o*g
2 楼
博后不好做呀,出不来DATA, 走歪门邪道了。
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/01/md-anderson-postdoc-faked
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/01/md-anderson-postdoc-faked
h*d
3 楼
你不用找房子什么的么?
p*q
4 楼
老板好象是系主任和nci brain tumor panel里的头。
http://faculty.mdanderson.org/Wai-KwanAlfred_Yung/
Primary Appointment
Professor, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Department Chair, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine,
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Dr. Wai-Kwan Alfred Yung is a Professor of Neuro-Oncology and Cancer Biology
, as well as the Margaret and Ben Love Chair of Clinical Cancer Care. He has
served as Chair of the Department of Neuro-Oncology since 1999. He is also
the director of the Brain Tumor SPORE and co-director of the Brain Tumor
Center at MD Anderson
Other Appointments/Responsibilities
Co-Chair, NCI Brain Malignancies Steering Committee, Rockville, MD, 2010-
present
Consultantships
Advisory Board Member, Merck & Company, North Wales, PA, 2010-present
Consultant, Terry Fox Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2009-
present
Consultant, The National Brain Tumor Society, Boston, MA, 2009-present
Scientific Advisory Board, Eden Therapeutics Inc., Cambridge, MA, 2008-
present
Scientific Advisory Board, DNAtrix, Houston TX, 2005-present
http://faculty.mdanderson.org/Wai-KwanAlfred_Yung/
Primary Appointment
Professor, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Department Chair, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine,
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Dr. Wai-Kwan Alfred Yung is a Professor of Neuro-Oncology and Cancer Biology
, as well as the Margaret and Ben Love Chair of Clinical Cancer Care. He has
served as Chair of the Department of Neuro-Oncology since 1999. He is also
the director of the Brain Tumor SPORE and co-director of the Brain Tumor
Center at MD Anderson
Other Appointments/Responsibilities
Co-Chair, NCI Brain Malignancies Steering Committee, Rockville, MD, 2010-
present
Consultantships
Advisory Board Member, Merck & Company, North Wales, PA, 2010-present
Consultant, Terry Fox Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2009-
present
Consultant, The National Brain Tumor Society, Boston, MA, 2009-present
Scientific Advisory Board, Eden Therapeutics Inc., Cambridge, MA, 2008-
present
Scientific Advisory Board, DNAtrix, Houston TX, 2005-present
p*6
5 楼
略微看了一下文章,感觉好像没必要造假啊。他承认造假的是Fig 8。从这张图来看,
他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
,只能一声叹息。
他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
,只能一声叹息。
b*m
6 楼
原谅我很cynical,但这个和那些CNS的造假简直太不值得一提了。我不知道CNS有多少
是100%经得起重复,但那一个一个完美的故事,还有reviewer要什么就出什么data的完
美paper,如果不是造假也很难让人置信。
是100%经得起重复,但那一个一个完美的故事,还有reviewer要什么就出什么data的完
美paper,如果不是造假也很难让人置信。
P*A
8 楼
傻逼在居然承认了,二啊
q*g
10 楼
是啊,没有figure 8一样投cancer research.估计最开始想投更好的,就把这个假结果
放上去了。
放上去了。
p*q
12 楼
Same link provided above by lz:
Well, it seems you’re correct in calling out the faking of one in 47 images
as anomalous. The following would suggest the ORI and MDA oversight bodies
didn’t pay much attention….
1) Figure 3C, 50nM treatment with drug, same blot is duplicated in
supplemental Figure 2B with 20nM of drug.
2) Figure 2B, b-actin loading controls in both panels are the same (
vertically re-sized) as the loading controls in supplemental Figure 1B.
Problem is, the listing of different cell lines along the top of these
panels is different between the figures.
3) Figure 6C, in the p-Rb panel there’s a sharp horizontal cut off
immediately below the band of interest, where it seems as if someone has
hosed out the background maybe to hide an undesirable extra band?)
4) b-actin loading contrl in Figure 5B left panel is identical to the one in
Figure 7D, for two completely unrelated experimental conditions (treatment
with different drugs).
This may be one of those rare cases where perhaps ORI should have spent more
time investigating. By my reckoning, if the faking now extents to 5
instances instead of one, then the sentence should be multiplied 5 times –
a 10 year ban and supervised research seems about right!
【在 p********6 的大作中提到】
: 略微看了一下文章,感觉好像没必要造假啊。他承认造假的是Fig 8。从这张图来看,
: 他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
: ),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
: ,只能一声叹息。
Well, it seems you’re correct in calling out the faking of one in 47 images
as anomalous. The following would suggest the ORI and MDA oversight bodies
didn’t pay much attention….
1) Figure 3C, 50nM treatment with drug, same blot is duplicated in
supplemental Figure 2B with 20nM of drug.
2) Figure 2B, b-actin loading controls in both panels are the same (
vertically re-sized) as the loading controls in supplemental Figure 1B.
Problem is, the listing of different cell lines along the top of these
panels is different between the figures.
3) Figure 6C, in the p-Rb panel there’s a sharp horizontal cut off
immediately below the band of interest, where it seems as if someone has
hosed out the background maybe to hide an undesirable extra band?)
4) b-actin loading contrl in Figure 5B left panel is identical to the one in
Figure 7D, for two completely unrelated experimental conditions (treatment
with different drugs).
This may be one of those rare cases where perhaps ORI should have spent more
time investigating. By my reckoning, if the faking now extents to 5
instances instead of one, then the sentence should be multiplied 5 times –
a 10 year ban and supervised research seems about right!
【在 p********6 的大作中提到】
: 略微看了一下文章,感觉好像没必要造假啊。他承认造假的是Fig 8。从这张图来看,
: 他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
: ),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
: ,只能一声叹息。
F*Q
13 楼
t*2
15 楼
至于吗,就一篇cancer research, 也不是cns。
o*g
16 楼
博后不好做呀,出不来DATA, 走歪门邪道了。
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/01/md-anderson-postdoc-faked
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/01/md-anderson-postdoc-faked
p*q
17 楼
老板好象是系主任和nci brain tumor panel里的头。
http://faculty.mdanderson.org/Wai-KwanAlfred_Yung/
Primary Appointment
Professor, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Department Chair, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine,
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Dr. Wai-Kwan Alfred Yung is a Professor of Neuro-Oncology and Cancer Biology
, as well as the Margaret and Ben Love Chair of Clinical Cancer Care. He has
served as Chair of the Department of Neuro-Oncology since 1999. He is also
the director of the Brain Tumor SPORE and co-director of the Brain Tumor
Center at MD Anderson
Other Appointments/Responsibilities
Co-Chair, NCI Brain Malignancies Steering Committee, Rockville, MD, 2010-
present
Consultantships
Advisory Board Member, Merck & Company, North Wales, PA, 2010-present
Consultant, Terry Fox Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2009-
present
Consultant, The National Brain Tumor Society, Boston, MA, 2009-present
Scientific Advisory Board, Eden Therapeutics Inc., Cambridge, MA, 2008-
present
Scientific Advisory Board, DNAtrix, Houston TX, 2005-present
http://faculty.mdanderson.org/Wai-KwanAlfred_Yung/
Primary Appointment
Professor, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Department Chair, Department of Neuro-Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine,
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Dr. Wai-Kwan Alfred Yung is a Professor of Neuro-Oncology and Cancer Biology
, as well as the Margaret and Ben Love Chair of Clinical Cancer Care. He has
served as Chair of the Department of Neuro-Oncology since 1999. He is also
the director of the Brain Tumor SPORE and co-director of the Brain Tumor
Center at MD Anderson
Other Appointments/Responsibilities
Co-Chair, NCI Brain Malignancies Steering Committee, Rockville, MD, 2010-
present
Consultantships
Advisory Board Member, Merck & Company, North Wales, PA, 2010-present
Consultant, Terry Fox Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2009-
present
Consultant, The National Brain Tumor Society, Boston, MA, 2009-present
Scientific Advisory Board, Eden Therapeutics Inc., Cambridge, MA, 2008-
present
Scientific Advisory Board, DNAtrix, Houston TX, 2005-present
p*6
18 楼
略微看了一下文章,感觉好像没必要造假啊。他承认造假的是Fig 8。从这张图来看,
他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
,只能一声叹息。
他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
,只能一声叹息。
b*m
19 楼
原谅我很cynical,但这个和那些CNS的造假简直太不值得一提了。我不知道CNS有多少
是100%经得起重复,但那一个一个完美的故事,还有reviewer要什么就出什么data的完
美paper,如果不是造假也很难让人置信。
是100%经得起重复,但那一个一个完美的故事,还有reviewer要什么就出什么data的完
美paper,如果不是造假也很难让人置信。
P*A
21 楼
傻逼在居然承认了,二啊
q*g
23 楼
是啊,没有figure 8一样投cancer research.估计最开始想投更好的,就把这个假结果
放上去了。
放上去了。
p*q
25 楼
Same link provided above by lz:
Well, it seems you’re correct in calling out the faking of one in 47 images
as anomalous. The following would suggest the ORI and MDA oversight bodies
didn’t pay much attention….
1) Figure 3C, 50nM treatment with drug, same blot is duplicated in
supplemental Figure 2B with 20nM of drug.
2) Figure 2B, b-actin loading controls in both panels are the same (
vertically re-sized) as the loading controls in supplemental Figure 1B.
Problem is, the listing of different cell lines along the top of these
panels is different between the figures.
3) Figure 6C, in the p-Rb panel there’s a sharp horizontal cut off
immediately below the band of interest, where it seems as if someone has
hosed out the background maybe to hide an undesirable extra band?)
4) b-actin loading contrl in Figure 5B left panel is identical to the one in
Figure 7D, for two completely unrelated experimental conditions (treatment
with different drugs).
This may be one of those rare cases where perhaps ORI should have spent more
time investigating. By my reckoning, if the faking now extents to 5
instances instead of one, then the sentence should be multiplied 5 times –
a 10 year ban and supervised research seems about right!
【在 p********6 的大作中提到】
: 略微看了一下文章,感觉好像没必要造假啊。他承认造假的是Fig 8。从这张图来看,
: 他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
: ),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
: ,只能一声叹息。
Well, it seems you’re correct in calling out the faking of one in 47 images
as anomalous. The following would suggest the ORI and MDA oversight bodies
didn’t pay much attention….
1) Figure 3C, 50nM treatment with drug, same blot is duplicated in
supplemental Figure 2B with 20nM of drug.
2) Figure 2B, b-actin loading controls in both panels are the same (
vertically re-sized) as the loading controls in supplemental Figure 1B.
Problem is, the listing of different cell lines along the top of these
panels is different between the figures.
3) Figure 6C, in the p-Rb panel there’s a sharp horizontal cut off
immediately below the band of interest, where it seems as if someone has
hosed out the background maybe to hide an undesirable extra band?)
4) b-actin loading contrl in Figure 5B left panel is identical to the one in
Figure 7D, for two completely unrelated experimental conditions (treatment
with different drugs).
This may be one of those rare cases where perhaps ORI should have spent more
time investigating. By my reckoning, if the faking now extents to 5
instances instead of one, then the sentence should be multiplied 5 times –
a 10 year ban and supervised research seems about right!
【在 p********6 的大作中提到】
: 略微看了一下文章,感觉好像没必要造假啊。他承认造假的是Fig 8。从这张图来看,
: 他的sample size太小,effect也不是很有说服力(至少在我这个学统计的看来是这样
: ),还不如不放这张图,只放组织切片图。就为了这么一点improvement毁了学术生涯
: ,只能一声叹息。
F*Q
26 楼
t*2
28 楼
至于吗,就一篇cancer research, 也不是cns。
S*A
29 楼
哈哈,搞生物的有哪篇文章没有造假呢?
S*e
30 楼
你们真认为只有那一个图作假了吗?其它western图都是真的?
估计只有那个生存曲线被人抓到篡改原始记录了。其它图可以从根上搞,抓不到。
现在癌症领域太乱。我给大家发个2013年JCI的文章。中山大学医学院院长的文章。
你们看看人家那生存曲线,人的生存曲线,一个miRNA, 简直是神药,比哪个临床药物
都管事。他们这个miRNA正好我也在做,包括我们自己的人数据,我又找到2个独立的临
床数据,都跟他们结论完全相反。就这样,我也没资格说人家作假。
但有一点,他们主要用的细胞系是MDA-MB-435, 这个细胞系已经被证实不是乳腺癌细胞
系,而是黑色素瘤。就这一点,他们就应该撤稿。
我正在把我们的数据整理,准备发表,但显然不能发到JCI了。但我有打算给JCI的编辑
写信,别的不说,至少他们用来做筛选的细胞系都是错的,别的还用说吗?
MicroRNA-374a activates Wnt/β-catenin signaling to promote breast cancer
metastasis
请注意他们的figure 7.
我才这是你们见过最完美的人生存数据了。
【在 o***g 的大作中提到】
: 博后不好做呀,出不来DATA, 走歪门邪道了。
: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/01/md-anderson-postdoc-faked
估计只有那个生存曲线被人抓到篡改原始记录了。其它图可以从根上搞,抓不到。
现在癌症领域太乱。我给大家发个2013年JCI的文章。中山大学医学院院长的文章。
你们看看人家那生存曲线,人的生存曲线,一个miRNA, 简直是神药,比哪个临床药物
都管事。他们这个miRNA正好我也在做,包括我们自己的人数据,我又找到2个独立的临
床数据,都跟他们结论完全相反。就这样,我也没资格说人家作假。
但有一点,他们主要用的细胞系是MDA-MB-435, 这个细胞系已经被证实不是乳腺癌细胞
系,而是黑色素瘤。就这一点,他们就应该撤稿。
我正在把我们的数据整理,准备发表,但显然不能发到JCI了。但我有打算给JCI的编辑
写信,别的不说,至少他们用来做筛选的细胞系都是错的,别的还用说吗?
MicroRNA-374a activates Wnt/β-catenin signaling to promote breast cancer
metastasis
请注意他们的figure 7.
我才这是你们见过最完美的人生存数据了。
【在 o***g 的大作中提到】
: 博后不好做呀,出不来DATA, 走歪门邪道了。
: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/01/md-anderson-postdoc-faked
z*u
31 楼
这就是为啥我最恨满篇western blot或者bar graph的文章了。看到一律跳过。
images
bodies
【在 p*******q 的大作中提到】
: Same link provided above by lz:
: Well, it seems you’re correct in calling out the faking of one in 47 images
: as anomalous. The following would suggest the ORI and MDA oversight bodies
: didn’t pay much attention….
: 1) Figure 3C, 50nM treatment with drug, same blot is duplicated in
: supplemental Figure 2B with 20nM of drug.
: 2) Figure 2B, b-actin loading controls in both panels are the same (
: vertically re-sized) as the loading controls in supplemental Figure 1B.
: Problem is, the listing of different cell lines along the top of these
: panels is different between the figures.
images
bodies
【在 p*******q 的大作中提到】
: Same link provided above by lz:
: Well, it seems you’re correct in calling out the faking of one in 47 images
: as anomalous. The following would suggest the ORI and MDA oversight bodies
: didn’t pay much attention….
: 1) Figure 3C, 50nM treatment with drug, same blot is duplicated in
: supplemental Figure 2B with 20nM of drug.
: 2) Figure 2B, b-actin loading controls in both panels are the same (
: vertically re-sized) as the loading controls in supplemental Figure 1B.
: Problem is, the listing of different cell lines along the top of these
: panels is different between the figures.
p*q
32 楼
每次看到这些完美的in vivo数据我只能笑笑走开。。。。。。。
【在 S**********e 的大作中提到】
: 你们真认为只有那一个图作假了吗?其它western图都是真的?
: 估计只有那个生存曲线被人抓到篡改原始记录了。其它图可以从根上搞,抓不到。
: 现在癌症领域太乱。我给大家发个2013年JCI的文章。中山大学医学院院长的文章。
: 你们看看人家那生存曲线,人的生存曲线,一个miRNA, 简直是神药,比哪个临床药物
: 都管事。他们这个miRNA正好我也在做,包括我们自己的人数据,我又找到2个独立的临
: 床数据,都跟他们结论完全相反。就这样,我也没资格说人家作假。
: 但有一点,他们主要用的细胞系是MDA-MB-435, 这个细胞系已经被证实不是乳腺癌细胞
: 系,而是黑色素瘤。就这一点,他们就应该撤稿。
: 我正在把我们的数据整理,准备发表,但显然不能发到JCI了。但我有打算给JCI的编辑
: 写信,别的不说,至少他们用来做筛选的细胞系都是错的,别的还用说吗?
【在 S**********e 的大作中提到】
: 你们真认为只有那一个图作假了吗?其它western图都是真的?
: 估计只有那个生存曲线被人抓到篡改原始记录了。其它图可以从根上搞,抓不到。
: 现在癌症领域太乱。我给大家发个2013年JCI的文章。中山大学医学院院长的文章。
: 你们看看人家那生存曲线,人的生存曲线,一个miRNA, 简直是神药,比哪个临床药物
: 都管事。他们这个miRNA正好我也在做,包括我们自己的人数据,我又找到2个独立的临
: 床数据,都跟他们结论完全相反。就这样,我也没资格说人家作假。
: 但有一点,他们主要用的细胞系是MDA-MB-435, 这个细胞系已经被证实不是乳腺癌细胞
: 系,而是黑色素瘤。就这一点,他们就应该撤稿。
: 我正在把我们的数据整理,准备发表,但显然不能发到JCI了。但我有打算给JCI的编辑
: 写信,别的不说,至少他们用来做筛选的细胞系都是错的,别的还用说吗?
g*0
34 楼
丢车保帅而已
相关阅读
传统生物和数学运用问下关于蛋白修饰被scooped的文章终于发了生物专业毕业来美数学家的问题所在煮过的蛋白如何恢复###此帖已应当事人要求删除###美国科研机构使用中国儿童做转基因粮食试验引起公愤(ZT)请教一个酶动力学的问题湾区公司招人Re: 一群各个专业的人 神叨叨在bio版讨论 (转载)[求教] LC-MS/MS 和LC/MS/MS一个意思吗?用于ihf的p4小鼠大脑需要先pfa perfusion么,还是直接挖出来扔有必要单独发一下,那个H-H model的帖子太误导人了弱人问个western 的技术问题, 有图有真相混啊混似乎越来越多中国人把family name放前面了求问Transfac库in western for a 25kd protein, the band is at 50kd生物学就是一片未开化的蛮荒之地