For Yet Better Science

The journal   Science   recently described a series of articles with potential scientific misconduct ( 1 ), emphasizing that many of them are connected to the developers of simufilam, an agent being evaluated to treat Alzheimer’s disease.   Science   called out potential image manipulation in multiple articles, including one published in the   Journal of Clinical Investigation   in 2012 ( 2 ). The   Science   story relayed many of the same details found in an April 18, 2022,   New York Times   piece ( 3 ). The articles in  Science  and the  New York Times  focused primarily on the very serious topic of potential scientific misconduct. However, these articles only lightly touched upon the concept of short selling stock, and I believe this matter deserves more attention for its inherent conflicts of interest. Short selling entails borrowing shares of a stock, selling shares high, followed by buying shares back at a lowe...

Freedom of speech in academia can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives the liberty to express opinions about issues that affect academics, but on the other, such freedoms can also be used against academics, even by other academics. Science finds itself in a state of reform, perhaps even crisis, in which a dense amount of transformational changes are taking place. As the academic playing field transforms itself, one method by which this is taking place is through the correction of the literature via an active process of critical analysis. In peer review, this is generally handled primarily by blinded (i.e., known to the editors) peers, while in a post-publication process, this may also be subjected to anonymous (i.e., unknown identity to authors and editors) critique. One of the more radical end-points of the post-publication process, which may reveal errors or faults, are retractions. Two organizations, Retraction Watch and PubPeer, are leading the way in terms of raising awa...

PubPeer (https://www.pubpeer.com/) is currently very likely the most visible and coordinated post-publication peer review site for academics and scientists, even more than PubMed Commons, which has now become obsolete because it allows for anonymous comments and critiques. In order for this site to continue to gain the trust and respect of scientists, it needs to display complete transparency and open communication with the public. Little is known about the founders and the management of this organization, California-based The PubPeer Foundation, although two of its founders, Boris Barbour and Brandon Stell, work at French research institutes. It is believed that in November of 2016, The PubPeer Foundation received US$ 412,800 in funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. However, the public would not have been able to glean this information from looking at the “About us” page, even after PubPeer upgraded to version 2.0 on June 15, 2017. This large financial donation is linked ...

I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs). And his pieces do come off with a bit of crankiness – reading them alone one would think that the scientific establishment is infested with data forgery, devised by scientists whose only wish is to publish in fancy journals at any cost.  

Conducting research with human subjects can be difficult because of limited sample sizes and small empirical effects. We demonstrate that this problem can yield patterns of results that are practically indistinguishable from flipping a coin to determine the direction of treatment effects. We use this idea of random conclusions to establish a baseline for interpreting effect-size estimates, in turn producing more stringent thresholds for hypothesis testing and for statistical-power calculations. An examination of recent meta-analyses in psychology, neuroscience, and medicine confirms that, even if all considered effects are real, results involving small effects are indeed indistinguishable from random conclusions.   

How growth in the arts made me a stronger science communicator and engineer.  

To understand disease, scientists are producing comprehensive omics datasets. However, the majority of these are Eurocentric. Recently, the inclusion of patients from Asia and the Middle East in genomic analyses uncovered unique loci linked to COVID-19 severity. This demonstrates that focusing on diversity and underrepresented populations can benefit all.