http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Source-of-Richardson-test-slide-tp593463p593493.html
Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
-
Well, if you think there is an alarming amount of image manipulation (and bad statistics) going on, you definitely SHOULD NOT read Salas et al, (2005): A critical reassessment of the role of mitochondria in tumorigenesis. PLoS Medicine 2(11): e296.
In this paper, the authors re-analyze a number of published papers dealing with somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in tumors (actually those few papers for which a sufficient amount of primary data was available). These are (some of) their conclusions:
"We have found that the vast majority (>80%) of the studies dealing with potential functional implications of the mtDNA molecule in tumorigenesis (and providing data for inspection) are based on faulty data with surreal findings. [...] Probably, we should abandon the exciting findings unleashed as the result of the many sequencing failures that accumulated during the last decade."
On the positive (!) side, they attribute those findings mostly to incompetence, not malice.
Scary, right? but fear not: I just found a recipe in 19 easy steps to improve the quality of scientific research:
1. take high-school students with little or no math and science background, and undeveloped analytical skills
2. give them computers with DOS
3. let them graduate in "Cult of the Mother Goddess" and "Harry Potter Mythology" studies (optional: throw in Creationism)
4. send them to grad school in a lab where they have no real project and complete lack of supervision
5. upgrade their computers to Windows 3.1
6. put a lot of pressure of them to publish in the top journals
(optional): give them a PhD
7. send them to a new lab for postdoctoral "training" in a lab where they have no real project and complete lack of supervision
8. upgrade their computers to Windows 98
9. put a lot of pressure of them to publish in the top journals
10. put a lot of pressure of them to obtain funding for another year
(optional): repeat 7-10
(optional): upgrade their computers to Windows 2000
11. (optional): give them a faculty position, (where they have no real project and complete lack of supervision)
12. put a lot of pressure of them to publish in the top journals
13. put a lot of pressure of them to obtain funding for another year
14. give them (undergraduate/graduate students/postdocs; choose one) with little or no math and general science background (and undeveloped analytical skills)
15. upgrade their computers to Windows XP
(optional): appoint them as peer-reviewers
(optional): let them delegate their peer-reviewing tasks to their undergraduate/graduate students/postdocs; (choose one), with little or no math and general science background (and undeveloped analytical skills)
16. Buy a LINUX box that no one will use ("what type of computer is this?")
17. reduce funding for schools
18. upgrade their computers to Vista
19. start over...
Julio
==