So few retractions

NG has a remarkable retraction – one of the few that are ever published which is a fact that that may otherwise rise severe doubts on the current science system.

Re-examination of the families and the molecular genetic data by a neurologist and a geneticist who were not involved in the original study has revealed major differences from the published data in two of the three published pedigrees … The number of clinically affected individuals was much lower than was previously reported, and large parts of the pedigree structures and epilepsy phenotypes are different. Most importantly, re-examination revealed the existence of several asymptomatic mutation carriers.

The most remarkable point – 24 authors agree with the retraction including some that I know by person – while one does not:

Armin Heils did not agree to coauthor this retraction.

Funny, there is report about Heils titled “Kurzschluss im Gehirn” (short-circuit in the brain) while LJ has more details; obviously the NGFN hype about many “discoveries” is also largely unsubstantiated.

Addendum 12-9-2009

Spiegel online (serious) and blog comments on contributing authors (less serious). Retraction rates per institution may be quite useful, but in the opposite direction