• Big Science

    I thought I'd point out the following to those so enamored of Science as the source of being mankind's hope. Unfortunately, people are involved so there is corruption. I won't name names but even some ID proponents exhibit dubious behavior.

    Now the below segment is pulled from Michael Crichton's novel NEXT. It's somewhat fictional...except where it's not. It's a semi-fictional story based upon “Scientist Admits Faking Stem Cell Data,” New York Times, July 5, 2006, various issues of Science, and other news sources. While fictional it does serve as an interesting conversation starter.

    A SCANDAL SHOCKS THE WORLD

    It was in the context of feverish hope and hype that Korean biochemist Hwang Woo-Suk announced in 2004 that he had successfully created a human embryonic stem cell from an adult cell by somatic nuclear transfer—injection into a human egg. Hwang was a famous workaholic, spending eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, in the lab. Hwang’s exciting report was published in March 2005 in Science magazine. Researchers from around the world flocked to Korea. Human stem cell treatment seemed suddenly on the verge of reality. Hwang was a hero in Korea, and appointed to head a new World Stem Cell Hub, financed by the Korean government.

    But in November 2005, an American collaborator in Pittsburgh announced that he was ending his association with Hwang. And then one of Hwang’s co-workers revealed that Hwang had obtained eggs illegally, from women who worked in his lab.

    By December 2005, Seoul National University announced that Hwang’s cell lines were a fabrication, as were his papers in Science. Science retracted the papers. Hwang now faces criminal charges. There the matter stands.

    PERILS OF “MEDIA HYPE”

    “What lessons can be drawn from this?” asked Professor McKeown. “First, in a media-saturated world, persistent hype lends unwarranted credulity to the wildest claims. For years the media have touted stem cell research as the coming miracle. So when somebody announced that the miracle had arrived, he was believed. Does that imply there is a danger in media hype? You bet. Because not only does it raise cruel hopes among the ill, it affects scientists, too. They start to believe the miracle is around the corner—even though they should know better.

    “What can we do about media hype? It would stop in a week, if scientific institutions wanted that. They don’t. They love the hype. They know it brings grants. So that won’t change. Yale, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins promote hype just as much as Exxon or Ford. So do individual researchers at those institutions. And increasingly, researchers and universities are all commercially motivated, just like corporations. So whenever you hear a scientist claim that his statements have been exaggerated, or taken out of context, just ask him if he has written a letter of protest to the editor. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, he hasn’t.

    “Next lesson: Peer review. All of Hwang’s papers in Science were peer-reviewed. If we ever needed evidence that peer review is an empty ritual, this episode provides it. Hwang made extraordinary claims. He did not provide extraordinary evidence. Many studies have shown that peer review does not improve the quality of scientific papers. Scientists themselves know it doesn’t work. Yet the public still regards it as a sign of quality, and says, ‘This paper was peer-reviewed,’ or ‘This paper was not peer-reviewed,’ as if that meant something. It doesn’t.

    “Next, the journals themselves. Where was the firm hand of the editor of Science ? Remember that the journal Science is a big enterprise—115 people work on that magazine. Yet gross fraud, including photographs altered with Adobe Photoshop, were not detected. And Photoshop is widely known as a major tool of scientific fraud. Yet the magazine had no way to detect it.

    “Not that Science is unique in being fooled. Fraudulent research has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, where authors withheld critical information about Vioxx heart attacks; in the Lancet, where a report about drugs and oral cancer was entirely fabricated—in that one, 250 people in the patient database had the same birth date! That might have been a clue. Medical fraud is more than a scandal, it’s a public health threat. Yet it continues.”

    THE COST OF FRAUD

    “The cost of such fraud is enormous,” McKeown said, “estimated at thirty billion dollars annually, probably three times that. Fraud in science is not rare, and it’s not limited to fringe players. The most respected researchers and institutions have been caught with faked data. Even Francis Collins, the head of NIH’s Human Genome Project, was listed as co-author on five faked papers that had to be withdrawn.

    “The ultimate lesson is that science isn’t special—at least not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and there were only a few dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It’s no longer a calling, it’s a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. Its practitioners aren’t saints, they’re human beings, and they do what human beings do—lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That’s human nature. It isn’t going to change.”

    On a side note, I'll make certain to check my sources better in the future...and to not forget to list them. I'd assumed that the NEXT bibliography contained the original source but did not do any reading to make certain (I was in a rush since the book was due back at the library). Obviously humans are quite fallible. ;) Thanks to Alan Fox for pointing my error out.

    | Patrick's blog | login or register to post comments | -1 points
    Submitted by Patrick on Fri, 2007-03-09 16:51.

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    Murdoch | Wed, 2007-03-14 13:30

    Hi,
    what book was due back at the library, exactly?

    login or register to post comments | 2 points
    Patrick | Wed, 2007-03-14 14:52

    NEXT, of course. As well as several other books. Why?

    login or register to post comments | -2 points
    rabbie | Wed, 2007-03-14 21:25

    Just seemed odd, like a lot of effort to go typing it in, that big long chunk of the book, and not to be able to take a moment to check.......
    I expect it's not surprising, after all you were against the clock. And all the time, the pressure, you might get a fine from the library. No wonder you were in such a rush.

    login or register to post comments | 2 points
    Patrick | Sat, 2007-03-17 15:21

    Forget for the moment that the "news story" was written by Michael Crichton. Based upon reading Crichton's speeches at various conferences I'd say that this bit of "fiction" is in line with his normal thoughts on the subject. The subject matter is unfortunately quite real.

    In order to dodge the content Darwinists are resorting to ad hominem attacks against me. That's called misdirection and it's intellectually dishonest.

    rabbie, do I detect some sarcasm? I do have a life, you know, and visiting the library was just one of several things I had to do in the day. ;)

    login or register to post comments | 0 points

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.