[HN Gopher] Star botanist likely made up data about nutritional ...
___________________________________________________________________
Star botanist likely made up data about nutritional supplements,
new probe finds
Author : jyunwai
Score : 119 points
Date : 2024-06-12 14:59 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.science.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
| ctoth wrote:
| Disclaimer: I don't know anything about this.
|
| My narrative detector is going off.
|
| The guy found that most supplements didn't actually have real
| ingredients, which is incredibly believable. The guy is now being
| discredited. Does this mean Supplements were fine all along?
| Somehow I doubt this! Sketchy people on both sides--why are so
| many industries like this? Supplements are an obvious one but
| have you tried buying a mattress/adjustable bed recently?
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The article mentions that he has conflicts of interest.
|
| Possibly his intent was to discredit _some_ supplements in
| order to boost others?
| baxtr wrote:
| _> Thompson, now a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University,
| sparked the initial inquiry. As an undergraduate, he and
| Newmaster co-authored a 2014 paper on forest plant diversity,
| published in Biodiversity and Conservation. Years later, while
| completing his Ph.D. at the University of British Columbia
| (UBC), Thompson began to suspect that Newmaster had repurposed
| data from a different study by another student._
|
| Sounds legit to me. I think this is more likely explanation due
| to Occams razor.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I don't really understand what the evidence was that led to
| others suspecting falsification here. But in general, the review
| process for studies has a lot that it simply cannot verify. This
| is why we need a higher degree of skepticism even around peer
| reviewed studies and also why we need to create incentives for
| people who try to reproduce findings, rather than only trying to
| reward new findings.
| nextos wrote:
| We also need reproducible results and well-annotated data. In
| life sciences, there are few to no incentives for making things
| reproducible. Reproducibility has the potential to expose lots
| of scams, perhaps even during review stage.
|
| The typical scenario right now is that you get access to raw
| data, often through an application, that can take months and
| requires having an ethics committee to oversee your work. So,
| unless you are at an academic institution, you can't get access
| to any raw data that contains personal information. Raw data
| will be often poorly annotated and you will need to spend weeks
| to figure things out, and sometimes significant computing
| resources to preprocess it. Then, good luck running some badly
| coded scripts to get the results reported in the article.
|
| Studies should provide preprocessed data that has been
| anonymized and can be freely shared, _one-click_ reproducible
| results from preprocessed data, well-annotated raw data, and
| simpler procedures to get access to raw data. For example, a
| tarball with code, preprocessed data, and a makefile to turn
| preprocessed data into results reported in the article. Bonus
| points if dependencies are reproducible, with e.g. a Nix flake.
| Brybry wrote:
| > Then, good luck running some badly coded scripts to get the
| results reported in the article.
|
| I think even this part is unlikely? My dad was a statistician
| involved in research and he didn't provide copies of his SAS
| programs/scripts to authors.
|
| I believe the papers would list what tests he performed but
| there'd be no easy to way to reproduce the exact script for
| tests (and certainly no easy way to reproduce exact
| charts/graphs/maps).
| nextos wrote:
| These days, most top journals require you to provide code
| in order to publish.
|
| But there are zero checks made, code is very often
| incomplete, full of local paths specific to the HPC where
| things were run in, etc.
| stonogo wrote:
| Supercomputing 24 has a reproducibility program involving
| Chameleon Cloud as infrastructure, and authors are
| expected to get their code running there for the purpose.
| It's a massive undertaking but it's looking promising.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| I'd like to think that Hanlon's Razor applies, but it appears
| even the original investigators found faults. I sort of wonder if
| they were operating under a more restrictive mandate?
|
| Also, it doesn't seem that his errors are any validation of the
| supplements industry
|
| "Their influential paper in BMC Medicine, and subsequent work
| based on Newmaster's approach, found that many supplements lacked
| ingredients listed on their labels and that toxic contaminants
| tainted others. Some stores pulled products from their shelves,
| and several major supplement companies embraced Newmaster's work,
| paying large sums for quality testing by companies Newmaster
| established just prior to the publication of the paper. "
|
| So, he basically generated demand for testing through his own
| companies. I mean, if this guy was selling cleaning products,
| tires, or perfume, all's fair in love and war. I think the trick
| is his academic appointment. If a PhD material scientist or
| chemist at a university said what the average tire or perfume
| commercial says, she'd probably find an academic investigation
| coming down on her head too.
| johnsillings wrote:
| these exposes where famous scientists doctor their data are so
| depressing
| quercusa wrote:
| This could trigger some skepticism:
|
| Some stores pulled products from their shelves, and several major
| supplement companies embraced Newmaster's work, paying large sums
| for quality testing by _companies Newmaster established just
| prior to the publication of the paper._
| giarc wrote:
| I don't think that alone is an issue. It could be seen as just
| commercializing the research he had done in the university
| setting. He would have to disclose this in publications (and
| perhaps he didn't). The university would have to approve (and
| take their cut). The issue is he seems to have fabricated
| results that prompted large companies to look for testing and
| certification and he was there with open arms (and pockets). If
| some other lab had come out and said "these products don't
| contain what they say they do" and the vitamin companies
| contracted his lab, then he wouldn't be in this situation.
| mekoka wrote:
| _> A 2022 Science investigation found evidence of a broader
| pattern of fabrication and data manipulation in Newmaster's
| speeches, teaching, biographical statements, and scholarly
| writings over 2 decades. Evidence also suggested Newmaster
| embellished or simply invented findings or accomplishments, as
| well as claimed credit for work by others._
|
| What I find puzzling about this kind of stories is that the
| pattern of behavior is usually obvious to all who know the
| person. Yet, it'll take years before they're found out. We all
| know people like Newmaster. They may not be scientists, but we
| recognize the more than usual tendency to exaggerate their
| accomplishments, the padding of the truth, the selective amnesia
| about giving credits where it's due. Even if you're just getting
| to know them, hang around just for a bit and you'll see it, even
| about meaningless stuff. It's what they do. And if you see it
| even just once with someone, it should be enough to raise your bs
| alarms about anything they say.
| ryandrake wrote:
| My pet theory: Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic
| phony in what will almost certainly turn into a battle of wits
| instead of a battle of facts.
|
| Our entire society deifies charismatic phonies. They are the
| ones that get elevated to the highest positions in politics and
| the C-level business suite. They're always the heroic Main
| Character. They build up cult followings. They often look so
| good, speak so smoothly and have those irresistible Ivy League
| mannerisms. You're _supposed_ to like them and help elevate
| them even higher.
|
| Do you want to expose this person? The Main Character? You
| better be right, and you better be ready to have the full force
| of his charm, persuasion, and cult following at your throat
| forever.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic phony in
| what will almost certainly turn into a battle of wits instead
| of a battle of facts_
|
| I've met some incredibly unlikeable fraudsters. The bottom
| line is pursuing them would mean giving up months of my life
| in a tedious process. In many cases, the fraud seems stupid
| enough that it's not okay, but just not worth sacrificing
| life time over.
| brnt wrote:
| This. It takes tons of energy especially if your surrounded
| with admirers (I suppose these types tend to gather
| undiscerning yes men).
|
| I have fled a renowned institute for this reason. You are
| probably going to sacrifice your career over it either way,
| because if you're not hopping on their gravy train...
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| This is a perfect example of "I'm sure it will work
| itself out naturally." It's going to continue happening
| and it really just makes me more confident in the process
| around reviews and science in general. It shouldn't fall
| on individuals to weed this out but it should absolutely
| fall on the process to.
| resource_waste wrote:
| >just not worth sacrificing life time over.
|
| Yep, ready to alienate 30-50% of your friends, even though
| you were 'right'.
|
| Do this enough times and you only have a few percentage
| left. "These are your true friends". There is no
| correlation. I watched someone rage over chapstick usage,
| they were right, but it looked like a silly debate.
|
| I like the Stoics and those of virtue that sacrifice
| themselves for everyone else. Its genuinely appreciated if
| I can take a 30,000 ft high view. Best of luck doing it
| when humans live on the ground.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Psst. Anonymous leaks with hard evidence (that doesn't lead
| to you) is best
| kubb wrote:
| Exactly, if you call them out, they'll paint you as a mean
| jerk, and discredit you.
| swader999 wrote:
| I blame the society that elevates hurt feelings above
| truth.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Nobody wants to go up against a very charismatic phony in
| what will almost certainly turn into a battle of wits instead
| of a battle of facts.
|
| There's a difference between somebody bullshitting at a party
| and doing so in a professional setting.
|
| I've seen several baffling instances of universities taking
| years to investigate obvious things and then in the end
| effectively doing nothing. Like really clear falsification
| situations that should just get several people fired and
| other people sanctioned for not noticing.
|
| https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-plan-
| ret...
|
| Like here, there's people there who should just be booted
| from the university. It took two years for anybody to even
| retract the paper. The professor in question had several
| black marks for what I'd call fraud, and yet still hold a
| position at the University of Minnesota. Which at this point
| isn't the researcher's fault but the university's.
| lukan wrote:
| "There's a difference between somebody bullshitting at a
| party and doing so in a professional setting."
|
| It is, but I would say the people in the former basket, are
| also likely to be found in the second basket.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Sounds like a classic missing stair situation
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_stair).
| Aurornis wrote:
| I was in a situation with some similarities once. There were
| several factors that protected the person:
|
| 1. They were charismatic, charming, and likable. Fun to be
| around. But they also had an angry/mean side that started to
| come out when things weren't going their way. People around
| them were trained to do things that brought out the fun side
| and avoid things that brought out the mean side.
|
| 2. They built their circle out of people who were
| impressionable and had a lot to gain by being part of the
| circle: Early career people, people desperate to climb the
| ladder, and people who wanted a lot of praise. There was an
| implicit understanding that as long as you didn't rock the
| boat, you just had to put up with everything for a couple years
| before pivoting to your dream position. If you exposed the
| person, your own resume might look questionable, so you had to
| go along with it.
|
| 3. Anyone who actually questioned them was marked for
| destruction. They would do everything in their power to
| discredit you, undermine your work, interfere with things you
| were doing, argue against promotions, and otherwise bring your
| career to a halt. It was all done out in the open, as a warning
| shot to anyone else who questioned it. People notice.
|
| For a famous example, look into the Lance Armstrong story. He
| didn't just cheat, he tried to destroy the lives of anyone who
| might get in his way. He's a charismatic celebrity, so to this
| day he continues to whitewash his history by being nice and
| likable. Even after everything that has been revealed and
| admitted, people will _still_ jump to his defense by
| substituting a lesser narrative and defending that. The common
| defense is "Yeah, well, everyone in cycling does doping!" even
| though doping is one of the least concerning things Lance
| Armstrong did.
|
| Another upsetting factor is that people develop parasocial
| relationships with these grifters and will go to great lengths
| to dismiss or downplay their problems. Look at the recent
| issues with Andrew Huberman for a good example. Not only has
| his grasp of science been called into question on many topics,
| but his personal life has been exposed as being quite different
| than the ultra-righteous fatherly figure that he plays on his
| podcast. Yet despite this, people who love his podcast will
| rush to his defense and try to downplay the problems. Like the
| above story, people try to downplay the revelations about his
| personal life as if he made a mistake and "cheated on his
| girlfriend", when the actual allegations are more far-reaching
| and establish a chronic pattern of dishonesty.
| fidotron wrote:
| I have worked with a few people many on here would lionize, and
| the tendency to exaggerate their accomplishments and selective
| amnesia wrt crediting anyone else were common to all of them,
| which is how they maintain their status. It is so pervasive at
| the top of some tech spheres I honestly wonder if it is
| necessary to get there.
|
| Ironically some of the best to directly work with have been
| famous assholes or completely obscure.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| A guaranteed, long, prison sentence is the only long term
| solution to avoid the problem
|
| They cost society billions if not trillions of dollars in follow
| up research, industry investments and consumers spendings. Some
| of them cost lives. Some thousands if not much more.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| So, do it again. Was anybody surprised that imported
| 'supplements' had no ingredients listed?
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| The notion that DNA barcoding could have been used to identify
| supplement ingredients at scale was always very unlikely.
|
| To make 1kg of a common type of gingko extract, you take 20kg of
| dry plant matter, grind it all to a very fine powder, extract it
| in a boiling solvent (often hexane or methanol), filter it under
| pressure, boil off as much of the solvent as you can, and then
| you spray-dry or freeze-dry it.
|
| This process would leave essentially _no intact DNA._
|
| I think that the "DNA barcoding" notion was formulated by
| somebody who didn't understand how extracts are made, and the
| media just ran with it.
|
| What's funny is that rice flour is used as a common filler
| ingredient in supplements. Imagine barcoding a gingko product and
| getting "100% Rice" in your DNA report. And yet that would have
| been possible with even the most scrupulously honest products.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-12 23:00 UTC)