Weekend reads: “Research parasites;” CRISPR controversy; access to PACE data denied

The week at Retraction Watch featured a brewing case over GMO research, a 10-reason retraction. and a retraction and apology from the CBC.

Before we get to this week’s reads from elsewhere, we’re happy to announce that we’re launching a daily email newsletter that will include posts from the last 24 hours, as well as links to readings at other sites, much like those you’ll find on Weekend Reads. We know that some readers find an email for every post – which can be as many as four per day – too much, so we hope this will solve that. Here’s a sample. Sign up here!

And now to Weekend Reads:

• Are scientists who try to replicate findings just “research parasites?” A New England Journal of Medicine editorial using that term has drawn a swift critical response. Meanwhile, co-author Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of NEJM, has endorsed a new proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal editors calling for all researchers to make their data publicly available within six months.
• A history of CRISPR by Eric Lander in Cell has also drawn criticism for how it portrayed various players’ contributions, Sharon Begley reports at STAT. Elsewhere in STAT, we argue that the episode shows how poorly some journals deal with conflicts of interest.
• More on the controversy over the PACE trial of chronic fatigue syndrome: Another request for data has been denied, this one by Vincent Racaniello, David, Tuller, and colleagues. And Andrew Gelman weighs in here, here, and here.
• Guidelines “are bad for science,” says Larry Husten at Cardiobrief.
• “If you have been holding on to a GREAT NEGATIVE STUDY that has NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED, then this announcement is for you.”
• Where does the Annals of Internal Medicine stand on outcomes switching in clinical trials? A report from Ben Goldacre and colleagues at COMPare. And here’s a related story by Tom Chivers at BuzzFeed.
• Science isn’t self-correcting, says Keith Laws. It’s other-correcting.
• Here’s an update on that retraction of a study claiming dangers from GMOs, from Enrico Bucci.
• Blindly counting academics’ publications? The “road to hell,” says Jenny McDonald in Times Higher Education.
• James Coyne has ten suggestions for the new associate editors of Psychological Science to reduce the journal’s “emission of faulty science.”
• None of the recommendations of the 20-year-old Report of the Commission on Research Integrity (also known as the Ryan Commission) have been adopted, writes Barbara Redman in Science & Engineering Ethics. (sub req’d)
• Corporations “make it hard to trust nutrition studies,” says Vince Dixon at Eater.
• Here’s a chemistry paper from 1971 written in iambic pentameter.
• Where can readers critique published articles? Anja Castensson looks at PubPeer and Retraction Watch in Curie. (in Swedish)
• “Are good-looking men predestined to do well in academic careers?” asks Sun Yung Lee in Times Higher Education.
• Can too many scientific papers be a bad thing? asks Brian Kurilla. But Lenny Teytelman says we’re publishing too little, not too much.
• Why won’t bad science ever die? asks Jill Neimark at Quartz.
• The Replication Network: An introduction from W. Robert Reed.
• “Who loses out when a scholar fails to acknowledge earlier related work?” asks Ron Iphofen in Times Higher Education.
• Maybe it’s time to drop the “alt” in “alt-metrics” now that the field is five years old, says Mike Taylor of Elsevier. And we need more nuanced citation impact measures, writes Ryan Whalen.
• How efficient is the U.S. government’s correction of its websites? A GAO report.
• Is 85% of research really wasted? Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers explain in The BMJ.
• “Consensus with co-authors is vital when writing up research,” write Dmitry Budker and Derek Jackson Kimball in Nature.
• How to stop retracted papers from being cited: Ideas from Mel Cosentino and Diogo Veríssimo. (Conservation Biology; sub req’d)
• Jeffrey Beall highlights another controversial paper from Frontiers.
• A new feature at CrossMark will “link together all of the publications we know about that reference a particular clinical trial,” Kirsty Meddings reports.

Retractions Outside of the Scientific Literature

• Sorry, folks, we’re going to have to close up shop. This is the Ultimate Retraction.
• A publisher has pulled a children’s book about George Washington because of its upbeat portrayal of slavery, Slate reports.
• Here’s the greatest hoax in sports history, in which every play was a fake. (New York Times)

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].