Audio/video sync testfile

Here is a 60 fps audio/video timer file of 10s duration with a 440 Hz beep every 3s to test latency in OBSDirect download here.

 

Continue reading Audio/video sync testfile

Deviation from preregistration

I know tons of papers that deviate from their initial plan, but I am not aware of so many papers where this can be unequivocally found by comparing pre-registration and publication.

It has been mentioned recently and there seems also a formal analysis in the literature

We observed deviations from the plan in all studies, and, more importantly,  in all but one study, at least one of these deviations was not fully disclosed.

Further research required,

Why research integrity matters

A new paper by Lex Bouter clearly shows

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other’s findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse.

Revolten gegen die Macht des Wissens

aus Bogner, Alexander: Die Epistemisierung des Politischen. Wie die Macht des Wissens die Demokratie gefährdet, Zitat

Die Wissensgläubigkeit der Moderne ist schon früh zum Gegenstand philosophischer Kritik geworden. … Es herrscht der unbedingte Glaube daran, dass Wissen besser ist als Nichtwissen, dass rationale Analyse dem intuitiven Erleben überlegen ist und das Bewusstsein über dem Sein steht. Scientia potestas est verkündeten schon die Frühaufklärer. . …
Im Zuge des technischen Fortschritts und militärischen Wettrüstens wird offensichtlich, dass das Wissen auch Risiken, Gefahren und Verwüstungen hervorbringen kann. Man lernt, dass das Wissen um die kleinsten Elementarteilchen in seiner technischen Anwendung zu den größten Katastrophen führen kann (Atomkraft). Und man kriegt zunehmend Angst vor der technischen Neugestaltung der Natur (Gentechnik), auch der menschlichen (Biomedizin), so dass die Ethik bald zur ständigen Begleiterin der Genetik wird. Außerdem kommt man darauf, dass Wissen keineswegs eindeutig sein muss. …
Die von der linksalternativen Bewegung popularisierte Expertenkritik trägt dazu bei, dass bald alle Leute in allen wichtigen Fragen, vor allem in Gesundheitsfragen, routinemäßig eine zweite Meinung einholen.

was erklärt warum wir heute so viele Klima-, Corona-, Impf- und Aidsleugner haben. Aber wäre die Entwicklung verhinderbar gewesen?

Hoffnungslos positiv

interessant ist der Beitrag so ab 10:28, auch wenn ich Popper nicht gerade zu den Positivisten zählen würde. Von Foerster als radikaler Konstruktivist passt ,auch wenn ich hier eher an Jean Piaget gedacht hätte; auch nicht so sehr an die Einmischung allenfalls dass die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis von der subjektiven Erfahrungswelt bestimmt wird.

Arguments against germline therapy

from Tina Rulli “Reproductive CRISPR does not cure disease” in bioethics 2019.

Consider an analogy. Imagine Bill has the following options:
6. Take SICK pill. Bill gets sick.
7. Take SICK pill, then take ANTIDOTE. Bill prevents sickness and remains healthy.
8. Do nothing. Bill stays healthy.
Now imagine that prior to this decision, ANTIDOTE is taken off the market so that it is unavailable to Bill. The unavailability of ANTIDOTE does not mean that Bill gets sick. For Bill has the option to simply not take the sick pill. Bill could just stay healthy (option 8). Offering ANTIDOTE is only morally urgent if it is inevitable that Bill will get sick, i.e., if Bill is forced to take the SICK pill (option 6).

Unethical clinical research

Unethical is every research that is not ethical.

But what is ethical? A paper already 22 years back proposed 7 requirements that make a coherent framework.

  1. value— enhancements of health or knowledge must be derived from the research;
  2. scientific validity—the research must be methodologically rigorous;
  3. fair subject selection—scientific objectives, not vulnerability or privilege, and the potential for and distribution of risks and benefits, should determine communities selected as study sites and the inclusion criteria for individual subjects;
  4. favorable risk-benefit ratio—within the context of standard clinical practice and the research protocol, risks must be minimized, potential benefits enhanced, and the potential benefits to individuals and knowledge gained for society must outweigh the risks;
  5. independent review— unaffiliated individuals must review the research and approve, amend, or terminate it;
  6. informed consent—individuals should be informed about the research and provide their voluntary consent; and
  7. respect for enrolled subjects—subjects should have their privacy protected, the opportunity to withdraw, and their well-being monitored.

Fulfilling all 7 requirements is necessary and sufficient to make clinical research ethical.

Giovanni, non vado dal barbiere nemmeno io

Martin Zips in der SZ über Trappatoni

Es war der 10. März 1998, als ein Italiener in München ein sprachliches Feuerwerk hinlegte,.. Längst sind die von Giovanni Trapattoni vor genau 25 Jahren gewählten schwungvollen Formulierungen in den deutschen Sprachgebrauch eingegangen: “Was erlauben Strunz?”, “schwach wie eine Flasche leer”, “Ich habe fertig”, so sprach der damalige Bayern-München-Trainer …

Erwähnt sei aber auch der wunderbare Satz Sergio Mattarellas kurz vor einer Fernsehansprache mitten in der Pandemie. Ein Mitarbeiter hatte dem Präsidenten zu Beginn der Aufzeichnung geraten, er solle sich eine Haarsträhne aus dem Gesicht wischen. Mattarella aber sprach: “Eh, Giovanni, … ich gehe gerade nicht zum Friseur.” Und da der Satz nicht rausgeschnitten wurde, wurde er in Italien zum geflügelten Wort: “Eh, Giovanni, non vado dal barbiere nemmeno io.”

Wenn ich mir die Webseiten von einigen Universitäten und Forschungszentren anschaue, dann denke ich dasselbe –  machen wir eigentlich primär PR oder doch eher Forschung?

Die superdiverse Klassengesellschaft

Top 5 talks of the 3rd International Summit on Human Genome Editing

The final statement came by email this morning statement-from-the-organising-committee-of-the-third-international-summit-on-human-genome-editing

Remarkable progress has been made in somatic human genome editing, demonstrating it can cure once incurable diseases. To realise its full therapeutic potential, research is needed to expand the range of diseases it can treat, and to better understand risks and unintended effects. The extremely high costs of current somatic gene therapies are unsustainable. A global commitment to affordable, equitable access to these treatments is urgently needed. Heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time.

And well, my subjective selection of  the best talks is also here (unfortunately the video quality is poor and there is no way to timestamp the URL, so you have to recall the time marks below).

As always masterful moderation by Robin Lovell-Badge including the fire alarm ;-) My top 5 talks are

  1. Chinese legislation whitewashed at 1:03:10
  2. David Liu excellent overview at 1:25:14
  3. Filippa Lentzos with a super nice talk on hopes and fears at 2:53:25
  4. Tue Kiran Musunuru with another excellent overview at  2:18:54
  5. Rising star Tina Rulli at 1:28:29

(Jennifer Doudna 4:25:17 was a bit disappointing when talking about my research field involving asthma and microbiome.
The two father mouse of Katsuhiko Hayashi that gained wider attention [Guardian, Nature, …] is found at  3:14:02.

 

Inside of a predatory journal

I have previously reported a predatory journal, the “Walailak Journal of Science and Technology (WJST)” that is carrying my last name although I am not affiliated with it.

This morning I received a unique Google link to a paper that has been submitted, reviewed and published already 2 years ago. The gmail conversation is really funny, mimicking reviewers B, C, F, H – not sure if they really exist.

Basically every category is marked by reviewer C as “poor” while the paper is nevertheless published afterwards.

Screenshot 7.3.2023

The corrections clearly show how the authors faked the numbers as changes in the numbers were even highlighted in this document in yellow. They even introduced an error at the end of the paper where day 4 in the oil group should have a mean production of 46.9 ml but not 46.7 ml.

What is even more worrying, that the paper is accepted

we are pleased to inform that your manuscript is accepted and scheduled to publish in Walailak Journal of Science andTechnology (WJST) in Volume 18, 2021

but afterwards published at another predatory journal called ‘Trends in Sciences‘.