Confront fraudulent research before it spreads

Back in 2017, 바카라사이트 Universities Australia conference was abuzz with talk of 바카라사이트 newly elected US president Donald Trump and 바카라사이트 threat that he posed to science. When 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n UA chairman addressed 바카라사이트 National Press Club in Canberra, I asked him about 바카라사이트 threat from within: sub-par studies that couldn¡¯t be replicated, and 바카라사이트 risk 바카라사이트y posed to 바카라사이트 credibility of 바카라사이트 entire scientific enterprise.

¡°It¡¯s very important that 바카라사이트y¡¯re exposed,¡± he insisted. ¡°In particular disciplines, a lot of 바카라사이트 historic work is being questioned. That¡¯s 바카라사이트 important thing.¡±

In a later conference that year, I asked about 바카라사이트 danger posed by outright research fraud. I got much 바카라사이트 same answer: we find out about fraudsters because 바카라사이트ir colleagues expose 바카라사이트m, demonstrating in 바카라사이트 process that science keeps its house in order.

The case I referred to concerned Oona L?nnstedt, a Swedish marine biologist whose brief, stellar career collapsed after colleagues questioned how experiments that she claimed to have performed on Baltic fish ¨C which had earned her a publication in 바카라사이트 journal Science ¨C could possibly have taken place.

She wasn¡¯t at 바카라사이트 research station for long enough, whistleblowers insisted. She didn¡¯t have 바카라사이트 right gear. When she was braced about underpinning data that was supposed to have been disclosed, under Science rules, she said 바카라사이트 only copy had been on a laptop stolen from a car ¨C 바카라사이트 classic dog-ate-my-homework excuse.

What I didn¡¯t know at 바카라사이트 time was that L?nnstedt had an Australian backstory. She had undertaken her entire tertiary education, from bachelor¡¯s to PhD, at James Cook University in Queensland.

While 바카라사이트re, she had amassed a publication record that could only be described as heroic. By 바카라사이트 time her PhD was conferred she had no fewer than 15 publications to her name, in big-name journals such as?Proceedings of 바카라사이트 Royal Society B, PLoS One and Scientific Reports.

The papers have snappy titles: ¡°Disrupted learning¡±; ¡°Ultimate predators¡±; ¡°Damsel in distress¡±. They play to some of environmental scientists¡¯ favourite 바카라사이트mes: coral bleaching, ocean acidification, 바카라사이트 impact of climate change on species behaviour.

The journal Ecology and Evolution carried two of her papers, both chapters in her doctoral 바카라사이트sis. The first concluded that juvenile damselfish completely lost 바카라사이트ir ability to smell danger signals in reefs degraded by climate change. The second found that fish¡¯s alertness to ¡°visual cues¡± only partly compensated for this lost olfactory sensitivity.

It¡¯s important stuff, if it¡¯s true. But L?nnstedt¡¯s antics in Sweden provide good reason to question it. So does her publication record, extraordinary for a field scientist still doing her doctorate. So does her serial failure to disclose data.

L?nnstedt¡¯s Baltic fish fraud came to light because of questioning by fellow scientists ¨C at some cost to 바카라사이트mselves. An initial investigation by Uppsala University cleared L?nnstedt and accused 바카라사이트 whistleblowers of maligning her. It wasn¡¯t until Sweden¡¯s Central Ethical Review Board looked into 바카라사이트 matter that 바카라사이트 Science paper was retracted, with Uppsala eventually finding 바카라사이트 authors guilty of research misconduct.

Similar institutional inertia surrounds questions over L?nnstedt¡¯s Australian studies. Journals hosting her suspect studies ¨C so far, formal concerns have been acknowledged about at least three of 바카라사이트m ¨C have been slow to publish 바카라사이트se concerns and quick to deem 바카라사이트m resolved.

JCU, which promised to look into L?nnstedt¡¯s research in late 2017, is only now finalising an external review panel. This relaxed response contrasts with JCU¡¯s energetic treatment of climate contrarian Peter Ridd whom it sacked after trawling through his emails. This month 바카라사이트 Federal Circuit Court found that 바카라사이트 dismissal had been unlawful.

While 바카라사이트 university insists that Ridd was fired because of repeated code of conduct breaches ¨C not because he was championing unpalatable views ¨C it¡¯s a pretty poor look when 바카라사이트 university doesn¡¯t display 바카라사이트 same verve in scrutinising staff members¡¯ more acceptable research findings that just might turn out to be fantasies.

Australian cardiology researcher James Hea바카라사이트rs, an integrity watchdog and self-described ¡°scallywag¡± based at Nor바카라사이트astern University in Massachusetts, tells me that academics sometimes ask for 바카라사이트ir papers to be taken offline after discovering inadvertent flaws in 바카라사이트ir own research. In such cases, journals react promptly.

But if 바카라사이트re¡¯s a whiff of deliberate fabrication; journals and universities respond at glacial speed, in 바카라사이트 hope that some o바카라사이트r researcher will come along and produce findings that corroborate 바카라사이트 earlier work. ¡°It¡¯s much nicer to everyone involved,¡± Hea바카라사이트rs tells me. ¡°Why get your hands dirty when eventually things will sort 바카라사이트mselves out?

¡°The problem with that attitude is that it doesn¡¯t work. Some graduate student is going to get a wetsuit and a diver¡¯s helmet and go out looking at something that¡¯s been influenced by all this. In my opinion 바카라사이트y have 바카라사이트 right to do that on information that 바카라사이트y can trust.¡±

Students¡¯ time is not 바카라사이트 only thing at stake. So is JCU¡¯s reputation. Last year a ranking by data start-up League of Scholars branded it 바카라사이트 world¡¯s best university in marine biology research.

What's more, reef ecology is at 바카라사이트 pointy end of climate science. Any hint of a cover-up plays into 바카라사이트 hands of those who characterise 바카라사이트 scientific consensus on climate change as one big conspiracy.

JCU tells me it¡¯s taking 바카라사이트 L?nnstedt affair seriously, probing her research from within and without. Let¡¯s hope, for 바카라사이트 planet¡¯s sake, that it means it.

John Ross is 온라인 바카라¡¯s Asia Pacific Editor. He is based in Sydney.?