Red Wine Falsefied Data

[Tyler90AZ]

Red wine researcher said to falsify data – - CNN.com Blogs

[annewandering]

Are we surprised?

[MarginOfError]

I'm sure there are other studies by other authors that make the same claim he did. I doubt one fraud in the bunch can sufficiently discredit all of the evidence that wine might have health benefits.

[annewandering]

Maybe. Sadly a lot of people are just going to take his studies and assume the data is good and go from that point. He certainly has been well published and it is nice to accept what you like as truth.

[Tyler90AZ]

I'm sure there are other studies by other authors that make the same claim he did. I doubt one fraud in the bunch can sufficiently discredit all of the evidence that wine might have health benefits.

I thought it would be interesting to share that part of the study was falsified.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[Dravin]

I'm sure there are other studies by other authors that make the same claim he did. I doubt one fraud in the bunch can sufficiently discredit all of the evidence that wine might have health benefits.

Realistically it doesn't discredit any research not tied directly to him, his department, or if one wants to widen the brush, his university. It is nice to see the University make good (as much as it's able), I don't know if they were legally required to turn down the funds but it looks good if nothing else.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Dravin

[Dravin]

Maybe. Sadly a lot of people are just going to take his studies and assume the data is good and go from that point.

Except if his data is false then research based on that data (or attempts at replication) will come out 'funny' and there will questions by those conducting the research as to why. Luckily he's out of the picture as else he could just continue to fudge data in future research based on his own and build a house of cards. Of course generally the more impressive the house of cards the sooner somebody decides to use it and when their research comes out funny then starts the chain of investigation into why. Kinda like if I replace my flour with talc in a cake and am the one to taste it I might be able to hide the fact from others, if other people taste it they'll soon wonder what on earth happened to my cake. Thus the whole concept of peer review.

I'm curious what sparked the university's review.

[Tyler90AZ]

Except if his data is false then research based on that data (or attempts at replication) will come out 'funny' and there will questions by those conducting the research as to why. Luckily he's out of the picture as else he could just continue to fudge data in future research based on his own and build a house of cards. Of course generally the more impressive the house of cards the sooner somebody decides to use it and when their research comes out funny then starts the chain of investigation into why. Kinda like if I replace my flour with talc in a cake and am the one to taste it I might be able to hide the fact from others, if other people taste it they'll soon wonder what on earth happened to my cake. Thus the whole concept of peer review.

I'm curious what sparked the university's review.

How was the autism link to vaccine data able to go on so long? You seem like the resident expert on these matters.

[Dravin]

How was the autism link to vaccine data able to go on so long? You seem like the resident expert on these matters.

How soon a house of cards is going to come down is going to be based on multiple factors.

• Interest in the topic. If you are the only person researching a rare fungus there are less opportunity for someone to replicate your research.
• Expectations. If you claim cold fusion (and this is kind of a subset of interest) people will be rushing to replicate.
• Difficulty/Obscurity. Back to rare fungus if you are the only person in the world who knows about this fungus and how it should react then peer review is hobbled. It's like having your 7 year old check my calculus.
• Press. Keep in mind that something could have been challenged without it really being made known. Getting into the press brings up old studies or can even spark (interest) in newer ones to further demonstrate things.
• Time/Money to replicate. Sometimes to notice something is wrong you have to conduct the experiment yourself which takes time and money.

Make no mistake peer review (and repeatably/replication which are different things even though I've kinda conflated them) isn't infallible and it isn't always fast, it also isn't a hive-mind watching over everything. It's the efforts of a community to police itself. Actually there is a Wiki article on peer review: Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I initially thought better of the post you quoted so I deleted it but I noticed you quoted it (which defeated the purpose) so I undeleted it, but I notice now that you've deleted your post I quoted. Looks like we're playing delete tag. :)

Edited January 12, 2012 by Dravin

[Maureen]

Are we surprised?

You are not surprised that this particular doctor manipulated research data?

M.

[ADoyle90815]

I'm not surprised that people here are jumping on this. It's not going to change anything either way, since Prohibition was a massive failure when it was tried, and as a result of it's epic fail, it was repealed.