Science

Was 2011 the Year of Scientific Retractions?

This year, NPR reports, four highly-publicized scientific studies or findings researched by reputable sources or published in peer-reviewed journals were debunked and in some cases retracted.

According to NPR, what they all had in common was that both the public and those in the scientific community really wanted to believe that the results were true:

Among the highly publicized discoveries that got debunked this year: a genetic basis for longevity; a new form of life; an explanation for autism; and a link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Who wouldn’t want to believe that good genes could lead to a 100+ year life; that an organism could be found living without one of life’s essential elements suggesting it could be extraterrestrial; that the cause for autism was finally explained; or that there was a root cause for chronic fatigue syndrome?

NPR reports that the 2010 paper claiming that 150 groups of genes were found in common among people 100 years of age or older was retracted from the journal Science this year. The device used by Duke University researchers to analyze the genes produced misleading results.

Another 2010 study by NASA published in Science stated that a microorganism was found using arsenic instead of phosphorus — an element essential to all life. The genome of the organism was reviewed by a scientist at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who found “nothing surprising.” NASA has stood by the paper and the journal has not retracted it.

Perhaps one of the more disappointing ideas debunked this year was for autism. An article written in 2005 by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appearing in Salon and Rolling Stone, suggested that autism was linked to a preservative in vaccines. It wasn’t long before scientists were taking issue with the article.

Scientists soon pointed out major errors in the piece, and Salon published a number of corrections.

Then this year, the writer Seth Mnookin published a book called The Panic Virus, which included a thorough dissection of the Kennedy piece.

“When my book came out, Salon used that as an occasion to sort of revisit the entire controversy and said publicly that it had been a mistake to publish it, and retracted the piece, and actually pulled it off of their website,” Mnookin says.

Rolling Stone, though, hasn’t followed suit.

Finally, the most recent retraction this year is of a 2009 study linking chronic fatigue syndrome to a virus. The research from Whittemore Peterson Institute was published by Science in 2009. The paper was formally retracted this month. NPR reports Ivan Oransky, who is the co-founder of the blog Retraction Watch, as saying the results of the study were skewed by poorly designed experiments and other factors.

Listen to the full NPR report here.

Comments (24)

  • anotherproudamerican
    Posted on December 31, 2011 at 4:25pm

    I would say most of the problems in the scientific community are somewhat government driven.

    If the government gives you a grant you will find a way to keep that grant money coming in.
    Self preservation is a human trait that can unwillingly corrupt people.
    If the government got out of science it would force scientist to get money from private individuals,
    the privet individuals would have a vested interest in making sure their money was not wasted .
    It would seem that would help improve science.

    Report Post »  
  • Drakkhanlord
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 5:51pm

    Flu Vaccines…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zCBlxqmOMKM

    Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
  • Drakkhanlord
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 5:50pm

    Vaccine dangers…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TtQeRt9pY84

    Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
  • Drakkhanlord
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 5:35pm

    agenda21 made easy…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wg-v2A-KtDI

    Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
  • Drakkhanlord
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 5:18pm

    Dr M Hillerman former Merck Pharm…
    Cancer and other viruses in vaccines…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PL77B088D008C9F38A&v=vgBBwOnmy3w
    Govt admits spraying chemtrails…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UiJ_R8JVpi4

    Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
  • SquidVetOhio
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 4:49pm

    But don’t question evolution and global warming, that science is settled!

    Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
  • nomark
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 3:19pm

    They forgot Climategate. When the release of emails showed how the scientists (advocates?) manipulated the data to support their belief in man-made climate change. Seems to me, Man Made Global Warming should be the greatest retraction of the year.

    Report Post »  
  • 2GodBeTheGlory
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 3:11pm

    As far as vaccines in Autism, I don’t know (and no one does), however, I’ve reviewed the studies where the “study” was not done in the US and it‘s sample was less that one day’s worth of most states birth rate. Usually a scientist does not rule anything out until the cause is found so I find it problematic that some have ruled out vaccines when they do not know the cause. Sorta like saying “we ruled out soda from causing cancer” (no, I don’t believe it does cause cancer, however, can it really be ruled out since we do not know the cause?).

    Report Post » 2GodBeTheGlory  
    • StanO360
      Posted on December 30, 2011 at 3:39pm

      Your right in that you can’t “rule it out”. However, it is an easy subject to review and get good results. You have large populations of those with the vaccine in question and those without. No guesswork, just count them, who has it and who doesn’t. If their is a secondary cause that works with the vaccine that would be harder to decipher.

      Some think that it is a simple renaming issue. Look at a chart of Mental Retardation and it has dropped while Autism has jumped. A lot of cases of Autism were labled retarded before the 80′s.

      Report Post »  
    • 2GodBeTheGlory
      Posted on December 30, 2011 at 3:58pm

      @STAN0360 – it’s not that “easy subject to review” as each person is different. We know for a fact that some people can and will react badly to a particular injection of xyz drug, however, most will not. You cannot therefor use the same argument with vaccines as each person is different – remember, no one is born with Autism, there is a trigger – that is fact. For instance, when my stepson was 18 months old, he had a vocabulary of 40+ words and would look you in the eye, laugh, giggle, smile, and interact, however, 2 weeks after the MMR combo vaccine, he went to sleep one evening and the next morning had “classic autism” – non verbal, no eye contact – in fact the only sound that came forth from him was crying (not continual) for two years. He has made progress, however, he is still way below his grade level.

      When I grew up, there was a total of 10 vaccines on the scheduled, now there is over 35. My younger children do get vaccines, however, not on the same schedule as the CDC recommends. With the help of their pediatrician we have come up with a different schedule that works well with the actual threats that are in our area and our traveling habits. Just like anything, educate yourself before making a decision, trust no one with you or your family’s life.

      Report Post » 2GodBeTheGlory  
    • Drakkhanlord
      Posted on December 30, 2011 at 5:49pm

      Some People need to do some actual Research…

      quit listening to the news media BS…

      Report Post » Drakkhanlord  
    • KAdams
      Posted on December 31, 2011 at 3:17am

      I heard that in the 1970′s, one of the polio vaccines was ‘tainted’ with whatever it is that causes leukemia. Granted, it’s just what I heard, and it was only recently, but it made me think, because my cousin, born in 1976 was diagnosed, at an early stage, praise the Lord, with leukemia. There’s no history of any kind of cancer in my family, there’s no-one that I’ve heard in my immediate or my parents immediate families that had any kind of cancer. So I thought that odd.

      On another note, I was talking with one of my customers about Gardasil, and vaccines in general one day, and he came back a few months later, and told me how his sister had moved down to Texas, and for some reason their child needed to get their vaccines again; lost records, I think. But anyhow, apparently, the child began behaving weirdly a bit after the new shots, and was eventually diagnosed as mild autism.

      Sorry, I think RFK Jr. was correct, and as usual the controlled media has to smear it.

      Report Post »  
  • mjhoman
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 2:55pm

    When science has been corrupted like so many other fields and professions, what do you expect? Global warming that is blamed on humans, that has come around thousands of years before, when there were no cars, no plants pumping out smog. Blaming only companies for polluting water, yet city water has flouride that has been known to cause cancers, and makes peoples teeth brown, yet it is said to be good for your teeth? It’s a watse product you dupes! Why is it on toothpaste tubes, if you ingest a small amount to call a poison control center? On the History Channel scientist no longer allow only the religious to scare the heck out of people about a supposed coming end to humanity… it is now a fun thing for scientist to waste time on. You can catch that on Armagedon Week. I am starting to think that humanity and scientist have ran out of ideas, or they are only interested in making money on dumb people. And do not forget! They also like to give themselves awards like Hollywood. Maybe we should still give them something for participating?

    Report Post »  
  • S. Dakers
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 2:52pm

    For clarity’s sake, we need to properly define what is being retracted: BELIEFS. What we have is a secular belief system seeking facts to back up the beliefs.

    True scientific thought does not care where the results take them; it is a journey that follows results. The processes noted are trying to prove a system of beliefs.

    It would better be labeled a religion.

    Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on December 30, 2011 at 4:58pm

      One of the best posts I’ve read in a long time! Science literally means truth. Truth has no agenda. People confuse ideas, hypothesis, theories and laws. True science is laws, the others are process by which we get laws. Scientific laws are is the purest form of science. 2 + 2 = 4. It’s repeatable, provable, there’s no debate. The great scientists of history were always trying to prove themselves wrong. Not trying to fit the data into a pre-conceived outcome.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Stoic one
      Posted on December 31, 2011 at 1:21pm

      SQUIDVETOHIO

      So then let us be clear:
      A law is nothing more than a theory that is consistently held up by observation and experiment.
      For example The Laws of Thermodynamics or classical gravity.

      Report Post » Stoic one  
  • 13th Imam
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 1:37pm

    And how about the East Anglia Univ, Man-Made, Man-Made Global Warming Statistics??
    And that bastion of integrity, PENN ST.Univ. Perfessers..

    Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • lukerw
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 1:22pm

    Science is… Experimentation… to find the 100% Reproducible… where Fact & Truth beome one!

    What we have is: PseudoScience… where Science Workers speculate & opinionate… where applications apply to Individuals, where all people are different… and where Money & Politics direct Research & Findings! What we have is: BS!

    Report Post » lukerw  
    • 1Karen
      Posted on December 30, 2011 at 2:59pm

      Progressive science…

      Report Post » 1Karen  
    • Mikev5
      Posted on December 31, 2011 at 2:29am

      I agree 100% groups of people with agendas like global warming grab a group of likeminded scientists and come up with papers and research that support what they want out of the research they cobble together, if they can’t get what they want they fabricate the data to support their findings and scheme with each other to foster the outcome in the way they want.

      It’s not science anymore it’s an agenda.

      Report Post » Mikev5  
  • barber2
    Posted on December 30, 2011 at 1:20pm

    Hope the next “Retraction ” NPR covers refers to NPR‘s loss of the American taxpayer’s money for their Lefty biased “news” coverage.

    Report Post »  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love