Ein Zitat das Henry Kissinger zugeschrieben wird.
Kompromisse in der Wissenschaft? Ich würde sagen ständig, was Absprachen, Organisation, Projektpläne angeht.
Inhaltlich aber eher nicht, da geht es um richtig oder falsch oder zumindest das “known unknown”.
Wafik S El Deiry has now uploaded more than 40 times a rebuttal letter to PubPeer complaining about being bullied by “academic terrorism”. Thomas C Südhoff is even more aggressive with new ad hominem attacks as I just learned
while his explanation of the numerous duplications is clearly wrong
… the tiny allegedly cloned areas of similar background signals partly overlap and are randomly distributed in the image. Besides the fact that it would make no sense to duplicate such small areas of background – a fraudster could just run a gel with empty lanes – and that such duplications do not improve the data, overlapping duplications like this are nearly impossible to manufacture.
Of course also small areas can be copied with the clone tool. If the placement is random or intentional can only be judged from the original image while an educated guess is certainly allowed. Running Photoshop is at least far more time and cost effective than running a gel with an empty lane.
A general problem here is that digital reproductions of images – both of immunoblots and of tissue sections or cells – can create artifactual microduplications especially if the image resolution is changed during reproductions.
This is outright wrong. Artifacts by capturing or stitching software is possible in theory while in practice we have found it only a few times.
So here comes my assessment of the now famous Synaptotagmin-1/Synaptopyhsin-1 immunoblot
The assessment is based on the directly extracted (inline) image from the PDF.
Identical patches were confirmed using 3 software packages Forensically, ImageDup and ICMF.
Also the manual annotation below shows 100% identical areas where the KW+ lane pixel has been copied to KW- (the other direction is less likely). Not sure what had been there, dust, dirt, text marker or another dot?
Südhof comments on this image on his website
Mistake identified: Dr. E. Bik claims that the Suppl. Figure 6b immunoblot stripes (reproduced digitally at low resolution by the journal from a non-digital original blot) contains tiny areas of microduplications in the background pattern (not the actual signal). These areas are tiny, within a blot, randomly distributed, and only digitally identifiable. She implies that these blots are suspicious and could be manipulated.
Resolution: This is an unusually bizarre accusation since it refers to digital low resolution images in which tiny image areas would have been scrambled by a person if Dr. Bik’s accusation were correct. Even though she maintains publicly that she won’t speculate about motivations, her accusations imply a motivation that would be difficult to understand since any manipulation here would produce a partly altered background. The most likely explanation here is, like for many of the ‘mistakes’ identified by Dr. Bik’s A.I.-powered software, that these random microduplications are simply a reproduction artifact of a digitized image.
Classification: unfounded
Great story: The journal Nature Structural & Molecular Biology received the original blots and digitized them? So this is their fault? These are neither tiny spots, nor are they randomly distributed and of course, they can be seen by naked eye.
German newspapers covered the Südhof stor already (SPIEGEL, FAZ but also Science Magazine). Ulrich Dirnagel/Tagesspiegel believes that any intentional manipulation or deception cannot be recognized. I am not sure when looking at the images above.
We are being spied on and the data are being sold.
https://x.com/RuthieClems/status/1813478033975623697Report by The Chronicle
The two reports note that Informa will explore how AI can make its internal operations more effective, specifically through Copilot, Microsoft’s AI assistant. “Like many, we are exploring new applications that will improve research and make it easier to analyze data, generate hypotheses, automate tasks, work across disciplines, and research ideas,” a Taylor & Francis spokesperson wrote in an email to The Chronicle.
Publishers neither analyze data, generate hypotheses and work on research ideas – it is just a money making scheme after the
Another publisher, Wiley, also recently agreed to sell academic content to a tech company for training AI models. The publisher completed a “GenAI content rights project” with an undisclosed “large tech company,” according to a quarterly earnings report released at the end of June.
Linksammlung
[Third-Party-Tracking bei Wiley und Springer. Analyse und Ausblick](bookends://sonnysoftware.com/ref/main/306385 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/abitech-2022-0017)
[Datentracking in der Wissenschaft: Aggregation und Verwendung bzw. Verkauf von Nutzungsdaten durch Wissenschaftsverlage](bookends://sonnysoftware.com/ref/main/30623 https://www.o-bib.de/bib/article/view/5796)
[Das Lesen der Anderen
Die Auswirkungen von User Tracking auf Bibliotheken](bookends://sonnysoftware.com/ref/main/179056 https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/5797)
[Stark-Watzinger warnt vor Spionage](https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/stark-watzinger-spionage-china-100.html)
[Wie Datenhändler Deutschlands Sicherheit gefährden](https://netzpolitik.org/2024/databroker-files-wie-datenhaendler-deutschlands-sicherheit-gefaehrden)
[Wohnort, Arbeit, ausspioniert](https://interaktiv.br.de/ausspioniert-mit-standortdaten)
mit interessanten Details zu ihrem Rose Diagramm auf historyofinformation.com
In 1858 nurse, statistician, and reformer Florence Nightingale published “Notes on Matters Affecting the Health, Efficiency, and Hospital Administration of the British Army”. … This privately printed work contained a color statistical graphic entitled “Diagram of the Causes of Mortality in the Army of the EastOffsite Link” which showed that epidemic disease, which was responsible for more British deaths in the course of the Crimean War.
Lior Pachter created a new expression in response to Elisabeth Bik who complained about a new Nature paper with 45 supplements. Who can peer review or just read and digest this?
Publish houses of bricks not mansions of straw
was the recent title of a Retraction Watch essay
the problems with the Scopus journal rankings, however, run much deeper. The issue is not that inflated citation numbers have occasionally propelled impostor journals to the top of the list. Rather, at least in my own field of literary studies, the ranking makes no sense whatsoever.
I can confirm that also the h-index calculation is wrong when looking up my own account – showing 68 instead of 82.
Rechtzeitig zur Olympiade kommt eine ARD Dokumentation zu Doping, der kriminellen Abkürzung zu Ruhm und Ehre.
Irgendwie erinnert die SZ Filmbesprechung daran, wie aktuell Betrug in der Wissenschaft gehandhabt wird:
Ausführlich zu Wort kommt im Film der spanische Blutpanscher Eufemiano Fuentes, ein verurteilter Superdoper, dessen Dienste das Vaterland bereits in den Achtzigerjahren diskret anwarb. Sportärzte verstehen was von Muskeln und Gelenken, Gynäkologen wie Fuentes was von Blut und Hormonen…Anfragen der Rechercheure zu Fuentes’ Aussagen ließen alle Betroffenen unbeantwortet. Gewagt sei aber die Prognose: Bei den Spielen, die in keinem Halbsatz ohne Floskeln zu Fairness, Ethik und Erziehung auskommen, wird die Causa totgeschwiegen.
Wo immer Ethik gepredigt wird, liegt die Moral im Argen.
Twitter integration has been suspended by WordPress after renaming to X … but here is an announcement as screenshot
Program at https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/open-research-summer-school-tickets-910343470827
Unforgotten the testimony of Eysenck’s peer Grossarth-Maticek in Heidelberg
Science relies on controversy. Disagreement is part of research, solid consensus is overturned, celebrated researchers enter shady territory. Most of the time, this proceeds more or less smoothly, without all too much of an outcry. Most of the time…
There is a new video explaining the case
The PubPeer drama and the defense is at Südhof Website.
I added some comments at the PubPeer thread above regarding scientific integrity, compression artifacts, stiching bugs, corner cloning and other paltry excuses.
Post publication peer review is a serious and apparently necessary enterprise. Forensic image analysis is a scientific discipline like molecular biology – see Sencar et al, Beck, Miura et al. for this. Following the ground breaking work of Bik, Bucci and other image analysis experts it is now an integral part of scientific integrity studies. I would therefore hesitate to dismiss identical background areas as “Dr Bik’s A.I.-powered software”. Image duplication software is not even AI powered as it uses rather conventional techniques and can even be verified by the naked eye. Low quality scanner and poor cameras are also not leading to the observation above. Text recognition (Xerox bug) as discussed by #19 is not involved here, neither is this the Thermo Fisher quantification bug nor is this a new case of corner cloning by the publisher. Funny other excuses at PP in similar cases are artefacts by sandwich impressions of other membranes, fingerprints & dirt traces, pen artefacts and explanations like “the scanner mixed up a double exposure””, “we could scan only smaller areas and made an error when pasting pieces together”.
Here are the inks to
– Nikon stitching bug
– Xerox text recognition bug
– Thermo Fisher quantification bug
– corner cloning type 1 (label exchange?), type 2 (scale exchange?) and type 3 (rotational cut?)
It’s a pain, Stanford has the knowledge while this does not prevent msiconduct.
Found at futirism.com
Google researchers have come out with a new paper that warns that generative AI is ruining vast swaths of the internet with fake content — which is painfully ironic because Google has been hard at work pushing the same technology to its enormous user base.
The study, a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper spotted by 404 Media, found that the great majority of generative AI users are harnessing the tech to “blur the lines between authenticity and deception” by posting fake or doctored AI content, such as images or videos, on the internet. The researchers also pored over previously published research on generative AI and around 200 news articles reporting on generative AI misuse.
The authors painfully collected 200 observed incidents of misuse reported between January 2023 and March 2024 and find
– Manipulation of human likeness and falsification of evidence underlie the most prevalent tactics in real-world cases of misuse…
– The majority of reported cases of misuse do not consist of technologically sophisticated uses … requiring minimal technical expertise.
– The increased sophistication, availability and accessibility of GenAI tools seemingly introduces new and lower-level forms of misuse that are neither overtly malicious nor explicitly violate these tools’ terms of services, but still have concerning ethical ramifications.
Das DÄ schreibt über die “Hängepartie für den Deutschen Ethikrat”
Der Deutsche Ethikrat bleibt vorerst arbeitsunfähig. … Entsprechend des Ethikratgesetzes muss die Hälfte der normalerweise 26 Ratsmitglieder von der Bundesregierung vorgeschlagen werden, die andere Hälfte vom Parlament. … Momentan sind lediglich vier Mitglieder im Ethikrat verblieben, deren Amtszeit noch nicht beendet ist: die Theologin Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt, der Physiker Armin Grunwald, der Bioethiker und Philosoph Mark Schweda und die Philosophin und IT-Expertin Judith Simon. Ihnen gehe jetzt Arbeitszeit verloren, so Vetter. Da es bis zur Neuberufung des Rates keine Sitzungen gebe, müssten sie untätig warten, bis ihre neuen Kolleginnen und Kollegen berufen seien.
Ich fürchte, weder Bundesregierung noch Parlament hat allzu großes Interesse mehr an den Stellungnahmen, die oft reichlich apodiktisch herkamen und – trotz oder wegen des akademischem Backgrounds nahezu aller Mitglieder/innen – nicht immer so qualifiziert waren wie man:frau sich das gewünscht hätte. Statt mehr externe Experten einzubinden, gab es unzählige PR Alleingänge der Vorsitzenden [vgl Dabrock, Buyx, u.v.a.m.]. Der Ethikrat steht sicher nicht vor der Auflösung – er ist immerhin gesetzlich legitimiert – aber als Gremium hat er an Bedeutung verloren.
(Linksammlung)
Die geleakten NDR Mails auf
https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/download1200.pdf
Alle Frag Den Staat Emails auf
https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/248126-pruefbitte-bmbf-offener-brief/
Was 3329 Hochschulangehörige dazu meinen
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSccTcNVPTUSpezw2v7wWgNVpoFPfYsYMa9QpLkmCaq4YWy1Nw/viewform
Was Wissenschaftsfunktionäre dazu sagen
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/stark-watzinger-will-mit-hochschullehrern-reden-krisengespraech-zum-bmbf-19803153.html
Die offenen Fragen stehen auf dem Wiarda Blog
https://www.jmwiarda.de/2024/06/27/und-jetzt
Der Antrag auf einstweilige Verfügung von Frag den Staat, dem stattgegeben wurde.
Die entlassene Ex Staatssekretärin will reden – der “Prüfauftrag” passt nicht so recht zu Ihrem Interview vom Mai zur Freiheit der Wissenschaft . Der BMBF Link dazu geht aber nun ins Leere.
Es gibt aber auch noch ein früheres DFG Youtube Video von ihr sowie ein neues ZEIT Interview. Der neue Staatssekretär ist auch nicht viel besser wenn er uns als “verwirrte Gestalten” bezeichnet.
Update auf dem Wiarda Blog “Jetzt müssen SPD und Grüne Farbe bekennen”, Deadline ist der 20.8.2024.
Why was the Cambridge’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology so successful?
It was not by increasing administrative staff or new programme oriented funding research as many German research managers believe. It was by scientific (not primarily cultural) diversity
The LMB sets a coherent culture by promoting scientific diversity among its staff, encouraging the exchange of knowledge and ideas and valuing scientific synergies between different areas of research… It encourages the recruitment of groups with diverse but aligned interests that are complementary.
What did we do instead in Germany? We increased competition among groups and develop more hierarchical structures while the LMB is
promoting shared values and common aims helps researchers to feel part of the LMB community and proud to belong to it, fostering long-term loyalty. The LMB has always had a non-hierarchical structure — one in which emphasis lies in the quality of the argument, rather than in the status of the proponent.
So, indeed the incentives are different… While we laudate the number of external EU grants a group leader has been securing, LMB does the opposite
… resources are allocated in ways that encourage innovative collaboration between internal teams and divisions. For example, limits are set for research groups to bid for external grants, because these tend to have short-term, results-oriented requirements that might not align with the LMB’s longer-term ambitions.