Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says

[blaxsun]

This harks back to the hay day of "global warming", where governments were literally throwing grants left and right at anything that had a potential tie-in with global warming.

You could quite literally present a paper on how the effects of McDonald's ice cream machines being constantly down for maintenance contributed to global warming and get funding for further research.

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Marine biology is a heavily female dominated field USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and most European countries I believe.

This is a confusing one. I tried to look up some statistics on worldwide ratios. I found that more women get their degrees than men, but as far as women in working/leadership roles in the field, I couldn't find a solid answer.

 

[Wasabiroot]

I think this thread has accomplished what it set out to, which is to spark another debate about whether we should discount all of science because of one person.

*edit! I agree I could have misinterpreted the intent of the OP. Discussion on this isn't a bad thing, as long as it's in good faith.

I don't think I can contribute further here without just shouting at a brick wall. But suffice to say, for every one scientist like this who is involved in controversy, there are far more who aren't and have accurate, repeatable data.
That's how we get modern medicine and the phones you're probably typing your responses on. That's what I mean by sample size - people are so excited to use this instance as proof that something a very large number of people are convinced is happening isn't happening, which I find deliberately obtuse.

 

[rgulrich]

I think this thread has accomplished what it set out to, which is to spark another debate about whether we should discount all of science because of one person.

Perhaps you are reading a bit more into the reason for my post than originally intended.

Cheers,
Ray

 

[Wasabiroot]

Perhaps you are reading a bit more into the reason for my post than originally intended.

Cheers,
Ray

You might be correct, but it's not the first time it's gone this direction. It's kind of like the LED vs MH thing - bringing it up innocently doesn't mean it won't turn into tribalism at some point, lol.

 

[rgulrich]

... as for it's prevalence in the scientific community:

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

retractionwatch.com

Makes for interesting reading as well.

Cheers,
Ray

 

[Shooter6]

I don't think you quite understand how PR works. The whole point of PR is to make themselves sound like the good guy in the eyes of the public. Also that argument is incredibly weak. Your logic is that they must spread a lie about their products being bad so that they can invest in new products. Really? When was the last time a company said, "Hey! All this stuff we make that you buy is terrible! Stop buying our products we have and try a new forumla!" Do you also believe that coca cola is making up that plastic doesn't degrade easily so that they can sell you sprite in an aluminum can? Its the same logic. Companies can invest in multiple products (i.e. an energy company investing in a non oil product) because it makes them less reliant in a single product and creates a more stable company.

I posted a company direct link. A quick Google search on their green energy investments will prove your absolutely wrong. Algae and corn farming investments alone will do that. So again using them is a tactic. ExxonMobil carries a negative connotation that reaches back to the Valdez oil spill. Since then their name has been used politically for pushing policies. That's it.

 

[rgulrich]

In being the Devils Advocate on this one...
In a severely competitive male dominated field, what was the motive of the whistle blowers?
Do these papers not go through a peer review? If it had, why were these ?'s not asked before?
I'm seems from the article, it wasn’t the results,, but the method of obtaining the results.
Basically her career is over. If it is true, who created the pressure to take shortcuts in obtaining the results.
These are the ?'s you have to ask yourself.

To at least partially address some of your concerns (from the complete report):
“Josefin Sundin of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, a member of the group of whistleblowers, says the research culture at JCU, a tropical marine biology mecca, deserves more scrutiny. Sundin and others earlier blew the whistle on a 2016 Science study, which was also retracted; that paper’s first author, Oona Lönnstedt, also obtained her Ph.D. at JCU under Munday’s co-supervision. “We have heard many stories about an unhealthy focus on eye-catching publications at JCU. The competition level is extremely high,” Sundin says.”

Please look up Josefin Sundin's bio. And other complainants as well.

While the papers in question may have passed peer review, the research methodology was pretty much impossible to replicate and the data from the studies did not pass close scrutiny.

Peer researchers among others were the whistleblowers, and they are taking James Cook University (JCU) to task for their research culture.

Cheers,
Ray

 

[bnord]

I’m not sure folks are claiming the catastrophic effects you suggest from acidification alone.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015265118

“ Projected reduced coral cover due to bleaching events predominately drives these declines rather than the direct physiological impacts of ocean warming and acidification on calcification or bioerosion.”

Nutrients, temp, pH, change in coral predators, micro and mega…. Something is causing a change that is resulting in bleaching and die offs. Looking for one of the causes in a multi-variate equation is what the researcher was presumably awarded grants to attempt to find out.

The direction this thread is heading seems to be “well even if that one element, a drop in pH is implicated in die offs, it is bogus because my tank can handle those pH swings”. I can tell you that bacteria live better in Petri dishes than they do on door knobs, or soil samples

Read about the sargassum blooms that are occurring in the Caribbean ; Mexico to Costa Rica. They are devastating the turtle grass habitats and piling sulfuric acid spewing masses of decaying vegetation all along the coast s and barker islands. And we know the turtle grass is a nursery and food source for reefs.

Did this ever happen in recorded history of the region? Apparently not. Did it happen before then? Might have. Is it happening now in the last 5 years when water temps and nutrients are up a fraction over that past 100 years? Apparently.

I have been traveling every few years to Belize for the last 30 years, and this is a poorly reported catastrophe

World's largest sargassum bloom, why it's probably here to stay

Researcher: “I’m kind of looking at sargassum as another canary in the coal mine for our planet.”

www.dailycommercial.com

This is not coral reef, but it supports the notion that small, barely recordable changes are are wreaking havoc with previously well balanced ecosystems.

As to the academic grant writing world, I am a vet researcher, in the business since ’85. And it is increasingly a dog eat dog hyper competitive world with shrinking grants and increasing costs to conduct the work,. Not only do you have formal peer review for grants and publications, but the competition has colleagues and even friends looking over your shoulder to make sure all that is published is accurate and repeatable and when it is not, it is reported. So it is hard to get away with fraudulent reporting of data over any period of time.; not passing judgement on her case.

So as a previous poster said, i did not join this thread, nor this site, to get into debates on political differences and societal divides, and backing out of this one now.

Peace out

 

[Thales]

"If we continue to add carbon dioxide at current rates, seawater pH may drop another 120 percent by the end of this century, to 7.8 or 7.7, creating an ocean more acidic than any seen for the past 20 million years or more."

 

[Gatorpa]

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Psychiatry also took a hit recently:

“No convincing evidence” that depression is caused by low serotonin levels, say study authors

The authors of a large review say there is no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations, and have questioned the reasons behind high prescribing rates of antidepressants. They say the chemical imbalance theory of depression is still...

www.bmj.com

From the article “The attorney’s clients—two prominent neuroscientists who are also short sellers who profit if the company’s stock falls—believed some research related to Simufilam may have been “fraudulent,” according to a petition later filed on their behalf with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

The guy who “found“ the alleged fraudulent blots was paid by a group of lawyers who in addition to shorting the stock, prior to this announcement are suing the company for fraud. He also is in the “anti amyloid “ camp..

Their petition to stop the trial by Cassava was denied by the FDA.

Kinda suspicious to start with.

 

[Gatorpa]

I’m not sure folks are claiming the catastrophic effects you suggest from acidification alone.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015265118

“ Projected reduced coral cover due to bleaching events predominately drives these declines rather than the direct physiological impacts of ocean warming and acidification on calcification or bioerosion.”

While scientists may not be doing that I see the MSM suggesting it quite often.

 

[WVNed]

For a while now the sin has been getting caught, not doing bad things to start with. After all it's for the cause.
We have a consensus. People in cults and religions have consensus of belief. Science has nothing to do with consensus.

Excuse me, I seem to be extra cynical anymore.

Where we are going at almost the speed of light.

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

For a while now the sin has been getting caught, not doing bad things to start with. After all it's for the cause.
We have a consensus. People in cults and religions have consensus of belief. Science has nothing to do with consensus.

Excuse me, I seem to be extra cynical anymore.

Where we are going at almost the speed of light.

Its the funniest (or saddest ) joke in the world that nobody seems to get...

 

[wareagle]

I’m not sure folks are claiming the catastrophic effects you suggest from acidification alone.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2015265118

“ Projected reduced coral cover due to bleaching events predominately drives these declines rather than the direct physiological impacts of ocean warming and acidification on calcification or bioerosion.”

This has been refuted by actual real life, record levels of hard coral coverage on the Northern and Central Great Barrier Reef. They went from being near the lowest levels of hard coral coverage ever recorded to the highest levels recorded while going through at least two mass bleaching events. AIMS even went as far as to say that it would take decades for recovery to happen.
This all happened in the span of 4 years with another major mass bleaching happening in that time.
Things are simply not adding up.

 

[GarrettT]

These threads always give me a chuckle. As a society, at what point, do we start believing the people that are in select fields preforming these studies? Do you believe that earth is flat or round? How have you come to believe this? Opinions I respectfully get and fully appreciate, but to count one’s own opinion as fact with limited research is self inflicting. This doesn’t extend to a single party in particular. If you choose to believe the research you hear and count it as fact, then you are one of the same. It goes both ways. If you aren’t scientifically involved in the underlining research, then consider your post an opinion. Don’t feel overly passionate about a subject that you yourself haven’t studied, otherwise it give the impression that your feelings toward the matter is bias.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

These threads always give me a chuckle. As a society, at what point, do we start believing the people that are in select fields preforming these studies? Do you believe that earth is flat or round? How have you come to believe this? Opinions I respectfully get and fully appreciate, but to count one’s own opinion as fact with limited research is self inflicting. This doesn’t extend to a single party in particular. If you choose to believe the research you hear and count it as fact, then you are one of the same. It goes both ways. If you aren’t scientifically involved in the underlining research, then consider your post an opinion. Don’t feel overly passionate about a subject that you yourself haven’t studied, otherwise it give the impression that your feelings toward the matter is bias.

While I agree with the sentiment that it is difficult for people to readily know which sorts of studies are most likely to reflect reality properly, it is not hard for scientific societies comprised of members, many of whom are actual experts in the exact field to do so.

Thus, expressions of ideas by, and publications from groups like, the National Academy of Sciences or the American Chemical Society are, IMO, generally trustworthy sources of information that do not typically require vetting.

 

[GarrettT]

are, IMO, generally

Exactly, case in point, which is why many, including myself, value your contribution on this forum. It’s an honest unbiased response given what you know without the added assurance that you can’t personally verify or claim as fact.

 

[Thales]

This has been refuted by actual real life, record levels of hard coral coverage on the Northern and Central Great Barrier Reef. They went from being near the lowest levels of hard coral coverage ever recorded to the highest levels recorded while going through at least two mass bleaching events. AIMS even went as far as to say that it would take decades for recovery to happen.
This all happened in the span of 4 years with another major mass bleaching happening in that time.
Things are simply not adding up.

I cannot find in any of the reports where AIMS said it would take decades for recovery - do you have a link?

As reef keepers, we should not be surpised that some fast growing corals grow fast when other corals don't grow well or die. Reefing should also help us understand that corals can do well short term, but that negative impacts can erase all that 'doing well' over night.

 

[WVNed]

The world used to be round but is getting flatter every day.