Comments on: Debating Ron Bailey and Wesley Smith, Part I http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Macht http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-48 Macht Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:52:01 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-48 It just confused me since you had said that these were examples of where you disagreed with Smith. But now that I think about it, what do you disagree with Smith about in that paragraph? Do you think those are bad questions to ask? As I said, I would bet that most journals are asking themselves the same things. Your sentence that begins "However, the scientific peer review ..." doesn't say what you disagree with, since even if you agree that peer review isn't meant to detect fraud, you could still ask the questions that Smith asked. It just confused me since you had said that these were examples of where you disagreed with Smith. But now that I think about it, what do you disagree with Smith about in that paragraph? Do you think those are bad questions to ask? As I said, I would bet that most journals are asking themselves the same things. Your sentence that begins “However, the scientific peer review …” doesn’t say what you disagree with, since even if you agree that peer review isn’t meant to detect fraud, you could still ask the questions that Smith asked.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-47 Chris Mooney Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:08:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-47 Macht, The paragraph before that was a response to Smith's questions. Then I enlarged the issue. Macht,
The paragraph before that was a response to Smith’s questions. Then I enlarged the issue.

]]> By: Macht http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-46 Macht Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:52:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-46 "Moreover, in a broader sense, science worked in this case. The "research" of Woo Suk Hwang was exposed for what it really was. If anything, this case highlights the strengths of the scientific process, when conceived not simply as a narrow process of peer review by a single journal, but rather as broader process involving all types of scrutiny of new work by peers and colleagues." I don't see what this has to do with Wesley's questions. The way you've written it you seem to suggest that Wesley is saying that science doesn't work. But he didn't do that. He wasn't questioning science. All he did was ask some (quite pertinent) questions about peer review. I'm sure there are plenty of journals that are asking themselves the same questions. “Moreover, in a broader sense, science worked in this case. The “research” of Woo Suk Hwang was exposed for what it really was. If anything, this case highlights the strengths of the scientific process, when conceived not simply as a narrow process of peer review by a single journal, but rather as broader process involving all types of scrutiny of new work by peers and colleagues.”

I don’t see what this has to do with Wesley’s questions. The way you’ve written it you seem to suggest that Wesley is saying that science doesn’t work. But he didn’t do that. He wasn’t questioning science. All he did was ask some (quite pertinent) questions about peer review. I’m sure there are plenty of journals that are asking themselves the same questions.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-45 Chris Mooney Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:25:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-45 Sure, there's back and forth, but there are no lab inspections. Someone wanting to pull a fast one can certainly get away with it if they're clever enough. Sure, there’s back and forth, but there are no lab inspections. Someone wanting to pull a fast one can certainly get away with it if they’re clever enough.

]]> By: tristero http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-44 tristero Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:28:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-44 Chris, I understand. My only point is that when someone fakes as much as Hwang did, I begin to wonder if it's the first time. It could be, but does it not seem to you odd, given the fakery was so extensive, that no alarm bells were sounded along the process that led the article to print? I do mean that as a serious question as I'm not a scientist and I honestly don't know the details of the review process works. I imagine, as there is on my wife's legal magazine, that there's back and forth between the magazine and the authors as questions are answered, perhaps quite a bit of back and forth in an important paper. During the process, the presentation is tightened up focusing on whether the interpretation of the data is adequately supported. Assuming that's at least some of what happens, it seems reasonable that the discussion - phone calls, emails, however it takes place - would skirt very close to uncovering a spectacular fraud. Maybe it's very hard to smell a rat given the complications of the subject matter, but this one seems very large and very blatant. Given the stakes were so high, wouldn't reviewers be especially diligent? What am I missing that makes it seem to me as if the editors at Science, or their outside reviewers, overlooked something pretty obvious? A presumption of honesty is one thing; this seems like Hwang was working under a presumption that the magazine wouldn't notice. Chris, I understand. My only point is that when someone fakes as much as Hwang did, I begin to wonder if it’s the first time. It could be, but does it not seem to you odd, given the fakery was so extensive, that no alarm bells were sounded along the process that led the article to print?

I do mean that as a serious question as I’m not a scientist and I honestly don’t know the details of the review process works. I imagine, as there is on my wife’s legal magazine, that there’s back and forth between the magazine and the authors as questions are answered, perhaps quite a bit of back and forth in an important paper. During the process, the presentation is tightened up focusing on whether the interpretation of the data is adequately supported.

Assuming that’s at least some of what happens, it seems reasonable that the discussion – phone calls, emails, however it takes place – would skirt very close to uncovering a spectacular fraud. Maybe it’s very hard to smell a rat given the complications of the subject matter, but this one seems very large and very blatant. Given the stakes were so high, wouldn’t reviewers be especially diligent?

What am I missing that makes it seem to me as if the editors at Science, or their outside reviewers, overlooked something pretty obvious? A presumption of honesty is one thing; this seems like Hwang was working under a presumption that the magazine wouldn’t notice.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-43 Chris Mooney Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:33:14 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-43 Tristero, You're assuming the existence of evidence which may not exist! After all, it appears that Snuppy the puppy was the real thing, so it's not as though Hwang was incapable of doing real cutting edge research in this area. It seems to me that if he could clone the world's first dog, he could certainly make it look like he knew what he was talking about in other paper submissions. Tristero,
You’re assuming the existence of evidence which may not exist! After all, it appears that Snuppy the puppy was the real thing, so it’s not as though Hwang was incapable of doing real cutting edge research in this area. It seems to me that if he could clone the world’s first dog, he could certainly make it look like he knew what he was talking about in other paper submissions.

]]> By: tristero http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-42 tristero Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:50:10 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-42 Two points: Chris's main point about the citation of Clinton's record on science was finessed by Ron Bailey in his comment above, namely that the Bush record on science is atrocious and distressingly comprehensive, far worse than previous administrations. Nearly all scientific funding and discussion under Bush is held up to a political litmus test and if it doesn't meet the standards of the reigning ideologues, it's ignored, rewritten, and sometimes papered over with lies-that-aren't-quite-lies, a rhetorical flim-flam the Bush administration has refined into high art. No administration has a flawless record on science, but only one administration has made a fetish of political correctness to the detriment of science. And that is the Bush administration. Secondly, Chris, in his main post, tries to minimize the embarassment of the Hwang debacle. But the truth is that it highlights egregious flaws in the peer review process at Science and, I suspect, heads will roll if they haven't already. And well they should. The level of fraud Hwang committed makes one question whether this is the first time he was so deceitful. Frankly, I doubt it. If so, someone surely knew that Hwang was a phony and was anxious to let others know. Yes, of course, science must operate like many other fields under the presumption of professional honesty, but that is absolutely no reason to leave your street smarts behind when you examine a submission. I suspect that, if the full story comes out, we'll learn that serious oversights and lapses in standard review protocols occurred at Science. We may also learn that some folks tried to warn Science editors that Hwang was prone to fakery of data. I am reminded of Sokal's notorious, hilarious, and brilliant hoax in Social Text. One of the points made by science savvy critics of the magazine - including Sokal himself, I believe - was that anyone even partly literate in physics would have realized that "Transgressing the Boundaries" was a parody, not to be taken seriously, and that similar hoaxes could not be perpetrated at science magazines. Well...as Ricky said to Lucy, someone at Science has a lot of 'splainin' to do. This is an outrage and it should lead to major changes at Science Magazine, and fast. Two points:

Chris’s main point about the citation of Clinton’s record on science was finessed by Ron Bailey in his comment above, namely that the Bush record on science is atrocious and distressingly comprehensive, far worse than previous administrations. Nearly all scientific funding and discussion under Bush is held up to a political litmus test and if it doesn’t meet the standards of the reigning ideologues, it’s ignored, rewritten, and sometimes papered over with lies-that-aren’t-quite-lies, a rhetorical flim-flam the Bush administration has refined into high art.

No administration has a flawless record on science, but only one administration has made a fetish of political correctness to the detriment of science. And that is the Bush administration.

Secondly, Chris, in his main post, tries to minimize the embarassment of the Hwang debacle. But the truth is that it highlights egregious flaws in the peer review process at Science and, I suspect, heads will roll if they haven’t already. And well they should.

The level of fraud Hwang committed makes one question whether this is the first time he was so deceitful. Frankly, I doubt it. If so, someone surely knew that Hwang was a phony and was anxious to let others know. Yes, of course, science must operate like many other fields under the presumption of professional honesty, but that is absolutely no reason to leave your street smarts behind when you examine a submission. I suspect that, if the full story comes out, we’ll learn that serious oversights and lapses in standard review protocols occurred at Science. We may also learn that some folks tried to warn Science editors that Hwang was prone to fakery of data.

I am reminded of Sokal’s notorious, hilarious, and brilliant hoax in Social Text. One of the points made by science savvy critics of the magazine – including Sokal himself, I believe – was that anyone even partly literate in physics would have realized that “Transgressing the Boundaries” was a parody, not to be taken seriously, and that similar hoaxes could not be perpetrated at science magazines.

Well…as Ricky said to Lucy, someone at Science has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. This is an outrage and it should lead to major changes at Science Magazine, and fast.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-41 Chris Mooney Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:14:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-41 Thanks Ron. On the models, I agree that they have to include emissions scenarios and there's lots of uncertainty here. But of course, there's no other way you could hope to do it except by including emissions scenarios in some form or other. I'm not sure we can extrapolate just from current temperature records, due to the problem of feedbacks. I really still disagree with you about the Clinton v. Bush comparison. In my book I explain that Bush did not simply use the best scientific information available when it came to the "more than 60" lines. He significantly misstated that information. The NIH figure (the original source for the info) didn't refer to ESC lines; it referred to less developed derivations, which may never turn into lines. Somehow this rather huge distinction was lost in the translation between the NIH and the White House. We can speculate about whether or not this was intentional or just incompetent. But the president went before the nation and misinformed us by making a very elementary mistake, one that competent science advice should have caught--and one that has not since been apologized for. Should we just shrug and say, well, he made a mistake? I don't think so, or at least, I have much higher expectations than that for POTUS. Thanks Ron. On the models, I agree that they have to include emissions scenarios and there’s lots of uncertainty here. But of course, there’s no other way you could hope to do it except by including emissions scenarios in some form or other. I’m not sure we can extrapolate just from current temperature records, due to the problem of feedbacks.

I really still disagree with you about the Clinton v. Bush comparison. In my book I explain that Bush did not simply use the best scientific information available when it came to the “more than 60″ lines. He significantly misstated that information. The NIH figure (the original source for the info) didn’t refer to ESC lines; it referred to less developed derivations, which may never turn into lines. Somehow this rather huge distinction was lost in the translation between the NIH and the White House.

We can speculate about whether or not this was intentional or just incompetent. But the president went before the nation and misinformed us by making a very elementary mistake, one that competent science advice should have caught–and one that has not since been apologized for. Should we just shrug and say, well, he made a mistake? I don’t think so, or at least, I have much higher expectations than that for POTUS.

]]> By: Ron Bailey http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-40 Ron Bailey Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:56:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/01/12/debating-ron-bailey-and-wesley-smith-part-i/#comment-40 Hi Chris: Good talking with you. Regarding global warming, I explain in the article to which you linked that all of the actual temperature records show warming at the low end of the climate models. This is why I a bit more skeptical of GW catastrophes. Second, in other articles I deal with the problem that climate models are necessarily economic and demographic projections (how else does one project emissions after all?) and that these have tremendous problems as well. Regarding my citation of Clinton's rejection of the NIH panels' recommendation in favor of federal funding of embryo research in 1994, you're correct that it is not a "misuse" of science. It is a political overruling of scientific advice, but that's what government often does. I will not defend Bush's decision to limit embryonic stem cell funding to lines derived before August 2001 (after all I'm pretty clearly on record as being a full steam ahead stem cell research guy), but I think that Bush used what he thought was the "best scientific information" at the time to make his decision. Specifically, his advisors told him that 70 or so suitable stem cell lines were available for research. Bush then made his "political" decision to allow funding for only those lines, just like Clinton made his "political" decision to forbid any federal funding of embryo research. I agree with you that the Bush administration engaged in later distortions about stem cell research, but I think that the initial decision was very similar in to Clinton's earlier decision. Anyway, it was good to mix it up with you on Tuesday. Hi Chris: Good talking with you. Regarding global warming, I explain in the article to which you linked that all of the actual temperature records show warming at the low end of the climate models. This is why I a bit more skeptical of GW catastrophes. Second, in other articles I deal with the problem that climate models are necessarily economic and demographic projections (how else does one project emissions after all?) and that these have tremendous problems as well.

Regarding my citation of Clinton’s rejection of the NIH panels’ recommendation in favor of federal funding of embryo research in 1994, you’re correct that it is not a “misuse” of science. It is a political overruling of scientific advice, but that’s what government often does. I will not defend Bush’s decision to limit embryonic stem cell funding to lines derived before August 2001 (after all I’m pretty clearly on record as being a full steam ahead stem cell research guy), but I think that Bush used what he thought was the “best scientific information” at the time to make his decision. Specifically, his advisors told him that 70 or so suitable stem cell lines were available for research. Bush then made his “political” decision to allow funding for only those lines, just like Clinton made his “political” decision to forbid any federal funding of embryo research.

I agree with you that the Bush administration engaged in later distortions about stem cell research, but I think that the initial decision was very similar in to Clinton’s earlier decision.

Anyway, it was good to mix it up with you on Tuesday.

]]>