This is a major difference between science and ideology. When there was a question about the validity of the research, it was investigated. When it was shown to be faulty, that was accepted and is being made known.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45959905/ns/health-health_care/#.Tw4eVYEzCls
By STEPHANIE REITZ
updated 1/11/2012 3:03:31 PM ET
A University of Connecticut researcher known for his work on red wine's benefits to cardiovascular health falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies in recent years, officials said Wednesday.
[...]
It wasn't immediately known Wednesday whether the irregularities in Das' research were significant enough to alter the conclusions, but the cardiovascular benefits of resveratrol have also been established in other researchers' work.
Eleven scientific research journals that have published Das' work are being notified of the problems, which came to light after a three-year review sparked by an anonymous complaint in 2008 of potential irregularities in his research.
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, interim vice president for health affairs, said in a written statement about the notifications to the 11 scientific journals.
[...]
Its report found what it called "a pervasive attitude of disregard within the (lab)" for commonly accepted scientific practices.
It also said there were so many problems— and over so many years — that the review board members "can only conclude that they were the result of intentional acts of data falsification and fabrication, designed to deceive."
[...]
..
No comments:
Post a Comment