Issues and developments related to ethics, information, and technologies, examined in the ethics and intellectual property graduate courses I teach at the University of Pittsburgh School of Computing and Information. My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" will be published in Summer 2025. Kip Currier, PhD, JD
Showing posts with label replication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label replication. Show all posts
Saturday, March 2, 2019
Thursday, November 1, 2018
He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research.; The New York Times, October 29, 2018
Gina Kolata, The New York Times;
He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research.
He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research.
"For Dr. Piero Anversa, the fall from scientific grace has been long, and the landing hard.
Researchers
worldwide once hailed his research as revolutionary, promising the
seemingly impossible: a way to grow new heart cells to replace those
lost in heart attacks and heart failure, leading killers in the United
States.
But Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, his former employers, this month accused Dr. Anversa and his laboratory of extensive scientific malpractice.
More than 30 research studies produced over more than a decade contain
falsified or fabricated data, officials concluded, and should be
retracted. Last year the hospital paid a $10 million settlement to the
federal government after the Department of Justice alleged
that Dr. Anversa and two members of his team were responsible for
fraudulently obtaining research funding from the National Institutes of
Health.
“The number of papers is
extraordinary,” said Dr. Jeffrey Flier, until 2016 the dean of Harvard
Medical School. “I can’t recall another case like this.”"
Monday, March 20, 2017
San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers; Science, March 17, 2017
Linda Nordling, Science;
San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers
"Earlier this month the group unveiled a code of ethics for researchers wishing to study their culture, genes, or heritage.
The code, published here on 3 March, asks researchers to treat the San respectfully and refrain from publishing information that could be viewed as insulting. Because such sensitivities may not be clear to researchers, the code asks that scientists let communities read and comment on findings before they are published. It also asks that researchers keep their promises and give something back to the community in return for its cooperation...
The code does not place unrealistic demands on scientists, says Himla Soodyall, director of the Human Genomic Diversity and Disease Research Unit at South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. But others point out that the code focuses on past transgressions, and doesn’t refer to recent efforts to respect and involve communities, such as guidelines for genomics work on vulnerable populations prepared in 2014 by the Human Heredity and Health in Africa program. As a result, the code may present an overly negative view of researchers and discourage communities from participating in studies, says Charles Rotimi, founding director of the National Institutes of Health Center for Research on Genomics and Global Health in Bethesda, Maryland."
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says; New York Times, 8/27/15
Benedict Carey, New York Times; Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says:
"The past several years have been bruising ones for the credibility of the social sciences. A star social psychologist was caught fabricating data, leading to more than 50 retracted papers. A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized. The journal Science pulled a political science paper on the effect of gay canvassers on voters’ behavior because of concerns about faked data. Now, a painstaking yearslong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals has found that more than half of the findings did not hold up when retested. The analysis was done by research psychologists, many of whom volunteered their time to double-check what they considered important work. Their conclusions, reported Thursday in the journal Science, have confirmed the worst fears of scientists who have long worried that the field needed a strong correction. The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which scientists understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory. Therapists and educators rely on such findings to help guide decisions, and the fact that so many of the studies were called into question could sow doubt in the scientific underpinnings of their work."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)