dufus Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 American scientist Frances Arnold, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry, has retracted her latest paper. Ms Arnold shared the prestigious award in 2018 with George P Smith and Gregory Winter for their research on enzymes. A subsequent paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams was published in the journal Science in May 2019. It has been retracted because the results were not reproducible, and the authors found data missing from a lab notebook. Reproduction is an essential part of validating scientific experiments. If an experiment is a success, one would expect to get the same results every time it was conducted. Ms Arnold came forward with the news herself on Twitter on 2 January. "For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible," she tweeted. "It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well." That same day, Science published a note outlining why it would be retracting the paper, which Ms Arnold co-authored with Inha Cho and Zhi-Jun Jia. "Efforts to reproduce the work showed that the enzymes do not catalyze the reactions with the activities and selectivities claimed. Careful examination of the first author's lab notebook then revealed missing contemporaneous entries and raw data for key experiments. The authors are therefore retracting the paper." The announcement is the latest example of the "reproducibility crisis" facing the sciences. In October 2018, the journal Nature wrote online that there was "growing alarm about results that cannot be reproduced". An earlier survey conducted by the journal found that more than two-thirds of researchers had tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments. Reaction to Ms Arnold's tweets was mostly positive, however, as her colleagues commended her honesty. "Can I please express my respect for you bringing this to everyone's attention. This shows that anyone can make an honest mistake and acting to correct that is the best response. Thank you," wrote Dominique Hoogland, a researcher at King's College London. Ms Arnold is a widely respected chemical engineer, whose work pioneering "directed evolution" won her the €1m (£0.8m) Millennium Technology Prize in 2016. She is also on the board of directors for Google's parent company Alphabet. sauce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp68terr Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Why Ms? Why not Dr or even Prof? Quote "reproducibility crisis" To simply (try to) reproduce other people work is usually a waste of time/energy/money. It won't be published, or if published it will likely be in a low profile journal. A published work is supposed to be reproducible and significant (search for bias in science, like p-hacking). Supposed to be. So that others can incorporate the discovery/method in their own work for the advance of Science. The point is not anymore what has been discovered, it's more about where it has been published, because publishing in high profile journal means a more prestigious image for the involved team/institute and an increased probability to get funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Now see there This is indeed an interesting turn around of the whole issue It is a shame we have such a case from such an honourable scientist, what is all behind this? Hopefully, we get to know more than this, as time goes by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aum Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 7 hours ago, cosy said: It is a shame we have such a case from such an honourable scientist... Let's not forget that Science (like everything else) is done by humans and therefore it's prone to all human frailties. Please give honorable Ms Arnold a break and admire her courage! Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosy Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, aum said: Please give honorable Ms Arnold a break. Thank you. You seem not to have got my point here We are actually taking the same thing but different expressions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aum Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 53 minutes ago, cosy said: You seem not to have got my point here We are actually taking the same thing but different expressions Your point (a good one) is about reproducibility. My point is for others to say -- not me. Yes, we are different expressions of that one truth: “In all ten directions of the universe, there is only one truth. When we see clearly, the great teachings are the same. What can ever be lost? What can be attained? If we attain something, it was there from the beginning of time. If we lose something, it is hiding somewhere near us.” ― Ryokan Note: If the above paragraph is deemed to be irrelevant or against the forum guidelines, I request it to be deleted by the forum moderators or administrators. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aum Posted January 7, 2020 Share Posted January 7, 2020 Nobel prize winner demonstrates the best way to apologize Unfortunately there aren’t Nobel prizes for good apologies – but Dr Frances Arnold’s words should be an example to all of us A Nobel prize winner has issued a humble apology when a recent paper of hers was retracted. In a remarkable display of humility, Dr Frances Arnold, who won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 2018, came forward herself to let her followers know that a 2019 paper of hers had been retracted. “For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year’s paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams,” she began, before accepting responsibility. Frances Arnold @francesarnold It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well. https://twitter.com/francesarnold/status/1212796190711959552 … Frances Arnold @francesarnold For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6440/575 … In doing so, Arnold has mastered the art of a good apology: one that doesn’t veer into excusing oneself; that gives context where relevant; but accepts full responsibility and moves on. In return,she has been thanked for her honesty. Dr Betül Kacar, an astrobiologist from the University of Arizona, tweeted: “This is the hardest thing, and what a true scientist does. Thank you for setting the record straight.” Jonathan P Dowling, an academic from Louisiana State University, replied: “You did the right thing! All we scientists are human. What makes us scientists is our means to find our mistakes.” Arnold, a professor at the California Institute of Technology, shared the Nobel prize for chemistry in 2018, alongside researchers from Harvard and Cambridge. At the time, spokespeople for the prize said her work was “inspired by the power of evolution and used the same principles – genetic change and selection – to develop proteins that solve mankind’s chemical problems”. The retracted paper was published later, in the journal Science in May 2019. Science published an official statement in which it said the results from the paper were not reproducible, and that there was missing data found in a lab notebook. There has been no indication that the oversight was down to deliberate scientific misconduct. Unfortunately there aren’t Nobel prizes for good apologies. But Arnold’s response should be an example to all of us in 2020: when wrong, admit your mistake, apologise and promise to do better. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.