Rising Japanese scientist fabricated heralded stem cell research, lab says

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   


Last January, just three years after Obokata earned her PhD, she published what appeared to be her groundbreaking research in the scientific journal Nature. It purported to establish a new way to grow tissue and treat complicated illnesses like diabetes and Parkinson’s disease with an uncomplicated lab procedure. Many called it the third most significant breakthrough in stem cell research.

On Tuesday morning, Obokata’s research institute, Riken, which is almost entirely funded by the government, announced that the 30-year-old had purposely fabricated the data to produce the findings. Institute director Ryoji Noyori said he’ll “rigorously punish relevant people after procedures in a disciplinary committee,” according to AFP.

Rising Japanese scientist fabricated heralded stem cell research, lab says



The pressure for success will ruin our society. This is not like a Fake Abstract for a poster, this is serious costly research that affect millions lives.

Haruko Obokata among her resume part of her research was performed in Harvard Medical School, her groundbreaking research would allow to produce tissue in easier ways that previous methods, what would allow the field of steam cell reach possible cures for disease like Parkinson or Diabetes, now this research is at least partially faked to inflate the efficiency of the methods developed. a true blow to steam cell research and our quality of life in general.

But there is more to consider at all this, obviously the woman made the decision to fake her results and she must face the consequences, but its not entirely her fault as the current system cannot be sustained, research is only interesting if it generate positive results, a research that does not yield positive results don't get funds nor even get publish, but is this correct? how do you know if something will work or not if someone does not prove it? the pressure on researchers to generate the results hinder true scientific knowledge.
edit on 1-4-2014 by Indigent because: missing t




posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 

You see similar stuff with climate research but in their case they just refuse to show the data and the procedures to eliminate being found out ...I wonder if in her field they have a consensus approach and a pal review process . sarc



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


This is such a disappointment, I hope the super tumor killer cancer story isn't fake too!



Also, I wonder how long it will be before someone brings up the obvious... conspiracy!

edit on 1-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


What can be trusted now? i would say there is a big number of touch up research everywhere it sad and worrisome at the same time



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by greencmp
 


What can be trusted now? i would say there is a big number of touch up research everywhere it sad and worrisome at the same time


Yeah, certainly has some of the classic features of a medical conspiracy.
edit on 1-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Is this the process where stem cells were created using an acidic compound on blood? If so, that would be very, very disappointing to hear.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Now, how do we know that she did not stumble across something which could cure many diseases cheaply and lessen the need for all the people researching medicine. I cannot say that she did not fake research but I cannot say that there might not be a coverup.

The problem with stumbling across a cure for diseases is that treatment is not needed in the future. I am going to keep an open mind about this. I would love to see exactly what she was researching to see what direction she was going in. There is probably some truth to her research, now it will be shunned. I'm sure her research will disappear from existence.

The current system of medicine is too dependent on profits to fund the research. The medical industry employs a lot of people in most countries, maybe too many.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I wonder why she did it. Funding money, no doubt, but she must have realized how known she'd become once faking this groundbreaking data. A woman I know well (I was a bridesmaid of hers last year) works in a major Canadian university putting in her hours for her doctorate in cell biology (something more specific, but science talk loses me quickly) Anyhow, she caught her boss and a few others faking results for more funding from a wealthier businessman whose daughter was on her deathbed with god knows what, and they photoshopped scientific pictures to prove to him they were getting somewhere- they weren't- for more funding. My friend is still in the process of trying to have her name taken off all of the studies she had done with her boss (for obvious reasons) and dealing with said university (they don't want their name tarnished, I'm sure) and at least the person in question was immediately relieved. But wanted to tell you this story, because after this, I couldn't sotp thinking about how many people have gotten away with these faked results, and the more you look into it, the less you'll be seeing your Western medicine doctor.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


what senior researchers from her group said is that they want to retract the articles now and check is the data is reproducible, if it is they will publish them again.

She took pictures of other project and use them as results from this new one among other things, i dont think there is a cover up. other people can try to replicate her findings.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Mistake - double post
edit on 1-4-2014 by lobograndemalo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

lobograndemalo
reply to post by rickymouse
Now, how do we know that she did not stumble across something which could cure many diseases cheaply and lessen the need for all the people researching medicine. I cannot say that she did not fake research but I cannot say that there might not be a coverup.

The problem with stumbling across a cure for diseases is that treatment is not needed in the future. I am going to keep an open mind about this. I would love to see exactly what she was researching to see what direction she was going in. There is probably some truth to her research, now it will be shunned. I'm sure her research will disappear from existence.

The current system of medicine is too dependent on profits to fund the research. The medical industry employs a lot of people in most countries, maybe too many. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
 


I have to agree with this. What if she discovered something life changing that would reduce medical costs? We can't have that now!
This sounds pretty typical of the medical community. Funding gets cut the minute they discover you are doing something for the good of community. Usually the scientist/doctor get slandered every which way to.


As a side note look at her education and her achievements.. Somethings fishy here..

There are thousands of fake papers published in medical and science journals all the time and we never hear about them.Why this one?

www.npr.org...

Check this article out. Mid way down a biologist who claims to have discovered a chemical that kills cancer cells, is outed as a fraud.. fraud or to good for humanity?
edit on 1-4-2014 by lobograndemalo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
Is this the process where stem cells were created using an acidic compound on blood? If so, that would be very, very disappointing to hear.


Yes it is.

I have a feeling that this is going to spark more debate on pushing for embryonic stem cells.

Probably is going to get ugly.

-FBB



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by greencmp
 


What can be trusted now? i would say there is a big number of touch up research everywhere it sad and worrisome at the same time


Keep in mind that it was the scientific community that picked up on the problem. Yes, dishonest work sets research back but ultimately it was the important scientific step of replication that caught the deception.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


This seems to be the way things are done now. No replication, peer reviews are missing (wild claims of immortality seem to be the most popular). Since this (and data massaging) happens all the time in research (which is corrupt as it is for funding, fame and career) the scientists behaviour is the norm. I suspect she had her reputation destroyed many years later due to another scientist jealously wanting her funding in the highly competitive & deceptive industry of science.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


There is a lot money to be made in pharmaceuticals from diseases like diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, it wouldn't be good if a cheap and easy cure was found. Its better to discredit the researcher.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by alkasian
 


She did this to herself, their own group are the ones backing away from her, sometimes people just mess things baddy by themselves
edit on 2-4-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


Maybe you're right.
I have researched so many cures when the authorities damaged the reputation of a researcher in the name of the almighty pharmaceutical industry.
Right back to 1933 when Rife cured cancer using electrical apparatus, then the French in 1960 - this is old news, but I was watching "Blueprint for a UFO" on Youtube and out of the blue the guy said, "We have a device that can detect which kind of cancer you have and the same device can cure you, but the FDA, God bless them, said no to it because they would lose too much money".
For what its worth "Blueprint for a UFO" is the most technically informative discussion I have heard about UFO technology/Black Projects in a very long time.



posted on Apr, 2 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by alkasian
 

She did this to herself, their own group are the ones backing away from her, sometimes people just mess things baddy by themselves
edit on 2-4-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)

What about the highly reputable publisher publishing more unverified information, what about her scientific TEAM and the science community for 3 years?
They seem happy to burn her as an" individual" in a totally corrupt science industry.
They all mess up and messed up "BADDY" too.
One science scape goat offered up (and note its a woman not her male senior supervisor ).



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by BDBinc
 


I'm glad you see my typo and capitalize on it, does it makes you look better in your mind? but no it's her fault and just her. A lab is not an assembly line were all past through supervisors and at the end there is a quality check, a lab got researchers ( usually PhD students) that work under the guidance of a researcher each one having a different project with have some relation to the interest of the rest of the group. A senior member may not have any connection to the research in question as the mayority of the group does not have relation, and still it's name could appear in the paper if just make a spellcheck or a minor contribution to the paper, usually people try to associate papers to the senior researchers even if they are not related just to give more weight to the publication and make it easier to pass peer review, a reviewer will reject more easily a paper of an unknow than a paper or someone with 1k papers.

The publisher is not liable for the information published, they does not make the research after all and when you are goin to summit a paper a disclaimer appears were you have to swear that the information is good, it's original research ( not a copy) and that you havent publish this in any way before.

Once its summited to the publisher a peer review process begins if it's not rejected right away. The peer process varies from publication to publication but usually consist of 3 reviewers "expert" in the field of the article. They have to determinate only if the information is original, if it's adequate presented and if it's relevant to the field of research. They may see if you reach to a conclusion you cannot reach with the data you have and even perhaps suggest some test to perform to include to the article in order to reach that conclusion but they never corroborate if the information is true, after all the author swore it was at the very first step of the publication.

If 2/3 of the reviewers recommend the article for publication it is published after the corrections suggested by the reviewers are done or a explanation is presented to why not and it's accepted as a valid reason.

Now at this point the information is on the open, everyone can see it and most likely most of the people working on the field of the publication will see it. If you wanted to cover up the info the point was before this, now it's of no use to try to smear it as its useless because every other researcher in the field will base it's new research on the new information. No one will keep using outdated procedures when new better/easier approach are available.

So here it's where it is know if something is fake or not, new people will try to replicate her results, not to see if they are good but to start new research from them, and if they are fake simply they won't obtain the same results and in their publication they will say it could not be replicated, no conspiracy , no male senior researcher involve ( does it matter it was a woman who fake the research?), no publisher responsibility, just the responsibility of the main researcher who put her name on it and said it was good.

Now if someone smear her to cover up her methods? Well since it was publish if it was revolutionary several groups must had adapted they research to them, if it works, they will defend their research and will publish it works, researchers have to justify the funds they get and they will try to the end to do it, its their life on the line. Her own group will try to replicate her results, I don't think this is a point where something like this can be buried, it is simply fake or real and many people have interest to determinate this.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-4-2014 by Indigent because: tablet autofill





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join