Guest post by David Middleton
This is perhaps the dumbest article I’ve ever read…
How to avoid the stigma of a retracted paper? Don’t call it a retraction
AMSTERDAM—In 2012 Richard Mann, a mathematician at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, received some very bad news from a friend and colleague. Because of a coding error, the friend explained, Mann had included only 1/100 of his data in a modeling paper on the collective motion of glass prawns, published earlier that year in PLOS Computational Biology. As a result, the paper was deeply flawed.
Mann wanted to set the record straight, but as he began researching his options, despair set in. Retractions are strongly associated with research misconduct. “I became worried about public shaming,” Mann said last week at the fifth World Conference on Research Integrity here. He went ahead, but only after many sleepless nights.
His story and others like it have inspired two recent attempts to develop new terms for retractions that would make it easier for researchers, universities, and journals to admit errors. One would retire the dreaded r-word altogether. “You have to change the language,” says Nicholas Steneck, who heads the Research Ethics and Integrity Program of the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research in Ann Arbor.
[…]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but scientists’ feelings aren’t supposed to be part of the scientific method.
As if this wasn’t stupid enough, I received this truly idiotic email from the AAAS while I was reading the aforementioned stupid AAAS article…
Another blow to the planet
It happened: President Trump decided to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord.
This streak of anti-science actions from the current administration is worrisome. The EPA has already sustained harsh staff cuts, and the threat of devastating funding cuts looms over the NOAA, NIH, and Department of Energy.
It’s up to us, as science advocates, to do everything we can to fight crippling cuts to these organizations, and to support research that can save our communities and our planet. As an AAAS member, you will help us continue to protect the advancement of science and give policymakers the tools they need to make evidenced-based decisions. Become an AAAS member today because together we are a stronger force for science.
Every AAAS membership supports our efforts to:
• Educate Congress about the importance of science funding,
• Convene scientific societies in opposition to funding cuts, and
• Rally fellow AAAS members to represent pro-science ideals in the media.
Join today and become a force for science. We can’t lose momentum and we urgently need your support to continue this important work.
For science,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
P.S. Explore one of the many benefits of AAAS membership: Download a digital copy of the newest issue of the journal Science now.
*Offer valid from May 31, 2017 to June 30, 2017, for new individual members only. There is a limit of one water bottle per membership order. Please allow up to four weeks for domestic delivery and up to five weeks for international delivery. The AAAS water bottle is provided as is without any guarantees or warranty and cannot be exchanged or returned. In association with the product, AAAS makes no warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
Words literally do fail me…
When Science becomes concerned about scientists’ feelings and political agendas, it ceases to be science.
I actually have a copy of this book…
Science Made Stupid: How to Discomprehend the World Around Us is a 1985 book written and illustrated by Tom Weller. The winner of the 1986 Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book, it is a parody of a junior high or high school-level science textbook. Though now out of print, high-resolution scans are available online, as well as an abridged transcription, both of which have been endorsed by Weller [1]. Highlights of the book include a satirical account of the creationism vs. evolution debate and Weller’s drawings of fictional prehistoric animals (e.g., the duck-billed mastodon.)
The AAAS just topped Mr. Weller’s book twice in one morning.
The guy is working in the wrong field. This wouldn’t be a problem in CliSci.
They would just write a new paper with the full data set, ignoring the contradictions, and present it as an advance, having first secured a much larger grant to help process all the extra data.
He could also claim that the error was caused by CAGW.
The retraction will likely only occur if the error is egregious enough as to alter the conclusions. So given that the error is severe enough such that the conclusions are wrong, how is one supposed to determine if this was an innocent (incompetence) or intentional (fraud) mistake? A lie detector test? A trial? Blind faith that an incompetent/untrustworthy scientist is now telling the truth?
Gosh when I think of “science” I go all gooey inside. Science is pure. Science is good. Science is a shining light on the mountain top. Science cures all ills, fixes all broken things, explains every mystery. And when I meet a “scientist”, well, my knees go weak. Science, science, science. Gosh people who don’t believe in science are so, well, unscientific! What could be worse than not believing in science? Oh how I love science! I think I will get a tattoo of science! Science! Hooray!
Science has become post-modern secular society’s god.
A lab coat is the emperor’s new clothing.
Genuine lolz – well grinz anyway – for that.
To conduct any research or analysis and not discover and correct errors prior to publication of the final report is the result of incompetence. What is worse? Fraud or incompetence? False and misleading results regardless of the cause. You be the judge.
I always thought that science progressed by correcting errors. My bad.
I am referring to errors like those discussed here. A wrong calculation of data or a computer algorithm that is not programed correctly. An error in a numeric value in a report because of a typo or mistake in copying results from a correct calculation. Not an error in theory.
Kind of highlights the difference between establishment science and engineering: make a mistake in the former and everybody tries to pretend that it didn’t happen; Make a mistake in the latter and something expensive might break, or someone might get hurt or die.
I agree. Having worked both in academic science and the aerospace industry, I sure know in which field one is most careful about quality control, documentation, validation, field testing, maintenance etc etc.
Question: What happens when the new label becomes a stigma? How many renamings do we go through, before we say “enough already”? I’m old enough to remember various labels for black people, officially accepted by the black community, and then rejected…
* Colored People ==> NAACP ==> National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
* Negros ==> United Negro College Fund
* Afro-Americans
* Persons of Color (and also Women of Color)
* Blacks
I’ve probably missed some along the way.
Walter: I suggest that you use my term. “People”.
Establishment science has basically become an elitist guild whose raison d’etre is to protect its own.
There’s support for that view in Dan Greenberg’s Science, Money, and Politics.
“It’s all about the Benajmins”
Repeat this mantra 100 times a day.
“You can’t be too thin or too rich” Various Attributions
Clearly this is wrong. You can dies from being too thin. But, the following is axiomatically correct:
You can’t be too cynical or too rich.
“The cynics are right nine times out of ten.”
—H.L. Mencken
AAAS?????
Association for Advancement of Adulterated Scientists.
AAAS – American Association for the Advancement of Stupid
Look’s like something straight out of The Peoples’ Cube.
First class, I might add…
Snowflakes come in many different shapes as we all know. See the retraction snowflake in action.
I’ve seen Corrigendum used when a an error is found post publication, I’m not sure if it has been used when the conclusion is shown to be invalid.
I received one of those dopey whine-o-grams from the AAAS too. They make my day and I’m pleased to see these mountebanks reduced to canvassing people by email. If they sent me some actual evidence I’d seriously consider it but assertions and special pleadings are just funny. Not that anyone will read it but my reply was as follows:
“If you do actually wish to advance science as indicated in your organisation title you may consider making a good start by ending your support for the laughably stupid voodoo pseudoscience cult of carbon dioxide.
Yours etc.”
David,
You appear not to realise that science is done by humans. As such it is a political and flawed process
and the scientists feelings come into this all the time. As such it is not ” mindbogglingly stupid to attempt “to develop new terms for retractions that would make it easier for researchers, universities, and journals to admit errors” but the opposite. Surely anything that makes it easier for scientists to admit mistakes makes for better science. It is the self-correcting nature of science that allows it to progress and this appears to be a sensible attempt at speeding up the self-correction.
And the second half of your post appears to be also equally misguided. By its name the AAAS is a lobby group that was formed with the express purpose of promoting science. So why are you surprised when they do exactly what they were formed to do?
Lewandowsky was major speaker at the integrity event so one can be confident the real agenda was how to help academics lie better.
From the article: “Rally fellow AAAS members to represent pro-science ideals in the media.”
Are there some AAAS members who are representing anti-science ideals that need to be rallied?
By “anti-science” they can’t mean skeptics because skeptics are the essential part of science.
Years ago, not believing it could re all happen, I predicted as a joke that climate obsession would decrease the level of intelligence in an inverse relation to the level of climate kookdom. Sadly I was correct.
“Don’t call it an investigation. Call it a matter” (See Thursday’s Comey testimony).
hunter,
Days ago, you accused me of “being less than honest in [my] argument”, with no evidence or explanation, and said; “Your defense of evolution on religious grounds and by way of false claims is much more like that of the climate true believer than a skeptic”, and again you provided no evidence or explanation for your accusation . . other than; “Evolution is part of God’s plan. Period.”
To me, nobody special, that seemed like “flaming hypocrisy”, but to you, it was apparently some sort of defense of science. To me, nobody special, there is very little difference between what you did, and what these people are doing . .
The male lion that kills the offspring of the previous alpha male is not doing anything “wrong”, and the scientist that kills the “offspring” of the previous alpha scientists is not either . . on Evolution. It’s just their nature, on Evolution. So too the mass murderer, on Evolution. It’s just the “hand they were dealt”, by genetics and their environment, on Evolution . . Right?
And again, I suggest that turning unobserved Evolution into “settled science” was the critical step in the process of turning science into a consensus of the top dogs affair, because it elevated the “expert’s” imaginations to the effective status of an observational method. (Regardless of whether or not Evolution (in the grand origins explanation sense) actually happened).
Once that ~ Learned opinion/assessment as a proxy for actual observation style “science” was accepted in one realm, the fuse was lit, so to speak, and things like the CAGW, and SJW style special snowflake status for scientists, and so on, became essentially inevitable, I believe. (Again, regardless of whether “neo-Darwinian” Evolution actually happened or not, and regardless of any “addendum” about a now unnecessary God being involved in some sense).
(No hitting, folks, please ; )
MAN UP. Retraction means withdrawing a paper because something is wrong with it. It is embarrassing, it could have negative repercussions, but if there is something wrong with the paper, RETRACTION IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Obfuscating reality just makes it that much harder for everyone else to know the truth. Even if we made up weasel terms to make admitting error “easier”, it would not be long before those terms gained similar connotations. Screwing up is screwing up. If it was a mistake and not deliberate, people will figure it out when they read the little retraction notice.
Almost all of the proposals mentioned in the article seem like overkill at best. Other terms may be useful in cases where the publication made a mistake (misprints, etc.). I am not convinced that papers which are obsolete should be retracted or removed in any form. The suggestion of using the term “wholesale amendment” to refer to a paper containing MADE-UP DATA is contemptible at best.
The suggestion I find most troubling is “REMOVAL: Rare case where a paper is entirely removed from the public record because its content presents a serious and substantial risk to society, individuals, or the environment.” Who gets to decide? WHY would this need to happen? This sounds like a way to silence and censor opposing views. Virtue signaling, commie style?
“Science Made Stupid: How to Discomprehend the World Around Us” can be found on Amazon and eBay.
Addenda to the above: You can also download a pdf of the book here —
files.chrispennello.com/tweller/Science%20Made%20Stupid.pdf
I think Mann shut have kept his mouth shut about the details, and simply stated, “After consideration of additional data, I request that this paper be retracted as I no longer stand by my conclusions. A new paper including more data is being prepared for publication.” If anyone asked for details, the correct response would be, “We have more data to include in the analysis,” a perfectly true statement. I see no obligation on his part to describe just how embarrassing the error was.
Everyone screws up, sometimes in a major or boneheaded way. I know I have. A retraction like this would show: he is interested in the actual science; not wedded to a theory or agenda; does not want to misdirect anyone elses research; and is willing to change his conclusions when the data changes. That to me would be the hallmarks of a good, ethical scientist.
As I often told my staff, we all screw up at times. The measure of a professional is what we do afterward.
I think distraction is the word he’s looking for.
Collected 1,800 views on my WriterBeat papers which were also sent to the ME departments of several prestigious universities (As a BSME & PE felt some kindred connection.) and a long list of pro/con CAGW personalities and organizations.
NOBODY has responded explaining why my methods, calculations and conclusions in these papers are incorrect.
SOMEBODY needs to step up and ‘splain my errors ‘cause if I’m correct (Q=UAdT runs the atmospheric heat engine) – that’s a BIGLY problem for RGHE.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
“Become an AAAS member today because together we are a stronger force for science.”
It would be better if AAAS was a force for critical thinking. Far too much “science” has become politicized and worthless due to the abandonment of critical thinking.
Sounds like this guy wants a do-over. This isn’t grade three. There’s no crying in science.