crap. Its already retracted for years, and? Did people stop believing this?
I feel like it unfortunately needs to be brought up that we should not let this event be used as a criticism of science, scientists, the scientific method, or indeed even scientific journals.
If it were considered theological scripture it would have taken centuries before somebody redacted it, and large parts of the religious community would refuse the new scripture regardless.
Science is still the best method for the pursuit of what is true.
We critique out of love, in hope for better futures.
*burns shrine to Bill Nye*
(sobs) “you lied to me. Now I’m godless.”
It takes AGES for malfeasance to get consequences. The Wakefield MMR study (responsible for energizing the modern anti vaccination movement), published in 1998, wasn’t retracted until 2010. (He was also stripped of his license to practice medicine and has consistently doubled down since which has paid off dearly, marrying supermodels and being a literal millionaire).
The amyloid plaque hypothesis for Alzheimer’s that was based on falsified data from 2006 wasn’t retracted until 2024. This had thousands of citations, possibly tens of thousands, and the first author continues to defend the data manipulation as overblown. Essentially something like that the underlying experiments were sound, we just edited the images for clarity, there was no intent, all (8!) of my coauthors agreed to the retraction because they’re laaaaame, basically every drug made based on this hypothesis doesn’t work because of some other reason, trust me bro.
It’s very difficult to counter this. It takes serious effort to generate data contrary to the evidence presented. However, funding would help. But additionally this is something where criminal charges would be merited. Wakefield has created a world in which we moved backward for his own financial enrichment. One could argue that the children dead from measles outbreaks are in part his fault. He lost his license, sure, but this is meaningless. He is an antivax icon, he married Elle McPherson, he does podcasts and documentaries, speaking engagements, etc. he is paid far more than many doctors with none of the stress and liability. And it’s fairly clear his original intent was to discourage people from the MMR vaccine to push them towards a product he had a vested financial interest in. The antivax stuff was not his goal but it worked out because he is a sociopathic grifter.
Lesne is different. He is a scientist that is probably pushed to publish at all costs and did so. Perhaps he is honest and his manipulation was simply to improve clarity. If it was not and he was pushing to get an influential paper out then he is guilty of wasting billions in funding and tens of thousands of hours of researcher time as well as countless lives wasted doing clinical trials for treatments that were never worth exploring.
What’s a viable consequence for these people? Life in prison? This is such a huge crime against society. Similarly the Monsanto and Coca Cola ghost writing research, everything involved in tobacco, Purdue and OxyContin addiction, etc. the last one was treated as a civil matter but are these not criminal? Countless lives were destroyed
Sometimes I feel sad I am incapable of chicanery like this, it sounds like the only path to an affluent life.
chicanery
deception through trickery
The appropriate punishment is an extended life inside a torture box, AM style.
Say, a couple of million of years.
Alternatively, the Total Perspective Vortex would be appropriate for the very worst offenders.
Pfft, that’d be my wet dream: to actually know shit, and that’s one way to learn it.
Who can forget that time Patrick Moore tried to convince others it was safe by saying “you could drink a quart and it won’t hurt you” then when someone said “Do you want to drink some? We have some here”, he said “I’m not stupid”.
lol this is golden
😘👌
Nice bonus to learn the French for “complete jerk” btw 😁
The problem here is not science but capitalism, we should really get rid of this ideology
Amen.
Recently heard something related in a documentary about ME/CFS where scientific results (research about cell damage potentially causing patients not regaining their energy) was burried in favor of a not very scientific paper from (work)psychologists that instead proclaimed that the issue is mental and the patients just need to be motivated more. This affects the treatment (or better mistreatment) of patients even today.
Money affects which results get published and how far they are spread and this is very dangerous :/
Think about all the unjust, needless shaming and the very severe consequences against ME/CFS victims who are literally damaged at a cellular level, but treated as lazy, so left to DIE if they can’t provide for themselves.
Not only that, but patients who got sicker from overexertion because they were sent to a physical rehabilitation center. Or doctors being careless with overly invasive diagnostics or treatments. And then being left alone because obviously you didn’t want it enough to really try otherwise your situation would improve…
One of the sickest forms of serial killing ever invented, on a mass-scale, and no one realized it.
Then people wonder why people don’t trust “science”
Everyone responsible for this should be in jail
Science is fine. How it is published and funded is deeply flawed.
That’s why I used scare quotes
The problem is, how it’s published and funded is a huge part of the institutions surrounding science, to the point that they’ve become plesionyms.
To the vast majority of the population, those two things are the same. Science is what’s published and what the lawmakers and journalists see. If most of that is flawed, Science is flawed. if Science is flawed, then the next best thing is “common sense”.
Sounds more like education is flawed.
Yes. But no.
Best I can offer is a token fine that will be reduced on appeal.
This problem could be solved if funding was also awarded to projects that can verify important results like this. Effectively allow scientists to verify the results thoroughly. This means to redo the entire study! Peer review is there to catch blatant lapses in logic and basic science. But in order to see if those results are as they say you have to redo it.
There is a lot of trust between scientists that they will act morally and truthfully but these days when funding is scarce and pressure is high some will resort to all sorts of shortcuts. The most used is over inflated goals to get the funding. That is benign enough. Others will tweak the results to get ahead and claim their place in front of the others and hope to fix the problem down the line.
Funding doesn’t allow repeat studies, studies with ideas too close to what has been done before etc. Also the time allotted is too short. 3 years is not enough to go from zero to finished idea ready for the market, yet that’s the aim most of the time. How on earth do people think anyone will have the time and brain space to verify what others have done and force them to retract it?
I can see how people can start to be skeptical of science but the truth of the matter is that science should be funded without the expectation of profitability in the short term. People should demand better funding for schools and research. And then ask that all science of held to the highest standard at all times! Having cheap fast science to the highest standard doesn’t work! If you don’t believe me have a look at the titan submersible to get an idea. We wouldn’t be here posting messages on this platform if science was funded the same 80 years ago.
Science shouldn’t be means tested. Neoliberalism will kill us all.
Wtf does that mean
Sorry! I misunderstood your reply
It’s OK. :) My brain jumped around, it can be hard to follow. I was not clear.
Thank you for the book recommendation! I just bought it. Light reading for the holidays
What is save or not in the chem and pharma industry in the capitalism depends of the profit it brings, nothing else.
