[ccp4bb] Jrh further Re: [ccp4bb] A case of post publication fraud...Re: [ccp4bb] Fwd: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud

[Jrh]

One of the hardest things for an author, and a handling Editor, is making sure 
that the references list of a submitted article is complete, but is an easier 
task now with our e-tools than in the days of the penicillin discovery. Another 
case is that of Einstein's special theory article of 1905 where Lorentz was not 
cited. Abraham Paix explored this in the biography of Einstein noting that 
Einstein did finally acknowledge that they, Lorentz and Einstein, had been in 
correspondence on the topic.


Prof John R Helliwell DSc 
 
 

On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:43, Bryan Lepore  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jrh  wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> A different type of, post publication, fraud is the case of the discovery of 
> streptomycin. See :-
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61202-1/fulltext
> 
>  I can't resist posting this quite interesting tangential fact that is 
> unrelated to fraud : penicillin was discovered by Ernest Duchesne.
> 
> -Bryan

Re: [ccp4bb] A case of post publication fraud...Re: [ccp4bb] Fwd: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud

[Bryan Lepore]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jrh  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> A different type of, post publication, fraud is the case of the discovery
> of streptomycin. See :-
>
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61202-1/fulltext
>

 I can't resist posting this quite interesting tangential fact that is
unrelated to fraud : penicillin was discovered by Ernest Duchesne.

-Bryan

[ccp4bb] A case of post publication fraud...Re: [ccp4bb] Fwd: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud

[Jrh]

Dear Colleagues,
A different type of, post publication, fraud is the case of the discovery of 
streptomycin. See :-
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61202-1/fulltext
I am just returned from the ICSTI  Conference on Science, Law and Ethics in 
Washington DC representing IUCr where I learnt of this very disturbing case. I 
explained to the book's author and speaker Peter Pringle that, on behalf of 
Universities today, procedures are now in place, at least in the University of 
Manchester, for graduate students and supervisors to both sign within 'eprog' 
that they have discussed matters of authorship etiquette and rules as well as 
IP sharing formalities.
Have a good weekend,
John



Prof John R Helliwell DSc 
 
 

On 19 Oct 2012, at 13:08, "Carter, Charlie"  wrote:

> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> Date: October 19, 2012 4:40:35 AM EDT
>> To: Randy Read 
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] PNAS on fraud
>> 
>> This thread has been quite interesting to me. I've had a long interest in 
>> scientific fraud, which I've generally held to be victimless. While that 
>> view is unsupportable in a fundamental sense, I feel strongly that we should 
>> understand that error correction costs exponentially more, the smaller the 
>> tolerance for errors. In protein synthesis, evolution has settled on error 
>> rates of ~1 in 4000-1. Ensuring those rates is already costly in terms 
>> of NTPs hydrolyzed. NASA peer review provided me another shock:  budgets for 
>> microgravity experiments were an order of magnitude higher than those for 
>> ground-based experiments, and most of the increase came via NASA's 
>> insistence on higher quality control. 
>> 
>> Informally, I've concluded that the rate of scientific fraud in all journals 
>> is probably less than the 1 in 10,000 that (mother) nature settled on.
>> 
>> I concur with Randy.
>> 
>> Charlie
>> 
>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Randy Read wrote:
>> 
>>> In support of Bayesian reasoning, it's good to see that the data could 
>>> over-rule our prior belief that Nature/Science/Cell structures would be 
>>> worse!
>> 
>