Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

    Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientist-resigns-as-stem-cell-creation-method-is-discredited/?WT.mc_id=SA_BS_20141226



    Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

    Haruko Obokata, the stem-cell biologist whose papers caused a sensation earlier this year before being retracted, has resigned from the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan.

    Her emotional resignation letter was posted on RIKEN’s website on December 19 alongside results of the organization’s own investigation, which failed to confirm her claims of a simple method to create pluripotent stem cells.

    Such cells are scientifically valuable because they can develop into most other cells types, from brain to muscle. But they are difficult to make.

    Obokata’s method—known as stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, or STAP—was published in Nature in January. However, the results immediately came under suspicion, and the papers were retracted in July. A few weeks later, one of the paper’s co-authors, Yoshiki Sasai, took his own life.

    Obokata wrote she could not “find words enough to apologize... for troubling so many people at RIKEN and other places”.

    In an accompanying statement, RIKEN president Ryoji Noyori wrote that Obokata had been subject to extreme stress over the affair, and that in accepting her resignation he hoped to save her "further mental burden".

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    This post represents how science has a peer review and redundant research methods that uncover bad research and fraud. This self correcting process greatly reduces the influence of the individual fallible human element and is the reason we should trust the reliability of science in the long run. It is very rare if not at all that the discovery of fraud and bad research is discovered outside science.

    One of the long term problems we face in the 'information age' is the attempts by the layman popular is sensationalize, interpret and second guess advances in science.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-27-2014, 10:07 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      This post represents how science has a peer review and redundant research methods that uncover bad research and fraud. This self correcting process greatly reduces the influence of the individual fallible human element and is the reason we should trust the reliability of science in the long run. It is very rare if not at all that the discovery of fraud and bad research is discovered outside science.

      One of the long term problems we face in the 'information age' is the attempts by the layman popular is sensationalize, interpret and second guess advances in science.
      Peer review also works well outside of hard sciences.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Peer review also works well outside of hard sciences.
        Yes, but the worldwide skeptical peer review and redundant research process is a universal self correcting method, probably unique to science in its intensity. In this thread I would like to address the reasons for the widespread mistrust and misinformation concerning science among laymen and popular media. It does extend to the applied sciences like archeology, as far as the factual nature of discoveries and research.

        An important part of this process is in the nature of Methodological Naturalism, which does work well to keep science neutral to the many theological and philosophical worldviews and agendas despite claims, conspiracy theories and accusations otherwise.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-27-2014, 10:31 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Yes, but the worldwide skeptical peer review and redundant research process is a universal self correcting method, probably unique to science in its intensity. In this thread I would like to address the reasons for the widespread mistrust and misinformation concerning science among laymen and popular media. It does extend to the applied sciences like arch[a]eology, as far as the factual nature of discoveries and research.
          I don't think it is unique in its intensity, but it is certainly easier to apply in objective sciences where results can be replicated.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I don't think it is unique in its intensity, but it is certainly easier to apply in objective sciences where results can be replicated.
            Pretty much all other disciplines such as in Theology, and Philosophy the peer review is more internal on belief system, school or narrowly defined field. There, of course, may be criticisms and critique from outside, but they rarely impact the individual scope of the publication. Outside science there are more subjective and anecdotal issues which complicate things.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Pretty much all other disciplines such as in Theology, and Philosophy the peer review is more internal on belief system, school or narrowly defined field. There, of course, may be criticisms and critique from outside, but they rarely impact the individual scope of the publication. Outside science there are more subjective and anecdotal issues which complicate things.
              It all depends on the editorial policies of the journal and publisher. Academic publishers do not conduct peer review in accord with a belief system. In such a context, good peer review certainly does always impact the individual scope of a publication.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                This post represents how science has a peer review and redundant research methods that uncover bad research and fraud. This self correcting process greatly reduces the influence of the individual fallible human element and is the reason we should trust the reliability of science in the long run. It is very rare if not at all that the discovery of fraud and bad research is discovered outside science.

                One of the long term problems we face in the 'information age' is the attempts by the layman popular is sensationalize, interpret and second guess advances in science.
                Sanctimonious drivel, of the type that I would expect from someone who didn't post any details of the case. This was a slam-dunk case:

                That scepticism deepened last week when blogs including PubPeer started noting what seem to be problems in the two Nature papers and in a paper from 20114, which relates to the potential of stem cells in adult tissues. In the 2011 paper, of which Obokata is first author, a figure showing bars that are meant to prove the presence of a certain stem-cell marker seems to have been inverted and then used to show the presence of a different stem-cell marker. A part of the same image appears in a different figure indicating yet another stem-cell marker. The paper also contains another unrelated apparent duplication.

                The corresponding author of that study4, Charles Vacanti, an anaesthesiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, told Nature news that he learned only last week of a “mix up of some panels”. He has already contacted the journal in which the paper was published, Tissue Engineering, to request a correction. “It certainly appears to have been an honest mistake [that] did not affect any of the data, the conclusions or any other component of the paper,” says Vacanti.
                In other words, "peer" review had a history of failing so hard that the bad actors didn't even bother making convincing-looking fake graphs, and only took action when disinterested public review forced them too. What the over/under discovery of fraud in papers not sexy or audacious enough to draw public view before slipping into the footnote list and 'works cited" tab?

                Peer review is no more reliable than the judgment of your peers, and may be a good deal less valuable than reviews with names and faces of prominent scientists attached to them. Most collective decisions are abdications of responsibility to the God of Large Numbers, which has a greater and greater likelihood to be Satan in disguise as the penalty for lying gets ever smaller.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  It all depends on the editorial policies of the journal and publisher. Academic publishers do not conduct peer review in accord with a belief system. In such a context, good peer review certainly does always impact the individual scope of a publication.
                  I fully acknowledge that there is peer review and critique in all academic fields, but there is an important difference with science, discoveries and research in Japan is eventually repeated and check elsewhere either in Japan or in India, USA, France, Germany or where ever by the same methodology. This is not the case in other academic disciplines. Bad or faulty research, and fraud is fairly common in science, but virtually all the problems are resolved in time. This intensive global redundant process of research is what resolves any personal bias, errors, fraud and bad research over time. The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    I fully acknowledge that there is peer review and critique in all academic fields, but there is an important difference with science, discoveries and research in Japan is eventually repeated and check elsewhere either in Japan or in India, USA, France, Germany or where ever by the same methodology. This is not the case in other academic disciplines.
                    I have already said this, in saying that peer review is certainly easier to apply in objective sciences where results can be replicated.

                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Bad or faulty research, and fraud is fairly common in science, but virtually all the problems are resolved in time. This intensive global redundant process of research is what resolves any personal bias, errors, fraud and bad research over time. The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?
                    I suppose that covers most of the reasons. It seems some of the early Baha'i opposition to the early scientific theories of evolution were based on religious/philosophical objections based on the need to see the creation of humanity as a more direct creation by God rather than the evolution of one species from other species. If I recall correctly, I think you've said that this is no longer the current Baha'i position.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      I suppose that covers most of the reasons. It seems some of the early Baha'i opposition to the early scientific theories of evolution were based on religious/philosophical objections based on the need to see the creation of humanity as a more direct creation by God rather than the evolution of one species from other species. If I recall correctly, I think you've said that this is no longer the current Baha'i position.
                      No, there was never any specific opposition to anything. Foundation principles have always held prescedence concerning the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. I have explained several times the problem that Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha spoke and wrote in Persian and Arabic and never had the rudimentary education in 19th century science, that is why the first principles take prescedence. The following explains this further:

                      Source: Robin Mishrahi, 2005. "Ether, Quantum Physics and the Bahá'í Writings"



                      "As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Full text available on request. Any more questions concerning this issue, please address them in the appropriate thread. I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.



                      Actually, not the topic of the thread.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-27-2014, 04:12 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Actually, not the topic of the thread.
                        Yeah robrecht! In other words, when he says, "The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?" he means people from religions not this own. Stop trying to change the topic by including Bahais!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Yeah robrecht! In other words, when he says, "The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?" he means people from religions not this own. Stop trying to change the topic by including Bahais!
                          Please do include Baha'is in the proper context.

                          No, there was never any specific opposition to anything. Foundation principles have always held prescedence concerning the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. I have explained several times the problem that Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha spoke and wrote in Persian and Arabic and never had the rudimentary education in 19th century science, that is why the first principles take prescedence. The following explains this further:


                          Source: Source: Robin Mishrahi, 2005. "Ether, Quantum Physics and the Bahá'í Writings"



                          "As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Full text available on request. Any more questions concerning this issue, please address them in the appropriate thread. I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.


                          Actually, not the topic of the thread.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-27-2014, 04:12 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So when some of the founders of the Baha'i faith opposed current scientific theories as they understood them that is somehow fundamentally different from some Muslims or Christians or animists or members of other religions who might oppose current scientific theories as they understand them?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              So when some of the founders of the Baha'i faith opposed current scientific theories as they understood them that is somehow fundamentally different from some Muslims or Christians or animists or members of other religions who might oppose current scientific theories as they understand them?
                              Robrecht, apparently you have a distinct problem with the English language, and references I have provided. Commentary in the Arabic and Persian scriptures on the nature of our physical existence is not considered in opposition to science at any time. The foundation principles are what stand for how the Baha'i Faith believes and teaches concerning the relationship of science and religion and the independence of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence.
                              I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to or openly opposed the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.

                              You sure are dense cookie when trying to communicate in basic English.

                              Source: Source: Robin Mishrahi, 2005. "Ether, Quantum Physics and the Bahá'í Writings"




                              "As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              © Copyright Original Source
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-27-2014, 04:44 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              37 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X