Jun 24, 2024 07:44 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 24, 2024 07:45 PM by C C.)
The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct
https://chris-said.io/2024/06/17/the-cas...isconduct/
EXCERPTS: Lesné’s alleged misconduct misled a field for over a decade. [...] Lesné is not alone. This year we learned of rampant image manipulation [...] So far 6 papers have been retracted and 31 corrected. The 6 retracted papers alone have 1,400 citations and have surely polluted the field and slowed down progress.
[...] To put it bluntly, scientists who commit research misconduct extract money from a trusting public so that they may enrich themselves and gain prestige. Along the way they knowingly pollute future research, undermine the credibility of science, and may cause the deaths of millions of people.
And yet, researchers who commit misconduct rarely face any consequences. The vast majority are never caught... (MORE - missing details)
Top FDA official overrules staff to approve gene therapy that failed trial
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/...led-trial/
INTRO: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday announced expanded approval for a gene therapy to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)—despite the fact that it failed a Phase III clinical trial last year and that the approval came over the objections of three of FDA's own expert review teams and two of its directors.
In fact, the decision to expand the approval of the therapy—called Elevidys (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl)—appears to have been decided almost entirely by Peter Marks, Director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research... (MORE - details)
Why is The New York Times now promoting an anti-science agenda?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024...-leak.html
INTRO: The New York Times’ science reporters have provided outstanding coverage of Covid-19 since the earliest days in 2020, including how the pandemic started. Unfortunately, the paper’s opinion desk has had a far more checkered record, culminating in two highly controversial essays that were released online last week and co-published in a two-page spread in the print edition on Sunday, June 9. The Times has made it clear to colleagues that it is not interested in considering articles that rebut these two essays.
Despite that attitude, the outlandish nature of the two articles does require a public reckoning. [...] Despite the evidence gaps, Chan, however, has written an essay that is deeply slanted towards the lab leak hypothesis... (MORE - details)
_
https://chris-said.io/2024/06/17/the-cas...isconduct/
EXCERPTS: Lesné’s alleged misconduct misled a field for over a decade. [...] Lesné is not alone. This year we learned of rampant image manipulation [...] So far 6 papers have been retracted and 31 corrected. The 6 retracted papers alone have 1,400 citations and have surely polluted the field and slowed down progress.
[...] To put it bluntly, scientists who commit research misconduct extract money from a trusting public so that they may enrich themselves and gain prestige. Along the way they knowingly pollute future research, undermine the credibility of science, and may cause the deaths of millions of people.
And yet, researchers who commit misconduct rarely face any consequences. The vast majority are never caught... (MORE - missing details)
Top FDA official overrules staff to approve gene therapy that failed trial
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/06/...led-trial/
INTRO: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday announced expanded approval for a gene therapy to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)—despite the fact that it failed a Phase III clinical trial last year and that the approval came over the objections of three of FDA's own expert review teams and two of its directors.
In fact, the decision to expand the approval of the therapy—called Elevidys (delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl)—appears to have been decided almost entirely by Peter Marks, Director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research... (MORE - details)
Why is The New York Times now promoting an anti-science agenda?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024...-leak.html
INTRO: The New York Times’ science reporters have provided outstanding coverage of Covid-19 since the earliest days in 2020, including how the pandemic started. Unfortunately, the paper’s opinion desk has had a far more checkered record, culminating in two highly controversial essays that were released online last week and co-published in a two-page spread in the print edition on Sunday, June 9. The Times has made it clear to colleagues that it is not interested in considering articles that rebut these two essays.
Despite that attitude, the outlandish nature of the two articles does require a public reckoning. [...] Despite the evidence gaps, Chan, however, has written an essay that is deeply slanted towards the lab leak hypothesis... (MORE - details)
_