Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Fri Sep 12, 2014, 10:22 AM Sep 2014

Controversial stem cell paper was published over reviewers’ objections

And following rejection at two other journals.

by John Timmer

Early this year, the journal Nature published two papers with some completely surprising results. Researchers had only recently figured out how to use a small set of genes to reprogram mature adult cells into a stem-cell-like state. The new papers suggested you could forgo the genetic engineering entirely; a short time in an acidic environment, followed by some carefully controlled growth conditions, could completely reprogram the cells. It was a potentially revolutionary finding.

Unfortunately, it didn't take long for the wheels to fall off. Other researchers quickly pointed out possible instances of improperly manipulated figures and plagiarism, and one of the researchers involved had already had some ethical issues in the past. Initial attempts to replicate the experiments in other labs failed. By the summer, there was an official finding of misconduct; shortly thereafter, one of the researchers involved committed suicide. In July, the papers were formally retracted by the remaining authors.

That's a relatively quick resolution to a problem like this, but it leaves a rather significant question: how did these papers get published in the first place if the problems became apparent so quickly? That question only got more bewildering this week, as people have started to leak the reports of peer reviewers who had evaluated the papers.

The first leak was published yesterday by the Retraction Watch blog. It turns out that Nature was the third journal to see the drafts of the stem cell papers; by the time it got them, Science and Cell had already rejected them. Someone who had access to the reviewers' reports at Science handed them over to Retraction Watch.

more

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/controversial-stem-cell-paper-was-published-over-reviewers-objections/

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Controversial stem cell paper was published over reviewers’ objections (Original Post) n2doc Sep 2014 OP
Politics impedes progress. Again. GeorgeGist Sep 2014 #1
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Controversial stem cell p...