Alberts says the Blood Working Group finding was the final straw that led Science to request the full retraction. "The blood group study to me was dramatic evidence of poor science," says Alberts. "It gave us absolutely no confidence in the ability of the major labs involved to do the assays. I find that enormously disturbing." NCI's Francis Ruscetti, a prominent retrovirologist and one of the co-authors, attempted to coordinate a retraction with his colleagues but a dispute arose over wording that suggested some of the findings in the original paper were still valid. "We tried to get all of the authors to agree, but it got endless," says Alberts. "The responsibility that Science magazine has to the scientific community is to make a strong statement that we don't think anything in that paper can be relied on."
Pages
▼
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are most welcome! But please:
- No SPAM whatsoever, no supplements, no pharmaceuticals, no herbs or any other advertisements
- Absolutely no quack-doctors pushing their quack-BS websites (and if you are a quack, I will call you out)
- Be critical if you want to, but try to be coherent
Comments are moderated, because I am tired of Gerwyn-V99-The-Idiot and his moronic sockpuppets, and tired of the story of the two dogs, but I will try to publish everything else.
If you are not Gerwyn (and want to tell me something other than the story of the two dogs), then relax and write something! :-)