TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Comment on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts

159 点作者 picture4 个月前

20 条评论

owlninja4 个月前
I guess I'll bite - what am I looking at here?
评论 #42728569 未加载
评论 #42728535 未加载
评论 #42728865 未加载
5mk4 个月前
I&#x27;ve always wondered about gel image fraud -- what&#x27;s stopping fraudulent researchers from just running a dummy gel for each fake figure? If you just loaded some protein with a similar MW &#x2F; migration &#x2F; concentration as the one you&#x27;re trying to spoof, the bands would look more or less indistinguishable. And because it&#x27;s a real unique band (just with the wrong protein), you wouldn&#x27;t be able to tell it&#x27;s been faked using visual inspection.<p>Perhaps this is already happening, and we just don&#x27;t know it... In this way I&#x27;ve always thought gel images were more susceptible to fraud vs. other commonly faked images (NMR &#x2F; MS spectra etc, which are harder to spoof)
评论 #42729655 未加载
评论 #42729290 未加载
评论 #42729463 未加载
评论 #42729518 未加载
smusamashah4 个月前
They have a playlist of 3500 videos showing images like this one<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLlXXK20HE_dV8rBa2h-8P9d-0pwqxyXnA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLlXXK20HE_dV8rBa2h-8P9d-0...</a>
评论 #42730202 未加载
评论 #42728836 未加载
snowwrestler4 个月前
There is so little content and context to this link that it is essentially flame war bait in a non-expert forum like HN.
评论 #42735461 未加载
mrshu4 个月前
For reference, the title of the paper this appeared in is &quot;Novel RNA- and FMRP-binding protein TRF2-S regulates axonal mRNA transport and presynaptic plasticity&quot;<p>Google Scholar reports 43 citations: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar?q=Novel+RNA-and+FMRP-binding+protein+TRF2-S+regulates+axonal+mRNA+transport+and+presynaptic+plasticity" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar?q=Novel+RNA-and+FMRP-bind...</a><p>The images still seem to be visible in both PubMed and Nature versions.<p>PubMed version: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;26586091&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;26586091&#x2F;</a><p>Nature version: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ncomms9888" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ncomms9888</a><p>Nature version (PDF): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ncomms9888.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ncomms9888.pdf</a>
robwwilliams4 个月前
Just for context:<p>The senior author is Mark Mattson: one of the world’s most highly cited neuroscientists with amazing productivity and large lab while at NIH when this work was done.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;citations?user=N3ObarMAAAAJ&amp;hl=en&amp;oi=ao" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;citations?user=N3ObarMAAAAJ&amp;hl=en...</a><p>Mattson is well known as a biohacker and an expert in intermittent fasting and health benefits.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mark_Mattson" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Mark_Mattson</a><p>He retired from the National Institute on Aging in 2019 and is now at Johns Hopkins University. Still active researcher.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nihrecord.nih.gov&#x2F;2019&#x2F;08&#x2F;23&#x2F;mattson-expert-brain-aging-science-fasting-retires" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nihrecord.nih.gov&#x2F;2019&#x2F;08&#x2F;23&#x2F;mattson-expert-brain-ag...</a>
lxe4 个月前
Not just same bands, but same noise and artifacts too. They copypasted the data?
评论 #42730618 未加载
doodda4 个月前
Here&#x27;s me, clicking and expecting to read about someone fleecing Spotify by setting up fake bands.
评论 #42728678 未加载
neilv4 个月前
If you just looked at all the undergrads trying to find ways to cheat on their homework, exams, and job interviews, it&#x27;d be easy to imagine that university lab science conducted by those same people is also full of cheating whenever they thought they could get away with it.<p>But I&#x27;ve wondered whether maybe <i>some</i> of the fabrications are just sloppy work tracking so many artifacts.<p>You might be experienced enough with computers to have filing conventions and workflow tools, around which you could figure out how to accurately keep track of numerous lab equipment artifacts, including those produced by multiple team members, and have traceability from publication figures all the way to original imaging or data. But is this something everyone involved in a university lab would be able to do reliably?<p>I&#x27;m sure there&#x27;s a lot of dishonesty going on, because people going into the hard sciences can be just as shitty as your average Leetcode Cadet. But maybe some genuine scientists could use better computer tools and skills?
barbazoo4 个月前
Would this imply that someone faked data in a paper they published?
评论 #42728519 未加载
w10-14 个月前
The opportunity here is to automate detection of fake data used in papers.<p>I could be hard to do without access to data and costly integration. And like shorting, the difficulty is how to monetize. It could also be easy to game. Still...<p>The nice thing about the business is that market (publishing) is flourishing. Not sure about state of the art or availability of such services.<p>For sales: run it on recent publications, and quietly ping the editors with findings and a reasonable price.<p>Unclear though whether to brand in a user-visible way (i.e., where the journal would report to readers that you validate their stuff). It could drive uptake, but a glaring false negative would be a risk.<p>Structurally, perhaps should be a non-profit (which of course can accumulate profits at will). Does YC do deals without ownership, e.g., with profit-sharing agreements?
评论 #42729108 未加载
sega_sai4 个月前
At least this paper has only 43 citations over last 10 years, which is really nothing for Nature, which means it&#x27;s basically irrelevant. (Obviously it is still a good idea to identify cheaters)
cosmojg4 个月前
Ooh, I love that this website exists, and major props to whoever made that visualization!
mellosouls4 个月前
The image with meaningless blotches, technical diagrams and implied dubiousness feels like the beginning of a &quot;please check and comment&quot; meme.
dr_dshiv4 个月前
Is there an obvious way to tell that these are exactly the same? Or is this a pixel level comparison that is not mentioned?
评论 #42728711 未加载
评论 #42728632 未加载
评论 #42728776 未加载
评论 #42728643 未加载
评论 #42728728 未加载
评论 #42728796 未加载
评论 #42728654 未加载
jvanderbot4 个月前
A desperate need for automated experiment verification and auditing is needed. Something as simple as submitting exif + archiving at time of capture, for crying out loud.<p>A imgur for scientific photos with hash-based search or something. We have the technology for this.
NotAnOtter4 个月前
Pruitt? Is that you?
egberts14 个月前
Copypasta.
bdangubic4 个月前
damn you spotify … :)
philipwhiuk4 个月前
Can someone change the title to:<p>&quot;Comment on Nature paper on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts&quot;<p>The current title would suggest music to most lay-people.
评论 #42729558 未加载
评论 #42728730 未加载
评论 #42729538 未加载
评论 #42728700 未加载
评论 #42729437 未加载
评论 #42729793 未加载
评论 #42732740 未加载