One of my most favorite blogs write
We have absolutely no reason–or, at least, no need–to criticize anything about individual mapping papers. Surely there are false findings, misused statistical tests, and so on, but that is part of the normal life in science, because we don’t know everything and have to make assumptions, etc. Some of the findings will be ephemeral, sample-specific, and so on. That doesn’t make them wrong. Instead, the critique should be aimed at authors who present such work with a straight face as if it is (1) important, (2) novel in any really novel way, and (3) not saying that the paper shows why, by now with so many qualitatively similar results, we should stop public funding of this sort of work.
Maybe I see also good reasons to criticize individual mapping papers.
correspondence nature genetics
the era of modern allergy genetics started in 1997 with the Transatlantic Airway Conference at Key Biscayne, Florida. 20 years later, the paper of Ferreira et al. (1) marks the end of an era by reporting the largest study so far of asthma, „hay fever“ and atopic eczema in 180,000 cases. It is the result of an huge international effort of many named and unnamed scientists. Unfortunately, there are major impairments regarding scope of analysis, epidemiological and bioinformatics methods, interpretation and data release. Some issues even contradict nature genetics editorial policies (2), (3), (4). Continue reading Nature Genetics corrupted by 23andme
“Positively disruptive” – a new nature genetics editorial – makes a U turn of the opinion voiced only two months earlier – having at that time cautioned users of new consumer genomics services. The current editorial now reads like an advertisement for deCODEme or Navigenics. Continue reading Unnecessarily disruptive