Scientific Red Cards
2009 June 18
Anyone seen this site before? A colleague just sent it to me.
I will note that the list of articles is pretty short, and there is no description of the cases beyond the published retraction.
What do you all think?
i think it is surprising that it took this long. and it will be a complete screaming disaster if it takes off….
“According to a note in Nature, one in three scientists confesses to having misbehaved in the past three years. Such an incidence is of high concern since misconduct damages science, and consequently undermines public’s trust in science.”
HOLY FUCKNOLY! Why is this a “note” in Nature? It should be the damn cover!
Glad to see science penalties following soccer, do the “refs” get special shirts?
I got to the front page of that site, and I couldn’t figure out what to click on. What’s the take home message?
Right away I clicked on the about link. Who are the individuals posting this information, how do we know it accurate? It appears to be a group of PhD students studying in the life sciences. They are only reporting on known claims. It is interesting.
I don’t care for the site. It lacks the degree of professionalism I’d like to see for a whistleblowing website.
I don’t really like the idea of this kind of thing. It’s far too easy for something like this to degenerate into mud-flinging and name-calling over suspected misconduct (yes, I know they’re limiting themselves to known claims at this point).
Still, it’s nothing compared to http://spore.swmed.edu/dejavu/.
If the site sticks to simply reporting cases in which wrongdoing has been proven and settled, play on. But I agree that the last thing we need in science right now is a self-assembled Grand Inquisition flying around waving a red hot poker at anyone who has so much as fallen one the wrong side of rumour and innuendo.
DSKS- I was concerned about that but it looks like they stick to the published cases. … so far, anyway.
It’s a way to summarize what Janet, DM/PP, and writedit regularly do on their blogs with papers that have been retracted. Readers of the retraction get to wonder what exactly is the problem with the retracted paper, and without having the publicity of an investigation, only those associated with the journal or labs would know if it was something minor (like a whacky analysis) or something seriously fucked up (making up figures or adding non-existent authors). These cards point the readers to the problem. I think it’s a great idea.
PP, click on the Red Cards List in the menu and it’ll bring you to the list of offenses itself. I’m concerned about lumping these issues together on the site (different colored cards notwithstanding) I mean, failing to list a conflict of interest isn’t the same level of offense as creating data out of whole cloth.