We’ve covered Dixson’s and Munday’s work on ocean acidification and fish behavior previously and how it broke down under scrutiny.
And here.
Now the University of Delaware has concluded:
…that marine ecologist Danielle Dixson committed fabrication and falsification in work on fish behavior and coral reefs. The university is seeking the retraction of three of Dixson’s papers and “has notified the appropriate federal agencies,” a spokesperson says.
This article in Science goes into detail.
Finding against Danielle Dixson vindicates whistleblowers who questioned high-profile work on ocean acidification
A major controversy in marine biology took a new twist last week when the University of Delaware (UD) found one of its star scientists guilty of research misconduct.
A major controversy in marine biology took a new twist last week when the University of Delaware (UD) found one of its star scientists guilty of research misconduct. The university has confirmed to Science that it has accepted an investigative panel’s conclusion that marine ecologist Danielle Dixson committed fabrication and falsification in work on fish behavior and coral reefs. The university is seeking the retraction of three of Dixson’s papers and “has notified the appropriate federal agencies,” a spokesperson says.
Among the papers is a study about coral reef recovery that Dixson published in Science in 2014, and for which the journal issued an Editorial Expression of Concern in February. Science—whose News and Editorial teams operate independently of each other—retracted that paper today.
The investigative panel’s draft report, which Science’s News team has seen in heavily redacted form, paints a damning picture of Dixson’s scientific work, which included many studies that appeared to show Earth’s rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. “The Committee was repeatedly struck by a serial pattern of sloppiness, poor recordkeeping, copying and pasting within spreadsheets, errors within many papers under investigation, and deviation from established animal ethics protocols,” wrote the panel, made up of three UD researchers.
Dixson did not respond to requests for comment. She “adamantly denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing, and will vigorously appeal any finding of research misconduct,” Dixson’s lawyer, Kristina Larsen, wrote in an email to Science. Larsen describes Dixson as a “brilliant, hardworking female scientist” who was “targeted” by a group of scientists who “chose to ‘convict’ Dr. Dixson in the court of public opinion” by sharing their accusations with a Science reporter last year. “Their vigilante approach all but assured Dr. Dixson would never be able to receive a fair and impartial review elsewhere,” Larsen writes. UD says it will not comment on Dixson’s future there.
The accusations against Dixson have sharply divided marine ecologists, with some scientists suggesting the whistleblowers acted out of professional envy or to advance their own careers. The accusations were “stalking and harassment” and “one of the most disgusting and shameful things I‘ve ever seen in science,” John Bruno, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, tweeted in March. (Bruno—who wrote a commentary accompanying Dixson’s 2014 Science paper—did not respond to an email informing him of UD’s findings.)
UD “did a decent investigation. I think it’s one of the first universities that we’ve seen actually do that,” says ecophysiologist Fredrik Jutfelt of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, one of the whistleblowers. “So that’s really encouraging.” But he and others in the group are disappointed that the committee appears to have looked at only seven of the 20 Dixson papers they had flagged as suspicious. They also had hoped UD would release the committee’s final report and detail any sanctions against Dixson. “That is a shame,” Jutfelt says.
https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says#.YvKM57NC73Y.twitter
Read the complete article at Science Mag here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UD let Legates go and he was correct.
Looks to me like the precious peer review system absolutely must get a huge overhaul.
A paper published in Nature magazine in 2006, “A specific amyloid-β protein assembly in the brain impairs memory,” apparently confirmed a hypothesis about the cause of the memory loss and dementia associated with Alzheimer’s. It has been cited in 2200 subsequent academic papers. The NIH has funneled billions into projects involving amyloids. Of 130 pharmaceutical research companies researching potential drugs for Alzheimer’s, 100 of them are researching drugs that reduce the amyloid-β protein plaque buildup this paper identified.
The paper, and multiple subsequent papers by the same researchers, are now considered fraudulent. The images purportedly showing the expected results were manipulated. One of the researchers is now in the NIH, giving out grants for the same research. The fraud has extended deep into the research.
Biogen spent millions bringing a drug to market. The FDA approved it. Although it reduces the plaque, there is no indication of patient improvement. The drug has severe side-effects for some, including brain bleed. Social Security increased the cost of Medicare for all retirees in anticipation of the demand for the expensive drug. All the result of fraudulent peer-researched publications.
This fraud ranks right up their with Andrew Wakefield’s autism-caused-by-vaccines ‘research’. It has cost billions, harmed people, and delayed researching avenues that may be effective.
Something must change, and punishment for knowingly publishing false research must be made swift and severe.
Besides, I thought any paper on “ocean acidification” is automatically fraud?
These scientific fraud references are absolutely essential ammunition when going up against these condescending AGW settled science types that populate western civilization these days. Thank you.
If studies that “showed that acidification can disorient fish, lead them to swim toward chemical cues emitted by their predators, and affect their hearing and vision” didn’t raise eyebrows, nothing would. Sounds like a good plot for a comedy sci-fi movie though.
Very interesting how her lawyer had to point out that she was a “female” scientist. So I guess this is all supposed to be sexism and not based on actual science?
Faith-based science, the fourth logical domain. Who do you trust?
“Their vigilante approach all but assured Dr. Dixson would never be able to receive a fair and impartial review elsewhere,”
Hmmm….can anyone, without an axe to grind in the AWG industry, independently replicate her work? The only “fair and impartial review” of her work is if others can replicate it. Anyone, for example, can fairly and impartially review if F=mA, for example. The same for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Can anyone replicate that “rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels… have [a] dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology.”? Can anyone independently replicate the behavior effects claimed by Dr. Dixson?
If the answer is no, her work cannot be replicated, well, that would speak volumes. Ditto if someone could replicate her work.
Independent replication is the gold standard of the scientific method. If the claimed hypothesis in Dr. Dixson’s work is accurate, and her paper is accurate, then others should be able to follow the same process and achieve the same results, period, full stop.
I gather the results of one of the papers were totally at odds with similar experiments being conducted by some of the whistleblowers, which led to them investigating further.
I am waiting to see what happens to th peers who have reviewed and green-lighted the publication of those papers.
After reading many of the comments it’s become clear that most of the problems with Science today is the fallibility of those doing the studies. We have a real deficit in integrity and honesty today. To publish sloppy science 50 yrs ago would have been unthinkable for many. Today I think it’s safe to say that’s no longer the case.