Re: Berkeley lab found research fabricated

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

My 2 1/2 cents;


1.  In the research groups I have worked in, it is common practice to put everyone's name on group publications, thereby ensuring that everyone gets the credit that he or she deserves.   Only the firsty couple of authors "count" anyway.  One can always have one's name removed.   Since publication matters, though, I have always leaned toward generosity in including names of co-authors (if they wanted them included).  Also, I think enough of my colleagues that I am not suspicious of their work.


2.  Was this deliberate "fabrication" or a false positive result enhanced by preliminary hype?  I recall the (perhaps somewhat apocryphal) story of the physician specializing in transplants who painted the fur of some of his mice with black magic marker in order to show a genetic transplant.  Now that was (or would have been) fabrication.  The descriptions I have read on RADSAFE of the Berkeley claim sound more like premature enthusiasm about a very questionable result that was later shown to be spurious.  Spurious results happen.  Excessive enthusiasm about a spurious result is embarrassing to the institution, not to speak of the investigator, but it  isn't really fabrication.  But perhaps I don't know the whole story.


Ruth


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com