Podcasts about Retraction Watch

How is Trump's executive order redefining the language permissible in scientific research, and what does it mean for academic freedom? Today, we examine the complexities surrounding scientific research under shifting political landscapes with Ivan Oransky, a seasoned medical journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch. Oransky discusses the implications of President Trump's executive orders and how it has sent ripples throughout the scientific community, causing researchers to reconsider their work amidst existential uncertainties. Oransky explores the nuanced relationship between government funding and scientific inquiry. This episode unpacks the historical precedents of government involvement in research, tracing back to the 1940s, and examines the mounting challenges faced by scientists under the recent policy changes. Oransky provides a critical analysis of how such directives potentially stifle open inquiry and drive talented researchers away, ultimately impacting the future landscape of scientific discovery. In This Episode:Implications of Trump's executive orders on scientific researchHistorical context of government funding in scientific researchThe impact of political climates on scientific inquiry and transparencyChallenges of anticipatory obedience within research communitiesIvan Oransky's insights on sustaining open and rigorous scientific dialogue About Ivan:Ivan Oransky, MD, is the co-founder of Retraction Watch, the Editor in Chief of The Transmitter, and a Distinguished Journalist in Residence at New York University's Carter Journalism Institute, where he teaches medical journalism. He has held leadership positions at Medscape, MedPage Today, Reuters Health, Scientific American, and The Scientist. A former president of the Association of Health Care Journalists from 2017 to 2021, Oransky earned his bachelor's degree from Harvard and an MD from NYU School of Medicine. His contributions to biomedical communication have earned him accolades, including the John P. McGovern Award and commendation from the John Maddox Prize judges for his work at Retraction Watch. Read HXA's newsletter Free the Inquiry: https://heterodoxacademy.substack.com/Follow Ivan on X: https://x.com/ivanoransky  Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

This episode is sponsored by Digital Science, a global leader in AI-driven technology, providing advanced software and data solutions that empower researchers, universities, and organizations across the research ecosystem. Born out of the research community itself, Digital Science was founded by researchers who sought to solve the challenges they were facing. Now Digital Science is dedicated to making open, collaborative, and inclusive research a reality, partnering with academic institutions to provide pioneering AI-powered tools that enhance decision-making, foster innovation, and help shape a future where trusted, collaborative research drives progress for all. Learn more at https://www.digital-science.com/. Today's episode features Caroline Goldsmith, Associate Director, Charleston Hub, who talks with Dr. Leslie McIntosh, Founder, Ripeta, and VP, Research Integrity, Digital Science.  Leslie talks with us about how she defines research integrity, and the major issues she sees currently facing the scholarly communication industry around research integrity.  Leslie dedicates her work to improving research and investigating and reducing mis- and disinformation in science. She founded Ripeta in 2017 to improve research quality and integrity using algorithms which lead in detecting trust markers of research manuscripts. Leslie has given hundreds of talks to the US-NIH, NASA, and World Congress, and her work was the most read Retraction Watch post in 2022.  She also talks about the work being done at Digital Science and the new tool, Dimensions Author Check, which supports publishers with the author verification process.   The video of this interview can be found here: https://youtu.be/x8lA-59Zi08 Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/caroline-goldsmith-94459112/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/leslie-mcintosh/ Keywords: #DigitalScience, #digital, #ResearchTransformation, #Research Quality, #ResearchEthics, #OpenResearch, #ResearchInnovation, #EmergingTechnologies, #AcademicResearch, #DigitalLibrarian, #DigitalLibrary, , #ResearchReliability, #ResearchIntegrity, #PublishingIntegrity, #PoweringResearch, #ScientificMisconduct, #Retractions, #AuthorVerification, #ScienceTalks, #Misinformation, #Disinformation, #knowledge,  #awareness, #efficiency, #innovation, #partnerships, #CommunityEngagement, #collaboration, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #libraries, #librarianship, #LibraryNeeds, #LibraryLove, #ScholarlyPublishing, #AcademicPublishing, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #podcasts

Audio from the 2024 Charleston Conference Leadership Interview Series. Heather Staines, Senior Strategy Consultant, Delta Think interviews Ivan Oransky, Co-Founder, Retraction Watch. Heather and Ivan discuss the founding of Retraction Watch, a nonprofit that publishes daily reports on scientific fraud and misconduct, acting as a watchdog for scientific integrity, and also maintains a retractions database that was recently acquired by Crossref, which makes the data open and provides sustainability. Ivan is the Editor in Chief of The Transmitter, a publication at the Simons Foundation that covers neuroscience for neuroscientists. He is special advisor for policy and strategy in Scientific Publishing and for funding the archive initiatives at the Simons Foundation. For over 20 years, Ivan has taught medical journalism at New York University.  He believes librarians play a critical role in supporting research and publishing and have been instrumental in supporting Retractions Watch's mission. Video of the Interview is available at: https://youtu.be/Lx9iv2f7Plk Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherstaines/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanoransky/ Twitter: Keywords:    #RetractionWatch, #SimonsFoundation, #MedicalJournalism, #Research, #ResearchSupport, #LibrariansInResearch, #ScientificFraud, #Retraction, #RetractionDatabase, #ProfessionalDevelopment, #LibrarianJourney, #LibraryEducation, #InformationAccess, #LibraryCommunity, #libraries, #librarians, #librarycareer, #libraryschool, #librarylove, #LibraryScience, #academic, #AcademicPublishing, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #research, #learning, #learnon, #information, #leaders, #leadership, #2024ChsConf, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers #libraryissues, #libraryneeds,#librarychallenges, #libraryconference #podcast  #LeadershipInterview

Editors at scientific journals are quitting in droves. According to Retraction Watch, a watchdog publication, there have been at least 20 mass resignations since 2023.So, what's going on? If you look closely, you'll notice a common pattern—publishers are cutting back on the number of editors, increasing the number of papers, and charging hefty fees for authors to publish their work.The most recent mass resignation happened at the Journal of Human Evolution at the end of 2024. Both co-editors in chief and the entire editorial board quit, except for one person.What does this mean for the future of scientific publishing? Have these resignations made the big publishers change their ways? Is the strict academic publishing system we know in danger?To answer those questions and more, Ira talks with Dr. Andrea Taylor, former co-editor in chief of the Journal of Human Evolution; and Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch and editor in chief of The Transmitter.Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Quite a few things to dive into this week: the Medici popes, some listener feedback, cool dinosaur tracks and some sad news from France. In TWISH we we have an epiphany and then we go through the news:NORWAY / UK: Who Believes in Alternative Medicine?RUSSIA: Cancer vaccine announced, with no published evidenceUK: Over 40% of cancer patients use complementary and alternative medications while receiving anticancer treatmentINTERNATIONAL: Another year of Retraction Watch being awesome! Want to work for and with them?INTERNATIONAL: Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedoHUNGARY: Viktor Orbán travels to India, posts photo with Ayurvedic guruSeveral Hungarian organizations close to the government signs up with IFTCC who claims that banning conversion therapy is a threat to human rights – can you be more Really Wrong?Enjoy!https://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-461.htmlSegments:0:00:27 Intro0:00:51 Greetings0:17:18 TWISH0:27:54 News0:57:21 Really Wrong1:04:59 Quote1:06:37 Outro1:07:52 Outtakes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. But a few reformers are trying. We check in on their progress, in an update to an episode originally published last year. (Part 2 of 2) SOURCES:Max Bazerman, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.Leif Nelson, professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.Ivan Oransky, distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.Joseph Simmons, professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Uri Simonsohn, professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.Simine Vazire, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science. RESOURCES:"How a Scientific Dispute Spiralled Into a Defamation Lawsuit," by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2024)."The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers," by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023)."They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023)."Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles," (Retraction Watch, 2023)."Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers," (Retraction Watch, 2019)."How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009).Lifecycle Journal. EXTRAS:"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia? (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1," by Freakonomics Radio (2012).

Dr. Matt Tincani joins Dr. John Borrero and me for the 21st (can you believe it!?!?) installment of the Inside JABA Series on Behavioral Observations. From a research perspective, this Inside JABA episode is by far our most wonkiest one to date. By that I mean we take a deep dive into the area of Open Science Practices. If you're not familiar with the Open Science movement, Matt walks us through the basics. In doing so, we review the lead paper in the fall 2024 issue of JABA that he co-wrote with Drs. Shawn Gilroy and Art Dowdy (see Tincani, Gilroy, and Dowdy, 2024). Of the several Open Science Practices, this paper - and by extension, this episode - focuses on Preregistration. According to Tincani and colleagues, "preregistration entails outlining a research protocol and specifying the study methods and plans for analysis, which are then archived publicly in a repository before conducting the study" (see p. 4). The point of doing this, amongst others, is to increase transparency and reduce criticisms of questionable research practices in Behavior-Analytic research, such as the file drawer effect, dropping participants from analyses, and so on. While these aims sound laudable, when reading this paper, my inner skeptic began formulating a handful of objections to preregistration, such as increasing barriers to conducting research by adding additional steps, "boxing in" the work of researchers to the point if inflexibility, and so on. Both in the paper and on this podcast, Matt walks through these common objections, so if you too are skeptical, give this episode a listen and see if Matt's treatment of these resonate with you. Here are a few resources mentioned in the episode: Tincani, Gilroy, and Dowdy (2024). Extensions of open science for applied behavior analysis: Preregistration for single-case experimental designs. Tincani and Travers (2019). Replication Research, Publication Bias, and Applied Behavior Analysis. Subscribe to JABA here. Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Retraction Watch. Rick Kubina, Session 39. Kubina et al. (2017). A Critical Review of Line Graphs in Behavior Analytic Journals.

This month Ivan Oransky joins us to talk about his work as a journalist and advocate for monitoring scientific misconduct.Ivan confesses about his beginnings as a young playwright of the immune systemHe discusses how and why he left medicine to become a journalistIvan's mentors encouraged him to develop by getting experience as a journalist and editorIvan reflects on how his training as a physician was helpful and allowed people to trust himHe stresses how important it is to read in order to develop story-writing skillsIvan explains that curiosity and attention can help to hunt for good storiesHe thinks the trend to ‘weaponization' is central to what's wrong in science and science communication todayHe suggests that going ‘upstream' might help to explain the methodology and not just the results of scienceIvan describes the origins of Retraction Watch and looking for the stories behind the retractionsHe also insists that we need to look upstream to understand what leads to the fraud (or sloppiness) behind the retractionsFinally, learning to say NO is an important skill to keeping focusedIvan mentioned these scientists, writers and institutionsHarvard University : https://www.harvard.edu/The Harvard Crimson https://www.thecrimson.com/Yale University https://www.yale.edu/The Scientist https://www.the-scientist.com/Journal of American Medical Association https://jamanetwork.com/New York University's Carter Journalism Institute https://journalism.nyu.edu/The New York Times https://www.nytimes.comLawrence Altman MD https://www.nytimes.com/by/lawrence-k-altmanGeorge Lundberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_D._Lundberg https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114712/To find out more about Ivan and his work visit these links  at NYU https://journalism.nyu.edu/about-us/profile/ivan-oransky-md/on Twitter/X https://x.com/ivanoranskyRetraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/The Transmitter /Spectrum magazine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_TransmitterIvan's first play about the Immune System (aged 11) https://theoranskyjournal.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/immune-system-play.pdfYou want to support our work ? Buy us a coffee ! ==> https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lonelypipetteTo find out more about Renaud and Jonathan : Twitter : https://twitter.com/LePourpre LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/renaudpourpre/ Twitter : https://twitter.com/Epigenetique LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanweitzman/%20 More about the soundtrack :Music by Amaria - Lovely Swindler https://soundcloud.com/amariamusique/

What's the secret of living to 100? Well, it might be living in a “Blue Zone”: one of the handful of places around the world where there are apparently loads of centenarians. Except, as has been argued recently, Blue Zones might be a load of nonsense.In this epside of The Studies Show, relative spring chickens Tom and Stuart look at some of the recent controversies in demography. Is there a limit to the human lifespan? Did someone really live 122 years? And how could researchers not have noticed the glaring problems with the whole idea of Blue Zones?The Studies Show is brought to you by our new sponsor: Semafor. They're a purveyor of high-quality newsletters offering in-depth information in digestible chunks (and they happen to be Tom's employer). This week, we looked at Semafor Technology, in which Reed Albergotti interviewed will.i.am on AI and the future of music.Show notes* “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”* Nature paper on “Evidence for limits to the human lifespan”* Stuart's response letter* Saul Newman's critique* Guardian article and Retraction Watch article on the resulting controversy* 2020 New Yorker article on Jeanne Calment, the 122-year-old woman* 2004 paper on “Blue Zones”; 2013 paper* Blue Zones website and “Live to 100” cookbook* Blue Zones food guidelines* Saul Newman's paper (2024 version) critiquing Blue Zones and supercentenarian research* Saul Newman wins the Ig Nobel PrizeCredits* The Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

A record 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023. In this episode from February 2024, Ian Sample speaks to Ivan Oransky, whose organisation Retraction Watch has been monitoring the growing numbers of retractions for more than a decade, and hears from blogger Sholto David, who made headlines this year when he spotted mistakes in research from a leading US cancer institute. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

Gazdă: Manuel Cheța Subiecte principale: procesoare falite la Intel, Retraction Watch, Chromecast bye   Show notes: tehnocultura.com

What's the point of evidence? It's to gain knowledge, so that we can treat our patients better. But what happens when the data is wrong, faked, misleading, or simply made up? Retraction Watch (www.retractionwatch.com, and @retractionwatch) collates retractions from journals around the world. Their database makes terrifying reading: tens of […]

Show Notes: In this conversation with Will Bachman, Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, shares his experience as a medical journalist and with Retraction Watch. Ivan explains that his friend and co-founder, Adam Marcus had uncovered a massive story about scientific fraud in Western Massachusetts, where an anesthesiologist had made up all clinical data. Adam, who was managing editor of an publication called Anesthesiology News got the scoop on the story, and Ivan, who was impressed with the story, suggested they start a blog about retraction notices, it turned out there were far more happening than previously thought.  13 and a half years later, Retraction Watch is still going strong and has a large audience. Adam and Ivan are volunteers but have four staff two of whom run a database of retractions that was recently acquired by CrossRef, a nonprofit that tracks scientific data and papers. The other two staff continue to contribute to the journalism work they started 13 and a half years ago, while Ivan and Adam still supervisor edit and direct it. How to Evaluate an Article Ivan shares his advice on how to evaluate an article in a medical journal or any published article. He emphasizes the importance of showing one's work and examining the evidence used to reach a conclusion. He explains that, when looking at articles, it is crucial to consider the original sources, citations, and the journal's track record of quality. He also emphasizes the importance of humility in making claims and not making pronouncements about things he or she doesn't know anything about. He also warns against trusting credentials to suggest expertise, as it can be misleading, Ivan shares the example of a time when he was asked to peer review papers about COVID-19, simply because he had co-authored a letter about retractions of work. However, he is not an expert on the subject. Ivan believes that an expert should only be asked to peer review papers that they believe are likely to hold up or should not be published.  Leading Causes of Retraction Ivan explains that factors that commonly lead to a retraction. Two-thirds of retractions are for misconduct. This number is consistent across various works and he goes on to explain that there are several definitions of misconduct to take into consideration, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. About 20 percent of the time, it's due to a what's known as honest error, and Ivan offers a few examples.  The deeper cause is the requirement that researchers must publish in certain places to get a job in academia, tenure, promotion, and prizes. This drives people to do all sorts of things, and while this drives most people to work harder and try to work more efficiently, others may take a different approach. In fact, Ivan states that 2 percent of researchers admit to committing misconduct.  The Replication Crisis Ivan talks about the replication crisis, which has been a topic of interest in the social sciences and hard sciences. When Retraction Watch was first launched, there were about 400 retractions from journals a year. Last year, there were more than 10,000, a big increase despite the rising number of papers published. The root cause of this issue is the same problem: replications are not new research or findings and should be cherished and prized, but they are not. Big journals don't like to publish replications, so they don't reward new research. To get into a big journal, researchers need to publish new research, which is simple behavioral incentive economics. The discussion turns to incentives for people to write about scientific misconduct and fraud. Ivan states that, while there is more incentive not to write retractions, he cites a page on Retraction Watch that has dozens of stories from people committed to revealing issues with research, including well-known figures. These individuals face legal risks, such as lawsuits, and are usually not paid for this work.  The conversation also touches on the potential negative repercussions of challenging senior professionals in their field, such as professors or presidents of universities. However, most of these individuals do not work in science anymore, or their career trajectory is not dependent on pleasing or failing to displease senior members of academia. These individuals often publish on sites like PubPeer, which allows users to leave comments on published studies. This helps expose the issues and claims in the media, helping to raise awareness and support for those who need help. Retraction Watch offers resources and social media platforms for those interested in learning more about the topic. They welcome feedback and story tips, and they are open to sharing more information about their work. Timestamps: 01:03 Scientific fraud and retractions  04:41 Evaluating credibility in scientific articles and peer review 09:10 Research retractions and the root causes 13:05 Replication crisis in science and the challenges faced by those uncovering fraud 17:18 Academic misconduct and whistleblowers Links: Website: https://retractionwatch.com/ Unleashed is produced by Umbrex, which has a mission of connecting independent management consultants with one another, creating opportunities for members to meet, build relationships, and share lessons learned. Learn more at www.umbrex.com.

If you have a subscription to Spotify, you can now hear this audiobook on Anthony Fauci for free.  

A record 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023. To find out what's driving this trend, Ian Sample speaks to Ivan Oransky, whose organisation Retraction Watch has been monitoring the growing numbers of retractions for more than a decade, and hears from blogger Sholto David, who recently made headlines when he spotted mistakes in research from a leading US cancer institute.. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

للانضمام لمجموعات الحاد بلا حدود https://tinyurl.com/j7p8rfkc listen to our Podcast: https://anchor.fm/s/884f8a34/podcast/rss المصادر حلقات بودكاست فريكينوميكس https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-there-so-much-fraud-in-academia/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-academic-fraud-be-stopped/ اغنية عندما يصبح عمري 64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTunqv1Xt4 “More Than 10,000 Research Papers Were Retracted in 2023 — a New Record,” by Richard Van Noorden (Nature, 2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8 “Data Falsificada (Part 1): ‘Clusterfake,'” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2023). https://datacolada.org/109 “Fabricated Data in Research About Honesty. You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Or, Can You?” by Nick Fountain, Jeff Guo, Keith Romer, and Emma Peaslee (Planet Money, 2023). https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data Complicit: How We Enable the Unethical and How to Stop, by Max Bazerman (2022). https://www.amazon.com/Complicit-How-Enable-Unethical-Stop/dp/0691236542?&linkCode=sl1&tag=freakonomic08-20&linkId=d16b392f7748bd9f370780064f5885f5&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2021). https://datacolada.org/98 “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Psychological Science, 2011). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611417632 “The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers,” by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/business/the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html “They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie “Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science,” by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.23.568476v1.full.pdf “Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles,” (Retraction Watch, 2023). https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/19/hindawi-reveals-process-for-retracting-more-than-8000-paper-mill-articles/ “Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers,” (Retraction Watch, 2019). https://retractionwatch.com/2019/07/18/exclusive-russian-site-says-it-has-brokered-authorships-for-more-than-10000-researchers/ “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data,” by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

للانضمام لمجموعات الحاد بلا حدود https://tinyurl.com/j7p8rfkc listen to our Podcast: https://anchor.fm/s/884f8a34/podcast/rss المصادر حلقات بودكاست فريكينوميكس https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-there-so-much-fraud-in-academia/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-academic-fraud-be-stopped/ اغنية عندما يصبح عمري 64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTunqv1Xt4 “More Than 10,000 Research Papers Were Retracted in 2023 — a New Record,” by Richard Van Noorden (Nature, 2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8 “Data Falsificada (Part 1): ‘Clusterfake,'” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2023). https://datacolada.org/109 “Fabricated Data in Research About Honesty. You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Or, Can You?” by Nick Fountain, Jeff Guo, Keith Romer, and Emma Peaslee (Planet Money, 2023). https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data Complicit: How We Enable the Unethical and How to Stop, by Max Bazerman (2022). https://www.amazon.com/Complicit-How-Enable-Unethical-Stop/dp/0691236542?&linkCode=sl1&tag=freakonomic08-20&linkId=d16b392f7748bd9f370780064f5885f5&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Data Colada, 2021). https://datacolada.org/98 “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant,” by Joseph Simmons, Leif Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn (Psychological Science, 2011). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797611417632 “The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers,” by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/business/the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html “They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie “Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science,” by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.23.568476v1.full.pdf “Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles,” (Retraction Watch, 2023). https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/19/hindawi-reveals-process-for-retracting-more-than-8000-paper-mill-articles/ “Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers,” (Retraction Watch, 2019). https://retractionwatch.com/2019/07/18/exclusive-russian-site-says-it-has-brokered-authorships-for-more-than-10000-researchers/ “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data,” by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Investigation shows journal editors getting paid to publish bunk papers, and new techniques for finding tumor DNA in the blood   First up on this week's episode, Frederik Joelving, an editor and reporter for the site Retraction Watch, talks with host Sarah Crespi about paper mills—organizations that sell authorship on research papers—that appear to be bribing journal editors to publish bogus articles. They talk about the drivers behind this activity and what publishers can do to stop it.   Next, producer Zakiya Whatley of the Dope Labs podcast talks with researcher Carmen Martin-Alonso, a graduate student in the Harvard–Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program in Health Sciences and Technology, about improving liquid biopsies for cancer. They discuss novel ways to detect tumor DNA circulating in the blood.   This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy.   About the Science Podcast   Authors: Sarah Crespi; Zakiya Whatley; Richard Stone    Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.zahpt8h   About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast

Investigation shows journal editors getting paid to publish bunk papers, and new techniques for finding tumor DNA in the blood   First up on this week's episode, Frederik Joelving, an editor and reporter for the site Retraction Watch, talks with host Sarah Crespi about paper mills—organizations that sell authorship on research papers—that appear to be bribing journal editors to publish bogus articles. They talk about the drivers behind this activity and what publishers can do to stop it.   Next, producer Zakiya Whatley of the Dope Labs podcast talks with researcher Carmen Martin-Alonso, a graduate student in the Harvard–Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program in Health Sciences and Technology, about improving liquid biopsies for cancer. They discuss novel ways to detect tumor DNA circulating in the blood.   This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy.   About the Science Podcast   Authors: Sarah Crespi; Zakiya Whatley; Richard Stone    Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.zahpt8h   About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast

Probably not — the incentives are too strong. Scholarly publishing is a $28 billion global industry, with misconduct at every level. But a few reformers are gaining ground.   (Part 2 of 2) SOURCES:Max Bazerman, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School.Leif Nelson, professor of business administration at the University of California, Berkeley Haas School of Business.Brian Nosek, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia and executive director at the Center for Open Science.Ivan Oransky, distinguished journalist-in-residence at New York University, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, and co-founder of Retraction Watch.Joseph Simmons, professor of applied statistics and operations, information, and decisions at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.Uri Simonsohn, professor of behavioral science at Esade Business School.Simine Vazire, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne and editor-in-chief of Psychological Science. RESOURCES:"The Harvard Professor and the Bloggers," by Noam Scheiber (The New York Times, 2023)."They Studied Dishonesty. Was Their Work a Lie?" by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."Evolving Patterns of Extremely Productive Publishing Behavior Across Science," by John P.A. Ioannidis, Thomas A. Collins, and Jeroen Baas (bioRxiv, 2023)."Hindawi Reveals Process for Retracting More Than 8,000 Paper Mill Articles," (Retraction Watch, 2023)."Exclusive: Russian Site Says It Has Brokered Authorships for More Than 10,000 Researchers," (Retraction Watch, 2019)."How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data," by Daniele Fanelli (PLOS One, 2009). EXTRAS:"Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?" by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Freakonomics Goes to College, Part 1," by Freakonomics Radio (2012).

"Das Klima”, der Podcast zur Wissenschaft hinter der Krise. Wir lasen den [sechsten Bericht](https://www.ipcc.ch) des Weltklimarats und erklären den aktuellen Stand der Klimaforschung. In Folge 102 ziehen wir zurück. Bzw.: Wir schauen uns Forschungsarbeiten an, die nach der Veröffentlichung wieder zurückgezogen wurden. Solche “Retractions” sind Teil des wissenschaftlichen Prozesses, finden aber viel zu wenig Beachtung. In dieser Folge schauen wir, warum das so, was dazu führt das Forschung zurückgezogen werden muss und ob das gut oder schlecht ist. Wer den Podcast unterstützen will, kann das gerne tun: https://steadyhq.com/de/dasklima/ und https://www.paypal.me/florianfreistetter.

Stuart Buck has referred to himself as a venture capitalist for making science more efficient, reliable, and accountable. As vice president at the policy-focused philanthropy Arnold Ventures, he directed funds toward fledgling enterprises that are now major forces shaping scientific norms and infrastructure, including the Center for Open Science and Retraction Watch. He's now executive director of the Good Science Project, a nonprofit organization working to figure out effective ways to improve science. Buck considers how to make sure that reforms are actually improvements, not performative busywork. He explores what sorts of entities are required to push for positive change in science and still respect the different cultures and practices in various countries and disciplines. It's not enough to assess scientific practices, he argues; there needs to be a built-in way to assess scientific reforms, including the relative costs and benefits of increasingly popular policies like sharing data and promoting transparency. In this context, Buck joins host Monya Baker to discuss how metascience—the study of science—has fueled reform, and how to make sure reforms produce the desired effects. Resources: Stuart Buck's recent essay on his work at Arnold Ventures: “Metascience Since 2012: A Personal History” Stuart Buck, “Beware performative reproducibility,” Nature (July 6, 2021)

Annika has been to the esoteric fair and gives a report and dowsing is apparently used by employees at Scottish Water. In TWISH we celebrate the International Day of Democracy, and boy do we need it. And then there is the news: INTERNATIONAL: Toddlers can reason! SWEDEN / UK: Believing in personal gut feelings and falling for conspiracy theories GERMANY: New developments regarding Satanic Panic SWEDEN: Pontus Pokes the Politicians: Thousands marching against mandatory reporting of paperless persons CrossRef and Retraction Watch do great work and for that they share this week's award for being Really Right. Enjoy! Segments: Intro; Greetings; TWISH; News; Really Right; Quote And Farewell; Outro; Out-Takes

We have a new podcast! It's called Universe Of Art, and it features conversations with artists who use science to bring their creations to the next level. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.    A See-Through Squid Success Story Adult octopuses have about 500 million neurons, which is about as many neurons as a dog. Typically, more neurons means a more intelligent and complex creature. But it's a bit more complicated than that. Unlike dogs, or even humans, octopuses' neurons aren't concentrated in their brains—they're spread out through their bodies and into their arms and suckers, more like a “distributed” mind. (Scientists still haven't quite figured out exactly why this is.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of unanswered cephalopod questions. Now, researchers have successfully bred a line of albino squid that were first engineered using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, creating a see-through squid. Their unique transparency allows scientists to more easily study their neural structure, and a whole lot more. SciFri experiences manager Diana Plasker talks with Joshua Rosenthal, senior scientist at the University of Chicago's Marine Biological Laboratory, based in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, about this see-through squid success story. When Eye-Grabbing Results Just Don't Pan Out You know the feeling — you see a headline in the paper or get an alert on your phone about a big scientific breakthrough that has the potential to really change things. But then, not much happens, or that news turns out to be much less significant than the headlines made it seem. Journalists are partially to blame for this phenomenon. But another guilty culprit is also the scientific journals, and the researchers who try to make their own work seem more significant than the data really supports in order to get published. Armin Alaedini, an assistant professor of medical sciences at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, recently co-authored a commentary on this topic published in The American Journal of Medicine. He joins Ira and Ivan Oransky — co-founder of Retraction Watch and a medical journalism professor and Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University — to talk about the tangled world of scientific publishing and the factors that drive inflated claims in publications.     How Art Can Help Treat Dementia And Trauma We might intrinsically know that engaging with and making art is good for us in some way. But now, scientists have much more evidence to support this, thanks in part to a relatively new field called neuroaesthetics, which studies the effects that artistic experiences have on the brain. A new book called Your Brain On Art: How The Arts Transform Us, dives into that research, and it turns out the benefits of the arts go far beyond elevating everyday life; they're now being used as part of healthcare treatments to address conditions like dementia and trauma. Universe of Art host D. Peterschmidt sits down with the authors of the book, Susan Magsamen, executive director of the International Arts + Mind Lab at the Pederson Brain Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University, and Ivy Ross, vice president of design for hardware products at Google, to talk about what we can learn from neuroaesthetic studies, the benefits of a daily arts practice, and the kinds of art they both like making.   Testing Mars Rovers In Utah's Red Desert Take a 20-minute drive down Cow Dung Road, outside of Hanksville, Utah, and you'll stumble across the Mars Desert Research Station. This cluster of white buildings—webbed together by a series of covered walkways—looks a little alien, as does the red, desolate landscape that surrounds it. “The ground has this crust that you puncture through, and it makes you feel like your footprints are going to be there for a thousand years,” said Sam Craven, a senior leading the Brigham Young University team here for the University Rover Challenge. “Very bleak and dry, but very beautiful also.” This remote chunk of Utah is a Mars analogue, one of roughly a dozen locations on Earth researchers use to test equipment, train astronauts and search for clues to inform the search for life on other planets. While deployed at the station, visiting scientists live in total isolation and don mock space suits before they venture outside. To read the rest, visit sciencefriday.com.   To stay updated on all-things-science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters. Transcripts for each segment will be available the week after the show airs on sciencefriday.com.  

Helse må være det endelige målet for økonomisk aktivitet, og en nøkkelprioritet på tvers av all offentlig virksomhet, mener WHO i en ny rapport. Stadig flere nye lover og lovforslag gjør det vanskeligere og vanskeligere for transpersoner i USA – og for helsepersonell som prøver å hjelpe dem. Hvor effektivt er bruk av ketamin mot alvorlig og behandlingsresistent depresjon, sammenlignet med elektrokonvulsiv behandling? Er det noen sammenheng mellom opptak ved medisinutdanning og studentenes sosioøkonomiske bakgrunn? Retraction Watch har funnet ugler i mosen til den høyt rangerte odontologiske høyskolen Saveetha i Chennai, India. Kan aminosyren taurin være nøkkelen til et lengre liv? Og gir tospråklighet fra ung alder bedre kognitiv funksjon som gammel? Sjefredaktør Are Brean forteller om dette og mer i ukens episode av Stetoskopet. Tilbakemeldinger kan sendes til stetoskopet@tidsskriftet.no. Stetoskopet produseres av Synne Muggerud Sørensen, Are Brean og Julie Didriksen ved Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening. Ansvarlig redaktør er Are Brean. Jingle og lydteknikk: Håkon Braaten / Moderne media Coverillustrasjon: Stephen Lee Artikler nevnt: Health must be put at the heart of economies, says WHO reportEconomic policy makers need to take health seriouslyTemporal Trends in Childhood Household Income Among Applicants and Matriculants to Medical School and the Likelihood of Acceptance by Income, 2014-2019 Legal Penalties for Physicians Providing Gender-Affirming CareSeven days in medicine: 31 May to 6 June 2023 Ketamine versus ECT for Nonpsychotic Treatment-Resistant Major Depression Efficacy of Continuous Transdermal Nitroglycerin for Treating Hot Flashes by Inducing Nitrate Cross-tolerance in Perimenopausal and Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial Did a ‘nasty' publishing scheme help an Indian dental school win high rankings? Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 6 months and hospitalisation for infection before age 12 months: randomised controlled trial Taurine linked with healthy aging Taurine deficiency as a driver of aging Linking early-life bilingualism and cognitive advantage in older adulthood In Other Journals

Dear Esteemed Academic, we're reaching out to you as an eminent scholar in your field! This week we talk with Dr. John Chenault, PhD, MA, MSLS who is a former medical librarian and currently Associate Professor & Director of Anti-Racism Initiatives in Undergraduate Medical Education at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. We discuss predatory publishing, which is an exploitative practice that charges authors to publish scholarly journal articles without providing important publishing services like peer review. Dr. Chenault suggests that listeners can work with librarians to identify such exploitative journals before publishing, and he describes resources that faculty can use to help identify predatory publishers. After listening to this episode, Dr. Chenault calls for listeners to be mindful of this industry and its negative impact to our profession. Learn more about predatory publishing with Retraction Watch, the Predatory Publishing blog, and see if your university has access to Cabell's International. Also check out John's previous Faculty Feed episodes on anti-racism in medical education and the crisis in biomedical publishing. Do you have comments or questions about Faculty Feed? Contact us at FacFeed@louisville.edu. We look forward to hearing from you.

Academia depends on the publishing world to disseminate scholarly work, but the current model is facing significant challenges. This week we talk with Dr. John Chenault, PhD, MA, MSLS, who is Associate Professor and the Director of Anti-Racism Initiatives at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. Dr. Chenault is a former medical librarian, and we discuss both long-standing and emerging issues in biomedical research publishing. Dr. Chenault describes how research outcomes can be erroneous or deliberately falsified, and he suggests that more transparency—rather than our current system of peer review—will be needed to address emerging issues in plagiarism and post-production fabrication. Learn more about the work that Dr. Chenault describes by Freedman and the Global Biological Standards Institute as well as the Retraction Watch and PubPeer resources to help faculty evaluate published literature. Do you have comments or questions about Faculty Feed? Contact us at FacFeed@louisville.edu. We look forward to hearing from you.

Known online as The Liver Doctor, he's a crusader against quackery of all sorts. Cyriac Abby Philips joins Amit Varma in episode 310 of The Seen and the Unseen to describe his journey to becoming a doctor-scientist, the breakthroughs in his field, what he has learnt as a physician -- and the dangers of 'alternative medicine.' (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Abby Philips on Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google Scholar, Rajagiri Hospital and The Morning Context. 2. The Dark Side of Indian Pharma -- Episode 245 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Dinesh Thakur). 3. The Practice of Medicine -- Episode 229 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Lancelot Pinto). 4. Understanding Indian Healthcare -- Episode 225 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 5. Beware of Quacks. Alternative Medicine is Injurious to Health -- Amit Varma. 6. Homeopathic Faith -- Amit Varma. 7. Bad Science -- Ben Goldacre. 8. Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial -- Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst. 9. Homeopathy, quackery and fraud -- James Randi. 10. Why We Sleep — Matthew Walker. 11. Doctor, heal thyself -- Suresh K Pandey and Vidushi Sharma on the shorter life expectancy of doctors in India. 12. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart — Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M Todd and the ABC Research Group on ‘fast and frugal heuristics'). 13. The Medical Council of India -- Episode 8 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Pavan Srinath). 14. Abby Philips's tweet about how cirrhosis can be reversed. 15. A Phase 3 Trial of Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis -- Various authors for the ASCEND study group. 16. Repurposing Pirfenidone for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis-related Cirrhosis: A Case Series -- Cyriac Abby Philips and others. 17. Regression of Human Cirrhosis: Morphologic Features and the Genesis of Incomplete Septal Cirrhosis -- Ian R Wanless, Eisuke Nakashima and Morris Sherman. 18. Reversal of Liver Cirrhosis: A Desirable Clinical Outcome and Its Pathogenic Background -- Flavia Bortolotti and Maria Guido. 19. Ignaz Semmelweis on Britannica and Wikipedia. 20. The Diabetes Code -- Jason Fung. 21. The perfect treatment for diabetes and weight loss -- Interview of Jason Fung. 22. Intestinal microbiota contributes to individual susceptibility to alcoholic liver disease -- M Llopis and others. 23. Fecal microbiota manipulation prevents dysbiosis and alcohol-induced liver injury in mice -- Gladys Ferrere and others. 24. Some of Abby Philips's papers on stool transplants: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 25. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Karthik Muralidharan: 1, 2, 3. 26. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ajay Shah: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 27. Fecal enema as an adjunct in the treatment of pseudomembranous enterocolitis -- Ben Eiseman and others. 28. Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile -- Els van Nood and others. 29. There is no safe level of alcohol consumption -- Abby Philips. 30. The Case Against Sugar — Gary Taubes. 31. The Big Fat Surprise — Nina Teicholz. 32. The Obesity Code — Jason Fung. 33. Priyanka Pulla on Twitter and LinkedIn. 34. Abby Philips and Krish Ashok's Instagram post on Ayurveda. 35. Edzard Ernst on Twitter and his own website. 36. The studies on nanoparticles in homeopathy from IIT Bombay and Belgium. 37. Parents guilty of manslaughter over daughter's eczema death -- Harriet Alexander. 38. Never Talk About TURMERIC on Social Media -- Abby Philips. 39. Abby Philips's video on Arsenic Album. 40. Clinical outcomes, histopathological patterns, and chemical analysis of Ayurveda and herbal medicine associated with severe liver injury -- Abby Philips and others. 41. Abby Philips's paper on Herbalife products causing fatal acute liver failure. 42. Paper about Herbalife®-related patient death removed after company threatens to sue the journal -- Elizabeth Bik. (Also, her tweets: 1, 2.) 43. Retraction Watch on the controversy. 44. The Jaslok study on the harmful effects of Giloy, commonly used in Ayurveda. 45. Subsequent studies on the harm that Giloy does from New Delhi, Ahmedabad, Delhi again, Delhi one more time, Lucknow, Mumbai and a large multicenter study. 46. As COVID Surged, India Had a Silent Outbreak of Giloy-Induced Liver Injury -- Banjot Kaur. 47. Blankets -- Craig Thompson. 48. Rosalie Lightning: A Graphic Memoir -- Tom Hart. 49. Robot Dreams -- Sara Varon. 50. The Complete Maus -- Art Spiegelman. 51. Bone -- Jeff Smith. 52. V For Vendetta -- Alan Moore and David Lloyd. 53. Cinema Paradiso -- Giuseppe Tornatore. 54. Tigertail -- Alan Yang. 55. The Town -- Ben Affleck. 56. I Saw the Devil -- Jee-woon Kim. 57. The Roundup -- Lee Sang-yong. 58. Memories of Murder -- Bong Joon-ho. 59. The Night Of and True Detective. 60. Pink Floyd, Def Leppard and Metallica on Spotify. 61. Bon Jovi, Manowar and Savatage on Spotify. 62. Sleep -- Savatage. 63. The Police, Sting, Cyndi Lauper and Imagine Dragons on Spotify. 64. The master thread by Abby Philips of his Twitter mega threads. This episode is sponsored by MapMyGenome. Use the code UNSEEN to get 25% off all their products, especially MedicaMap. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘The Good Doctor' by Simahina.

Today we are talking about the academic scientific peer review process, which ordinarily involves a journal sending a submitted paper out to other experts for assessment before they decide to publish the article, something which has become part of the normal process for and sign of a quality academic scientific journal.This subject is increasingly important as more and more high-profile and impactful research articles are being retracted or placed under editorial “notices of concern” both in Australia and overseas. To learn more, Cosmos journalist Clare Kenyon talks to Dr Ivan Oransky, an acclaimed journalist and one of the creators of Retraction Watch, a site and database which collates, lists and discusses retractions and editorial notes of concern placed on peer-review journal article publications, and also Dr Elisabeth Bik, a Dutch-US microbiologist and image consultant especially renowned for her ability to detect image duplication and manipulation.”Find the science of everything at the Cosmos Magazine website Subscribe to Cosmos Magazine (print) or the Cosmos WeeklyWatch and listen to all our Cosmos BriefingsSpecial 10% discount on Cosmos magazine print subscriptions (1 or 2 year), or 1 year Cosmos Weekly subscriptions for Cosmos Briefing podcast listeners!  Use coupon code COSMOSPOD in our shop. 

The Filtrate:Joel TopfSwapnil HiremathJosh WaitzmanSophia AmbrusoSpecial Guests:Boback Ziaeian @boback Assistant Professor of Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. His Google Schoolar page is better than yours. And returning for her third time (why sdo we keep inviting her back?)Sadiya Khan @heartDocSadiya Assistant Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and Preventative Medicine at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine. LinkEditor: Sophia AmbrusoDonate to NephJCGet your Freely Filtered Mug by becoming a Freely Filtered Fan, all proceeds go to NephJC. All donations are tax deductible in the U.S.http://www.nephjc.com/new-products/freely-filtered-fanIf you want to support NephJC to a different tune than $200, take a look at the NephJC September Pledge Drive page. Show Notes:2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure says:Restricting dietary sodium is a common nonpharmacological treatment for patients with HF symptomatic with congestion, but specific recommendations have been based on low-quality evidence. Concerns about the quality of data regarding clinical benefits or harm of sodium restriction in patients with HF include the lack of current pharmacological therapy, small samples without sufficient racial and ethnic diversity, questions about the correct threshold for clinical benefit, uncertainty about which subgroups benefit most from sodium restriction, and serious questions about the validity of several RCTs in this area. However, there are promising pilot trials of sodium restriction in patients with HF. The AHA currently recommends a reduction of sodium intake to

Episode 88 of our book read/podcast covering major topics in various fields of psychology moves us into RESEARCH METHODS! New open-source book and a split semester, with Interviews and discussions on as many types of research types as we can fit in. Lots of warnings for this episode. Part 1 ends around the 30 minute mark, then we discuss some less savory research. In this episode we get back to Retraction Watch! Our dive into the world of retractions and unethical behaviors in science. This episode Thomas brings some spicy takes on Zoophile research and Daniel discusses the wild accusations against a concussion researcher in Exercise Sport Sciences. Articles: https://retractionwatch.com/2022/02/28/this-is-frankly-insulting-an-author-plagiarized-by-a-journal-editor-speaks/ https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/02/was-leading-sports-medicine-researchers-plagiarism-an-isolated-and-unfortunate-incident/ https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/04/sports-medicine-researcher-paul-mccrory-requests-another-retraction/ https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/apr/05/concussion-researcher-claims-afl-hindered-two-year-research-project-into-players-health Textbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/75 PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Bias of the Week: Continued Influence Effect https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

We discuss the rise in retractions among academic publications, and the pandemic's impact on retractions in clinical journals over the last two years. Mr. Marcus is a health journalist with over 25 years of experience in science, health, medicine. He is the Editorial Director for Primary Care at Medscape. He is also the Co-founder of Retraction Watch, a blog focusing on issues of research integrity and science publishing. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and Nature, among other outlets.

In this episode, Dr. Dawn is in conversation with Dr. Elisabeth Bik and Dr. Ivan Oransky. Dr. Elisabeth Bik is a microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant who has worked to call out fraudulent scientific papers. She became renowned in her fight against the bad science behind hydroxychloroquine as an effective therapy against COVID-19 that resulted in a global Twitter assault. Dr. Ivan Oransky is an accomplished journalist, editor, and educator who founded Retraction Watch, the world's only aggregated database of scientific retraction. In this episode, our guests take a moral stance on science - and tell us… What Does It Profit? This episode has been produced as part of Whistling at the Fake, a global business ethics research project funded by NATO's Public Diplomacy Division as part of its resilience projects. The project aims at addressing the gap of citizen comprehension of the forms, means, and impacts of misinformation and disinformation, and empowering the general public with the tools through which to identify fake news, including appropriate responses to such behaviors. The project focuses on the crucial role whistleblowers and other knowledgeable insiders play in exposing misleading and hostile information activities and increasing public resilience to acts of this nature.

Episode 82 of our book read/podcast covering major topics in various fields of psychology moves us into RESEARCH METHODS! New open-source book and a split semester, with Interviews and discussions on as many types of research types as we can fit in, along with every other episode as PSD with a Twist! (It's a cocktail pun!). In this episode Thomas and Daniel do PSD with a Twist but with no twist, we delve into the annals of Retraction Watch and discuss some of our favorite ethical dilemmas of the month. Its Ethics all the way down. Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com/ Textbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/75 PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Bias of the Week: News Media Bias https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/neuroscience

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Listen to this interview of Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, cofounders of Retraction Watch. We talk about lots of things, retracting very few. Ivan Oransky : "Accountability in science certainly does not come down to only retracting papers, because there are just lots of issues. And by the way, just to remind everyone, science is very much a human endeavor. It doesn't exist outside of humans doing the science. I mean, facts exist, and there is truth out there, and we'd very much appear to be getting close and closer to it — that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual process, like, how do we learn these things. How — as this podcast more generally looks at — how does knowledge get known. Basically, epistemology. But that requires human beings. It requires human beings interpreting, talking and listening, collaborating, and so that's one part of science that is really critical. Therefore, of course, the issue of accountability is multifactorial." The Retraction Watch database is here. You might also be interested in this article: "Repeat Offenders: When Scientific Fraudsters Slip Through the Cracks." You can learn more about retraction here.  Watch Daniel edit your science here. Contact Daniel at writeyourresearch@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Episode 78 of our book read/podcast covering major topics in various fields of psychology moves us into RESEARCH METHODS! New open-source book and a split semester, with Interviews and discussions on as many types of research types as we can fit in, along with every other episode as PSD with a Twist! (It's a cocktail pun!). In this episode we do An Intro to PSD with a Twist! With Andrew Tague, now a 5 time guest! We delve into our favorite topic…more unethical research and more. PSD with a twist has us enjoying a mixed beverage and discussing research while musing and debating on the next steps or the next possible study that could be done. Retraction Watch: https://retractionwatch.com Articles and Unethical Stuff: Hormones and Voting: https://retractionwatch.com/2012/10/25/psychological-science-in-the-news-again-cnn-retracts-story-on-hormone-voting-link/ Predicting Death Research: https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/07/journal-pulls-plug-on-paper-that-predicts-persons-death-against-authors-objections/ Bigfoot Retraction: https://retractionwatch.com/2015/04/14/bigfoot-paper-corrected-because-it-doesnt-exist-the-authors-institution-that-is/ JAMA Perception of Kid's Behavior: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2787966 Ivermectin Study Concerns: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/ivermectin-covid-study-suspect-data Textbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/75 PSD Website: https://psychosocialdistancingpodcast.com/ Thomas' Webpage: https://sexography.org/ Thomas' Twitter: https://twitter.com/TBrooks_SexPsy Daniel's Twitter: https://twitter.com/ScienceInChaos Bias of the Week: Observer-Expectancy Effect https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3r_CNg_MuRKbi_oJYVRth7dAMW2nNiS/view?usp=sharing

For more details, visit #DrGPCPodcast Episode #59 page https://www.drgpcr.com/episode-59-with-nicola-j-smith/ ------------------------------------------- About Dr. Nicola J. Smith Dr. Nicola J Smith is an expert in molecular pharmacology with a track record in exploring GPCR structure-function relationships in the context of cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders. She is a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellow and runs a laboratory of 7 Ph.D. and Honours students at UNSW Sydney, where she has recently been promoted to Associate Professor. Most recently, Dr. Smith's team has made advances in the understanding of how an orphan GPCR exerts its effects both in vitro (cell culture and ex vivo models) and in vivo (measures of physiological and pathological cardiometabolic function in unconscious and conscious mice). Together with Irina Kufareva, UCSD, her team developed a novel approach to identifying ligands for orphan GPCRs by developing a powerful new computational tool for identifying ‘surrogate' ligands (borrowed from other receptors) for orphan GPCRs, named GPCR-CoINPocket. Her career goal is to leverage this expertise to establish a research program that takes orphan GPCRs from ‘locked', inaccessible receptors to well-characterized and understood ‘unlocked' therapeutic targets with high-affinity ligands. ------------------------------------------- Dr. Nicola J. Smith on the web UNSW Sydney https://med.unsw.edu.au/our-people/nicola-smith LinkedIn https://med.unsw.edu.au/our-people/nicola-smith Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/12/the-most-horrific-time-of-my-career/ Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/2021/01/12/the-most-horrific-time-of-my-career/Twitter https://twitter.com/smith_orphans ------------------------------------------- Imagine a world in which the vast majority of us are healthy. The #DrGPCR Ecosystem is all about dynamic interactions between us who are working towards exploiting the druggability of #GPCR's. We aspire to provide opportunities to connect, share, form trusting partnerships, grow, and thrive together. To build our #GPCR Ecosystem, we created various enabling outlets. For more details, visit our website http://www.DrGPCR.com/Ecosystem/. ------------------------------------------- Are you a #GPCR professional? - Register to become a Virtual Cafe speaker http://www.drgpcr.com/virtual-cafe/ - Subscribe to our Monthly Newsletter http://www.drgpcr.com/newsletter/ - Listen and subscribe to #DrGPCR Podcasts http://www.drgpcr.com/podcast/ - Support #DrGPCR Ecosystem with your Donation. http://www.drgpcr.com/sponsors/ - Reserve your spots for the next #DrGPCR Virtual Cafe http://www.drgpcr.com/virtual-cafe/ - Watch recorded #DRGPCR Virtual Cafe presentations: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJvKL3smMEEXBulKdgT_yCw - Bring in a #GPCR Consultant http://www.drgpcr.com/consulting/

Watch out researchers! This week we have a special treat for you – we're joined by the one and only Elisabeth Bik! Our interview with her takes us into the wonders of how to expose fraudulent (or just sloppy) science. Elisabeth Bik is a Dutch-American microbiologist, whose specialty is spotting photo duplications in scientific publications. As a result of her efforts, hundreds of papers have been retracted due to evidence of misconduct. She's a founder of the Microbiome Digest Blog and the Science Integrity Digest Blog. Her work is also frequently featured on Retraction Watch and she's a regular contributor at PubPeer. She has received several prizes for her outstanding work in science popularisation and science integrity. In November 2020 she received the the Peter Wildy Prize by the Microbiology Society for communication of microbiology in education and to the public. In 2021 she was awarded two prizes, both very highly regarded by skeptics, the John Maddox Prize and the Ockham Award, both of which we reported on here on the ESP. Enjoy! Segments: Intro; Greetings; Interview; Farewell; Outro; Out-Takes;

Stuart Ritchie on the necessary work of the website, Retraction Watch, and the problem with "instinct" in scientific experiments. (Part 2)

Alison McCook is a veteran science journalist for Reuters, Scientific American, Discover, Nature, Science, and Retraction Watch, as well as a regular columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. She takes us inside the winding science and public health road that we've taken on Covid in recent months, explains where science and public communication have gotten out of sync, and looks ahead at where we might be going next.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell We’ve been hearing a lot about anti-vaxers because of Covid but what we haven’t been hearing so much about is exactly why some folks are so opposed to not only Covid vaccinations but vaccinations in general. Turns out that in many cases their concern is based on a 1998 science paper that was retracted 12 years later, in 2010, after it was found to be, quite simply, wrong. And despite the journal it was published in pulling it from its archives because it was proven wrong, lots of people have no idea that paper is no longer considered scientifically correct or defensible. So how could any of us who aren’t scientists know about that? Well, we could make a stop at retractionwatch.org and find out that this paper – and a whole lot of others – have been retracted or withdrawn, often by their authors, when they have been proved incorrect. That’s the way science works. And while we are there, we could also take a look at well over a hundred papers on Covid-19 that have been retracted after being shown to be incorrect. About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 7/29/21: Summer 2021 Encore 2 – Retraction Watch first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell We’ve been hearing a lot about anti-vaxers because of Covid but what we haven’t been hearing so much about is exactly why some folks are so opposed to not only Covid vaccinations but vaccinations in general. Turns out that in many cases their concern is based on a 1998 science paper that was retracted 12 years later, in 2010, after it was found to be, quite simply, wrong. And despite the journal it was published in pulling it from its archives because it was proven wrong, lots of people have no idea that paper is no longer considered scientifically correct or defensible. So how could any of us who aren’t scientists know about that? Well, we could make a stop at retractionwatch.org and find out that this paper – and a whole lot of others – have been retracted or withdrawn, often by their authors, when they have been proved incorrect. That’s the way science works. And while we are there, we could also take a look at well over a hundred papers on Covid-19 that have been retracted after being shown to be incorrect. About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 7/29/21: Summer 2021 Encore 2 – Retraction Watch first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Bret and Heather and Ivermectin.  Oh my. IDSG returns from it's 17 year absence with a banger of an episode in which Daniel dishes out THE FUCKING TEA on Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying (again) and their irresponsible spreading (in hushed, reasonable voices) of potentially lethal conspiracy theories and bad science re Covid, Wuhan, vaccines, and Ivermectin.  Content Warnings. Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent.  Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1 Show Notes: Bret Weinstein Odysee Bret interviews Yuri Deigin. Yuri Deigin, Lab Made? SARS-CoV-2 Geneaology Through the Lens of Gain of Function Research Indeed, virologists, including the leader of coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, have done many similar things in the past — both replacing the RBM in one type of virus by an RBM from another, or adding a new furin site that can provide a species-specific coronavirus with an ability to start using the same receptor (e.g. ACE2) in other species. In fact, Shi Zhengli's group was creating chimeric constructs as far back as 2007 and as recently as 2017, when they created a whole of 8 new chimeric coronaviruses with various RBMs. In 2019 such work was in full swing, as WIV was part of a $3.7 million NIH grant titled Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence. Under its auspices, Shi Zhengli co-authored a 2019 paper that called for continued research into synthetic viruses and testing them in vitro and in vivo: Bret and Heather on Real Time with Bill Mahr on the Lab-Leak Hypothesis CLIP (Bret and Heather on BIll Maher Lab Leak) – starts at beginning of clip. Andersen, et al. The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2 is the seventh coronavirus known to infect humans; SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 can cause severe disease, whereas HKU1, NL63, OC43 and 229E are associated with mild symptoms6. Here we review what can be deduced about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 from comparative analysis of genomic data. We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus. Garry, Robert. [Early appearance of two distinct genomic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 in different Wuhan wildlife markets suggests SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin](https://virological.org/t/early-appearance-of-two-distinct-genomic-lineages-of-sars-cov-2-in-different-wuhan-wildlife-markets-suggests-sars-cov-2-has-a-natural-origin/691 This Week in Virology 762: SARS-Cov-2 origins with Robert Garry CLIP (Two Covid Lineages in Wuhan Market) – Starts about 39:00 in TWIV762 potholer54, Did SARS-Cov-2 start in a Chinese Lab? potholer54, More “man-made” SARS-CoV-2 lab-leak malarky Scott Gavura, Science Based Medicine, “Ivermectin is the New Hydroxychloroquine” There has been interest in ivermectin since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, because it was observed that at high concentrations it had antiviral properties against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, there was an important red flag in that finding. A few weeks after the initial finding was published, a short paper appeared in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology that described the considerations for using ivermectin as an antiviral. While it acknowledged the antiviral properties of high concentrations of the drug in laboratory (in vitro) experiments, it noted that it would likely not be possible to achieve the same concentrations of the drug in the plasma of the blood, because the drug itself is tightly bound to blood proteins. Even giving 8.5 x the FDA-approved dose (1700mcg/kg) resulted in blood concentrations far below the dose identified that offered antiviral effects: [[Ivermectin-Cmax.png]] This Week in Virology 766: The Corona Project with David Fajgenbaum CORONA project 18:58, 46:32 “How To Save the World in Three Easy Steps” Clip “Ivermectin End the Pandemic” – starts around 3:30 Bret Weinstein, “COVID, Ivermectin, and the Crime of the Century - DarkHorse Podcast with Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein” With Dr. Robert Malone (invented mRNA vaccine technology) and Mr. Steve Kirsch. Clip “Bret Doctors as Scientists from CotC” – Starts around 19:00 With Pierre Kory Science Based Medicine, Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 2 Last week, über-quack Joe Mercola published an article entitled “COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century“, naming it after an episode of Bret Weinstein's podcast. It features an interview with Dr. Pierre Kory, one of the most prominent proponents of ivermectin for COVID-19 by evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, who has become prominent as a COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation, particularly about the “lab leak theory” of SARS-CoV-2 origins and now likes to Tweet about “persecution” by Twitter: It also turns out that Dr. Pierre Kory is president of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) and has testified before Congress. During that testimony, Dr. Kory claimed that ivermectin, used with other medicines such as vitamin C, zinc and melatonin, could “save hundreds of thousands of people,” and cited more than 20 studies. The narrative of Mercola's article is eerily similar to the narratives we heard about hydroxychloroquine a year ago, namely that ivermectin is a cheap, safe, and effective drug that “they” don't want you to know about that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if not for doctors' fetish for randomized clinical trials. Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, part three Before I move on to more of the ivermectin conspiracy theorists and potential reasons for them, I can't help but repeat what I've been saying all along about ivermectin. Combining preclinical studies that show antiviral activity against SARS-C0V-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 in vitro (cell culture) but only at much higher concentrations of ivermectin than can be achieved with safe doses in the bloodstream with the equivocal clinical trial results lead to a conclusion that this drug almost certainly does not work to treat COVID-19. This is particularly likely given that the highest quality existing randomized controlled clinical trials of ivermectin are all basically negative. I note that when I discussed how poor the evidence for hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 was, I routinely received criticism that I “wanted patients to die” and was “hoping” that the drug didn't work. I'm getting some of the same nonsense now that I've finally been prodded to write about ivermectin. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even though, now that there are safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, the need for a cheap and effective drug that can treat COVID-19 is not as desperate as it was a year ago, it is still acute given how large swaths of the globe still do not have access to the vaccines. Moreover, now that Oxford University has added ivermectin to the protocol of its massive PRINCIPLE Trial of treatments for COVID-19, it is possible that there might turn out to be a benefit due to ivermectin in treating COVID-19, clearly just not as massive as claimed by advocates and conspiracy theorists. I'd be just fine with that, as I would have been overjoyed if hydroxychloroquine had been shown to be as effective as its advocates had claimed it was. It's just that, right now, the evidence is trending strongly in favor of the conclusion that ivermectin, like hydroxychloroquine before it, doesn't work against COVID-19 in humans. Gideon M-K; Health Nerd What this means is that, if you exclude some of the low-quality research on ivermectin, the paper goes from showing a massive benefit to no benefit at all. On top of this, there's an interesting point — even if you don't agree with these assessments, taking the only three studies that the authors of the meta-analysis considered to be at a “low risk of bias” (i.e. high-quality), you find that these high-quality studies have failed to find any benefit for ivermectin. In other words, while the conclusions the authors came to are very positive, the results section of the paper seems to show that the evidence for ivermectin might not be strong after all. The devil really is in the details with research like this. Jack Lawrence aka TimPoolClips Why Was a Major Study on Ivermectin for COVID-19 Just Retracted? Even if the paper's authors end up providing an innocent explanation for all this it would be puzzling why it took them so long to notice their error. Whether the final story is one of purposeful fabrication or a series of escalating mistakes involving training or test datasets, this research group has still screwed up in a big way. Although science trends towards self-correction, something is clearly broken in a system that can allow a study as full of problems as the Elgazzar paper to run unchallenged for seven months. Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying. For those reading this article, its findings may serve as a wake-up call. For those who died after taking a medication now shown to be even more lacking in positive evidence, it's too late. Science has corrected, but at what cost? Ivermectin is the new hydoxychloroquine, take four Of course, as Meyerowitz-Katz observed, just the results of the study raised a lot of red flags. Elgazzar 2020, if you take the authors at their word, enrolled over 400 people with COVID-19 and 200 close personal contacts and allocated them either to ivermectin or placebo groups, reporting that ivermectin treatment decreased mortality from COVID-19 by a whopping 90%. As Meyerowitz-Katz observed, if this were true, that would make ivermectin the “most incredibly effective treatment ever to be discovered in modern medicine.” While as a physician I might quibble about that a bit (we do have treatments that are greater than 90% effective at eliminating the diseases or conditions that they treat, especially a number of vaccines), he is correct if you restricted this to antiviral drugs. If this study's results were accurate and generalizable, ivermectin would be the most most incredibly effective antiviral treatment ever to be discovered. That result alone should have raised a number of red flags, and it did among authors doing meta-analyses who were not ivermectin advocates from the BIRD Group or the FLCCC, which is why they excluded it from their analyses. Meilssa Davey at The Guardian Huge sttudy supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns A medical student in London, Jack Lawrence, was among the first to identify serious concerns about the paper, leading to the retraction. He first became aware of the Elgazzar preprint when it was assigned to him by one of his lecturers for an assignment that formed part of his master's degree. He found the introduction section of the paper appeared to have been almost entirely plagiarised. It appeared that the authors had run entire paragraphs from press releases and websites about ivermectin and Covid-19 through a thesaurus to change key words. “Humorously, this led to them changing ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome' to ‘extreme intense respiratory syndrome' on one occasion,” Lawrence said. The data also looked suspicious to Lawrence, with the raw data apparently contradicting the study protocol on several occasions. “The authors claimed to have done the study only on 18-80 year olds, but at least three patients in the dataset were under 18,” Lawrence said. Dark Horse 85: YouTube and The Truman Faux Medical Show CLIP “DH85 Save Three Kill Two” – Starts Around 50:00 Dark Horse 86: They've Got That Covered CLIP “DH86 Retraction” – Starts around 19:00 “Scientists quit journal board, protesting ‘grossly irresponsible' study claiming COVID-19 vaccines kill” Several reputed virologists and vaccinologists have resigned as editors of the journal Vaccines to protest its 24 June publication of a peer-reviewed article that misuses data to conclude that “for three deaths prevented by [COVID-19] vaccination, we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.” Since Friday, at least six scientists have resigned positions as associate or section editors with Vaccines, including Florian Krammer, a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Katie Ewer, an immunologist at the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford who was on the team that developed the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Their resignations were first reported by Retraction Watch. “The data has been misused because it makes the (incorrect) assumption that all deaths occurring post vaccination are caused by vaccination,” Ewer wrote in an email. “[And] it is now being used by anti-vaxxers and COVID-19-deniers as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are not safe. [This] is grossly irresponsible, particularly for a journal specialising in vaccines.” The paper is a case of “garbage in, garbage out,” says Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccinologist who directs the Vaccine Datalink and Research Group at the University of Auckland and who also resigned as a Vaccines editor after reading the paper. Diane Harper, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was founding editor-in-chief of Vaccines, also resigned, as did Paul Licciardi, an immunologist at Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Parkville, Australia, and Andrew Pekosz, a respiratory virologist at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. Epoch Times, Dr. Bret Weinstein, “Perverse Incentives in the Vaccine Rollout and the Censhorship of Science” * Anna Merlan at Vic; two excellent summaries: 1. 'Why Is the Intellectual Dark Web Suddenly Hyping an Unproven COVID Treatment?' https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx5z5y/why-is-the-intellectual-dark-web-suddenly-hyping-an-unproven-covid-treatment 2. 'The Ivermectin Advocates' War Has Just Begun' https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d5gv/ivermectin-covid-treatment-advocates-rogan-weinstein-hecker Jef Rouner at Houston Press on Bret https://www.houstonpress.com/news/a-possible-new-anti-vaccine-scam-is-on-the-rise-11591162 Decoding the Gurus on Bret & Heather and Ivermectin https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/brett-heather-weinstein-why-are-they-suppressing-ivermectin-the-miracle-cure Bret platforms Geert Vanden Bossche https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro&t=6s Vaxopedia on Geert Vanden Bossche https://vaxopedia.org/2021/03/14/who-is-geert-vanden-bossche/?fbclid=IwAR3u1myW15pERVxvcopv5NlWBr12QakfzVMHsoHHopLuJWKSUGfockqYhBo ZDoggMD on Geert Vanden Bossche https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEyQi__zTuo Potholer54 on Covid and vaccines etc https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoWneZjR0wiidhGkAMOeIYAS QAnon Anonymous feat. scientist on 'Lab Leak' theory https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/unlocked-premium-episode-129-lab-leak-hypothesis-feat-dr-alex-greninger Citations Needed Pod vaccine inequality https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/size/5/?search=vaccine Clip from start; Charlie Kirk cites Bret to Tucker Carlson https://twitter.com/uberfeminist/status/1418033997398020102 Eiynah's panel on 'Mergegate' (feat. D. Harper) Part 1 https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/panel-24-defending-new-atheism-maybe-just-dont-pt-1 Daniel's guest appearance on Decoding the Gurus https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-interview-with-daniel-harper-on-the-far-right-idw-criticism  

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Previously, we looked at the CRAAP test, a way to evaluate how credible we find information on the web to be. But what about scientific information as it appears in original journal articles. Many scientific articles are difficult for lay people to understand. Even with peer review, scientific articles can go out of date or later prove to be inaccurate. How can we know if scientific articles are still accurate? Retraction Watch can help. But even with the CRAAP test and Retraction Watch, we still have another information problem on the web, “filter bubbles.” Here’s why.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Previously, we looked at the CRAAP test, a way to evaluate how credible we find information on the web to be. But what about scientific information as it appears in original journal articles. Many scientific articles are difficult for lay people to understand. Even with peer review, scientific articles can go out of date or later prove to be inaccurate. How can we know if scientific articles are still accurate? Retraction Watch can help. But even with the CRAAP test and Retraction Watch, we still have another information problem on the web, “filter bubbles.” Here’s why. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 4/15/21: Retraction Watch and Filter Bubble first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

This week Tina is joined by Jami with First Do No Harm podcast. Together they tell the absolutely perplexing story of Paolo Macchiarini, a doctor who seemed to be on the fast track to a Nobel Prize in medicine. However, looks can be deceiving and everything around him soon began to unravel when a successful journalist from ABC began to do a story on him. They close the show with a most unbelievable and heartwarming story. You will certainly want to stick around and hear this one! Please support our show by supporting our sponsors! Thank you to Trusted Health for sponsoring this episode. Please go to https://www.trustedhealth.com/gnbn and fill out a profile to help support our podcast and see what opportunities are out there for you! And also, thank you to CBD Stat! If you use CBD oils, please try our sponsor CBD Stat and get 30% off high quality CBD available at http://www.cbdstat.care/goodnursebadnurse.   Credits 20/20- True Lies. ABC, 21 Feb. 2021, abc.com/shows/2020/episode-guide/2021-02/12-true-lies, disc 43.15. Ciralsky, Adam. “The Celebrity Surgeon Who Used Love, Money, and the Pope to Scam an NBC News Producer.” Vanity Fair, 5 Jan. 2016, www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/celebrity-surgeon-nbc-news-producer-scam. Keyton, David, and Jan M. Olsen. “Swedes Indict Surgeon for Stem-Cell Windpipe Transplants.” AP NEWS, 29 Sept. 2020, apnews.com/article/international-news-sweden-bjork-stockholm-paolo-macchiarini-1baeaacd9ad2d19a07acd423d68be3bd. McCook, Author Alison. “Karolinska Orders New Investigation of Trachea Surgeon Macchiarini.” Retraction Watch, 5 Feb. 2016, retractionwatch.com/2016/02/05/karolinska-orders-new-investigation-of-trachea-surgeon-macchiarini/. Schneider, Leonid. “Paolo Macchiarini Indicted for Aggravated Assault in Sweden.” For Better Science, 30 Sept. 2020, forbetterscience.com/2020/09/30/paolo-macchiarini-indicted-for-aggravated-assault-in-sweden/. Vogel, Gretchen. “Another Scathing Report Causes More Eminent Heads to Roll in the Macchiarini Scandal.” Science | AAAS, 6 Sept. 2016, www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/another-scathing-report-causes-more-eminent-heads-roll-macchiarini-scandal. “Wayback Machine.” Web.archive.org, 11 Jan. 2017, web.archive.org/web/20170111125616/www.circare.org/info/pm/CV_eng.pdf. Whipp, Emily, et al. “How a Star Surgeon’s Personal and Professional Lives Converged to Expose His Lies.” ABC11 Raleigh-Durham, 13 Feb. 2021, abc11.com/abc-2020-paolo-macchiarini-benita-alexander-surgeon/10336494/.

Bob Enyart announces that Dominion Voting nemesis/Sidney Powell hero Joe Oltmann will be on BEL this Wednesday, Lord willing! He's the successful Denver businessman who infiltrated Antifa and found there Eric Coomer, a vice president of Dominion Voting Systems. Bob also gives updates on his federal lawsuit against Colorado's governor's office's covid restrictions and on one of Powell's Georgia lawsuits in which federal judge Timothy Batten issued an order blocking the plans to wipe the Dominion voting machines used in three Georgia counties including Fulton. Then Bob shares the retracted report from the Johns Hopkins economist on US COVID deaths with the shocking lack of excess mortality. KGOV is making that disappeared report available right here! and the bizarre "explanation" for why it was disappeared is here.   Today's Video Resource: Get out of the Matrix Bob takes on a college professor and her philosophy class in a debate regarding absolutes. Who wins? The students have been taught that nothing is absolutely right or wrong, so Bob asks them if that is absolutely right. And they’ve been taught that they can only know that which their five senses have told them, so Bob asks them which of their five senses told them that. Is the lack of intellectualism in this college class representative of American higher education? You can decide as you view this video, one of Bob’s most extraordinary presentations.

Chris and Jonathan interview Dr. Ivan Oransky, the co-founder of Retraction Watch which tracks retractions of scientific papers. They discuss how papers get published, how they get retracted, and what a better system might look like.   1:29 How scientific papers get published 3:44 Journals are businesses with a bizarre business model 13:52 No more COVID-related retractions than expected 17:10 Science by press release in part to prevent insider trading 20:04 Jade amulets against COVID-19 26:33 Zombie papers 30:43 A dramatic increase in retractions but they are still rare 36:50 Why are mistakes caught after publication? 42:20 Going to science heaven     * Theme music: “Fall of the Ocean Queen“ by Joseph Hackl.   To contribute to The Body of Evidence, go to our Patreon page at: http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/.   Patrons get a bonus show on Patreon called “Digressions”! Check it out!     Links: 1) The Retraction Watch website: https://retractionwatch.com/ 2) Retraction Watch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch 3) Ivan Oransky on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ivanoransky 4) The Retraction Watch newsletter: https://us12.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=4f35c1f2e9acc58eee0811e78&id=a15d7de264 5) Jonathan's article on the jade amulet: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/paper-argues-amulet-may-protect-covid-should-it-have-been-published 6) Retraction Watch's original article on the jade amulet: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/29/amulets-may-prevent-covid-19-says-a-paper-in-elsevier-journal-they-dont/ 7) The jade amulet paper's retraction notice: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/11/16/co-authors-of-paper-on-covid-19-and-jade-amulets-blames-the-online-press-and-social-media-for-misinterpretation-in-retraction-letter/ 8) The Surgisphere retractions: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/04/lancet-retracts-controversial-hydroxychloroquine-study/

This week on the Skepchick podcast, Rebecca chats with Maria D’Souza and Bjørnar Tuftin about the study that claimed jade amulets can protect you from COVID-19 (since retracted). Links! Bjørnar’s previous post on the topic Retraction Watch’s coverage of this debacle The European Space Agency’s map of the lithosphere What is serpentinization? Bjørnar’s website

The latest issue of JABA starts off with an editorial by the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior's (SEAB) board in which it issued a statement of concern for the controversial paper titled, Behavioral treatment of deviant sex-role behaviors in a male child. This paper described a case study conducted by George Rekers and Ivar Lovaas, and was published in the pages of JABA in 1974. To get right to the point, let me read you the editorial's abstract: In an early study in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Rekers and Lovaas (1974) evaluated the Behavioral Treatment of Deviant Sex-role Behaviors in a Male Child. They investigated the use of reinforcement and punishment to target non-gender conforming behaviors of a 5-year-old male child. This study was considered by some to be controversial and concerning, even near the time of publication (Nordyke et al. 1977; Winkler, 1977). The concerns focused on the ethicality of selecting non-gender conforming behavior as a target response and the use of punishment for this type of response, particularly at the behest of parents when the young child was not seemingly distressed. The study has subsequently been used as empirical support for conversion therapy creating concerns about misinterpretation of the original article and harm to the LGBTQ+ community. This editorial reviews the concerns originally presented by Nordyke et al. and Winkler and issues an official Expression of Concern about the various harms that have been associated with this paper. I first heard about this paper many years ago, but it was to my attention again at the 2019 NH ABA conference. At that event, Dr. Sarah Campeau did a great job reviewing this paper, along with cataloging the devastating effects the study had on the participant later on in his life. So in this episode of the podcast, Drs. Linda Leblanc and Henry Roane discuss the rationale behind the statement of concern. In doing so, they talk about why the statement was written now versus earlier in the history of JABA, and what exactly a Statement of Concern is, and why issuing the statement was the specific action taken instead of other options, such as retracting the paper altogether. We also get into the actual shortcomings of the study, particularly in light of the ethical and moral standards of modern times. Linda and Hank close the podcast by giving some advice for practitioners on how to respond to concerns of stakeholders if or when they bring up this or other studies that are not consistent with more modern ethics and values. I should also note that our Zoom connection was spotty here and there, and I apologize if it interferes with the audio quality that you've come to expect from the show. That said, I don't think it poor connection detracted from the substance of the conversation. Dr. Roane is a new voice in the Inside JABA Series, so by way of introduction, Hank is the Gregory S. Liptak MD Professor of Child Development in the Department of Pediatrics at Upstate Medical University in Syracuse NY. In this capacity, he serves as the Chief of the Division of Development, Behavior and Genetics where he directs medical and behavior analysis clinics that provide treatment services for children affected by autism and related disorders. Hank is also the Chair of the Behavior Analysis Studies program in the College of Health Professions at Upstate. As we mention during the conversation, Hank is also the Treasurer of SEAB. In keeping with the previous Inside JABA Series podcasts, there are no ads or sponsors on this episode. However, this episode is eligible for BACB Continuing Education. We also felt that the conversation touched on many code elements in the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code, and as such, it can be counted as an Ethics CEU. Lastly, 50% of the proceeds from sales of the Inside JABA Series CEUs are donated to SEAB. So for more information on the Inside JABA Series CEUs, or any other CEUs that are available through Behavioral Observations, click here. I've also set up a Link Tree across all my social media platforms where you can access all the different podcast offerings, including episode shownotes. For example, if you follow the show on Instagram (@behavioralobservations), just go to the link in the bio, and you'll have many podcast-related links at your fingertips. Here are the links to the resources that were discussed in this episode: Editor's Note: Societal changes and expression of concern about Rekers and Lovaas' (1974) Behavioral Treatment of Deviant Sex‐Role Behaviors in a Male Child. The Rekers and Lovaas (1974) study. Nordyke, Baer, Etzel, and LeBlanc (1977), response to Rekers and Lovaas. Winkler (1977), response to Rekers and Lovaas. Rekers' response to Nordyke et al. and Winkler (1977). The Anderson Cooper four-part expose on the long term effects on the participant in Rekers and Lovaas. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. Retraction Watch. CEU opportunities from Behavioral Observations. BOP linktr.ee (clearinghouse of podcast-related links).

Ivan Oransky joins us to discuss his work documenting the scientific peer-review process at retractionwatch.com.  

Parte 1 de infinito da coversa sobre tudo o que está errado na ciência, e como a ciência -- ao contrário de um oráculo de saberdoria e objetividade -- é um reflexo da sociedade e seus preconceitos. Referências: - [Observatório COVID-19 é uma referência para dados atuais e tecnicamente competentes sobre a pandemia no Brasil](https://covid19br.github.io/) - [Revisões dos principais trabalhos recentes relacionados à COVID-19 pelo imunologista Thiago Carvalho na Nature Medicine, aqui cobrindo as retrações dos trabalhos com hidroxicloroquina](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41591-020-00023-z) - [Emicida explica que não vai ao protesto porcausa do coronavirus](https://twitter.com/emicida/status/1269026314167767042?s=20) - [Guardian explica suspeitas sobre a empresa por trás dos dados sobre a hidroxicloroquina](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine) - [arXiv](https://arxiv.org/) - [bioaRxiv](https://www.biorxiv.org/) - [medaRxiv](https://www.medrxiv.org/) - [Artigo sobre arsênico no DNA de bacterias foi contestado no Twitter](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/the-case-study-of-arsenic-life-how-the-internet-can-make-science-better/259581/) - [bioaRxiv para de publicar trabalhos sobre terapias de COVID-19 apenas baseados em estudos computacionais e Barabasi reage](https://twitter.com/barabasi/status/1250500820178780166?s=19) - [A idéia de usar Wolbachia no controle de Dengue](https://portal.fiocruz.br/noticia/aedes-aegypti-metodo-wolbachia-para-o-combate-ao-mosquito-chega-em-sua-etapa-final) - [Modelo/análise de dados do Caetano sobre Wolbachia e Dengue](https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0006339) - [Retraction Watch, o canal que segue retrações](https://retractionwatch.com/) - [Campeões de retração: o número 1 tem 183](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/) - [David Baltimore](https://bioethics.miami.edu/education/timelines-project/the-baltimore-case/index.html) - [Black Lives Matter](https://www.uol.com.br/universa/noticias/redacao/2020/06/03/black-lives-matter-conheca-o-movimento-fundado-por-tres-mulheres.htm) - [Modelo matemático de protesto e seu policiamento](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01303) - [Música de encerramento de Cannonball Adderley](http://somethingelsereviews.com/2008/09/27/one-track-mind-julian-cannonball-adderley-walk-tall-1969/) _Música: Alcova Rubra - I; (incidental) The Cannonball Adderley Quintet - Walk Tall_

Ivan Oransky has been tracking questionable studies on COVID-19 for the blog "Retraction Watch", which he co-founded (https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/). He shares his tips on telling the good research on the coronavirus from the not-so-good.

This week we start by noting that the measles numbers in Serbia from last week must be nonsense (it's much worse) and again urge you to support Retraction Watch. We then report on Cardinal Pell's failed appeal in Australia and the pope's totally misguided efforts to help the people of Syria. Brexit spells disaster for science in the UK, a British ‘Grief Vampire' is touring in Sweden, but on a positive note, the Homeopathy Information Network provides help on fighting homeopathy in all of EU. A Lithuanian man wants you to sleep with bees (don't try this at home), Spanish Skeptics (ARP-SAPC) team up with the authorities to educate teachers on how to spot pseudoscience, and the Swedish government wants to implement a national digital register to keep track of vaccination rates. Finally, we hand out a Really Wrong award to a private hospital in Finland for charging lots of money for an unproven cancer treatment. Segments: Intro; Greetings; Pontus Pokes the Pope; News; Really Wrong; Quote and Farewell; Outro; Out-takes Events Calendar: http://theesp.eu/events_in_europe To listen and see show notes go to: http://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-184.html

This week we reflect on the current heatwave and on climate change, we give a shout-out to James Randi who turned 91 this week(!) and Pontus pokes the pope for letting his Archbishops lash out against vulnerable minorities. In the news it's confirmed (again) that vaccinations have nothing to do with autism, we hear how Anthroposophy nuts has managed to weasel their way into the University of Basel and how pseudoscience for children is fought by good people in Spain. Retraction Watch is turning nine years and you should support them and again in Spain there are good forces working against pseudoscience by cleverly promoting policies regarding homeopathy. Finally, we deliver a Really Right award to the Swedish government who as of 1 September has rendered the Anthroposophy-nonsense history in Sweden. Segments: Intro; Greetings; This Week in Skepticism; Pontus Pokes the Pope; News; Really Right; Radio Spots; Quote and Farewell; Outro; Out-takes Events Calendar: http://theesp.eu/events_in_europe

This Week In Wellness the team of science writers behind Retraction Watch has put together a database of unreliable scientific research in Australia and 247 research papers published by Australian scientists (including some of Australia’s most reputable Universities) to be compromised. “The public should be concerned. Almost 250 [papers], that’s a number that many people Listen In The post TWIW 20: Australian research unreliable appeared first on The Wellness Couch.

This week we remember Willem (‘Wim') Betz, the iconic Belgian physician, researcher and skeptic, co-founder of SKEPP (Belgian Skeptic Organisation) and CSICOP fellow, who sadly passed away on 8 June. Pontus reports his experiences at the big political event in Stockholm last week (Järvaveckan) and then Jelena talks about the life and times of William Crookes, who was a brilliant scientist, but also a believer in paranormal phenomena. When Pontus pokes the Pope, we find that Pride month is not for the Vatican, who felt the need to issue a 31-page document to say that trans people ‘annihilate the concept of nature'. We then enjoy the three remaining SkepKon interviews by Annika Merkelbach. In the news this week, the German minister of health takes a stand against ‘gay conversion therapy'; we urge scientists, researchers and medical practitioners to sign the manifesto against pseudotherapies and a Swedish on-line casino gets its license revoked for taking unfair advantage of their customers. Zotaro teams up with Retraction Watch to alert people about retracted studies, homeopathy seems about to be losing funding in France, and Snopes debunks the claim that Facebook's Shake-and-Report function leads to people being banned on Facebook. Anti-abortion sentiments are spreading to Europe from the US and the Italian parents who treated their boy with homeopathy get convicted in court. To rap it all up, we strongly disagree with the ‘Brilliant Minds' Foundation that apparently believes that Gwyneth Paltrow has one… Segments: Intro; Greetings; This Week in Skepticism; Pontus Pokes the Pope; Interviews from SkepKon; News; Really Wrong; Quote; Outro; Out-takes Events Calendar: http://theesp.eu/events_in_europe Show notes at: http://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-175.html

The TWiVers discuss the spread of African swine fever virus and its threat to pig farming, and the zoonotic potential of peste des petits ruminants virus. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Alan Dove, Rich Condit, and Kathy Spindler Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode Please take the TWiV listener survey ASV 2019 European Congress of Virology 2019 ASM Clinical Virology Symposium Intel ISEF judges needed ASV in Poland does not let go (Ag Buiten ) Alarming ASF outbreak (Science) African swine fever (Euro Comm) African swine fever review (Vet J) ASF in wild boar (EFSA J) ASF in Belgian wild boar (Dept Env Food Rural Aff) Handbook on ASF in wild boar (Stand Grp Experts) Feral hogs (VA DGIF) Nonhuman morbillivirus with zoonotic potential (J Virol) Letters read on TWiV 532 Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Weekly Science Picks Alan - Retraction Watch database Rich- “The Mayo Clinic: Faith Hope Science” by Ken Burns Kathy- U-M EEB Photographer at Large contest Vincent - Vaccines: An achievement of civilization Listener Pick David- Useless Knowledge Begets New Horizons Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees. Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

The TWiVers discuss the spread of African swine fever virus and its threat to pig farming, and the zoonotic potential of peste des petits ruminants virus. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Alan Dove, Rich Condit, and Kathy Spindler Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode Please take the TWiV listener survey ASV 2019 European Congress of Virology 2019 ASM Clinical Virology Symposium Intel ISEF judges needed ASV in Poland does not let go (Ag Buiten ) Alarming ASF outbreak (Science) African swine fever (Euro Comm) African swine fever review (Vet J) ASF in wild boar (EFSA J) ASF in Belgian wild boar (Dept Env Food Rural Aff) Handbook on ASF in wild boar (Stand Grp Experts) Feral hogs (VA DGIF) Nonhuman morbillivirus with zoonotic potential (J Virol) Letters read on TWiV 532 Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Weekly Science Picks Alan - Retraction Watch database Rich- “The Mayo Clinic: Faith Hope Science” by Ken Burns Kathy- U-M EEB Photographer at Large contest Vincent - Vaccines: An achievement of civilization Listener Pick David- Useless Knowledge Begets New Horizons Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees. Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

You've heard of fake news, but what about fake science? The shocking, shady world of the modern scientific marketplace. A special for ABC RN's China In Focus series featuring Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch and guests.

This week we make predictions regarding upcoming books by Edzard Ernst, talk about the future of fact-checking, discuss the works of Peter Boghosian, remember the father of LSD Albert Hofmann, then go on to our news items including the wrong-doings of Paolo Macchiarini, the measles epidemic in Sweden, the latest Swedish Skeptic Awards, how Facebook could be used to prevent disease outbreaks, the ‘Turmeric story', Psiram the German wiki of irrational believes turns 10, year review of Retraction Watch, a book review on Science Based Medicine, The Conservative Tribune spreading misinformation about migration and ‘aminal brothels'. We finish with an important quote from Galileo Galilei.

Science is self-correcting in nature, but the mechanism for correcting the literature could be more transparent. In 2010, Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus recognized this transparency issue and launched the blog Retraction Watch to shed light on what happened with these retracted research articles. In this episode of PLOScast, Ivan and Elizabeth Seiver talk about Retraction Watch and how retractions can sometimes provide valuable insight into the scientific process.

This week, we present two stories from science journalists about the ways the ways we perceive -- or misperceive -- the world around us.  Part 1: When science journalist Eli Chen begins to have doubts in her relationship, she tries to control her feelings using neuroscience. Part 2: Just out of college, Shannon Palus takes a public relations internship at a nuclear energy lab in Idaho. Eli Chen is the science and environment reporter at St. Louis Public Radio, as well as the producer of The Story Collider's shows in St. Louis in partnership with the public radio station. Her work has aired on NPR, Marketplace, WHYY’s The Pulse and won Edward R. Murrow and National Federation of Press Women awards. Her favorite stories to cover often involve animals or robots. She has a master’s degree in journalism from the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism, where she concentrated in science and radio reporting. She is @StoriesByEli and echen@stlpublicradio.org. Shannon Palus's writing has appeared in Slate, Discover, Popular Science, Retraction Watch, and many other publications. She's a staff writer at Wirecutter, a product review website owned by the New York Times Company. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Cara is joined Ivan Oransky, MD, cofounder of “Retraction Watch.” They discuss his path from medicine to science journalism and the important work he’s doing shedding light on falsified, fabricated, fraudulent, and plagiarized articles in the scientific literature. Follow Ivan: @ivanoransky.

Cara is joined Ivan Oransky, MD, cofounder of “Retraction Watch.” They discuss his path from medicine to science journalism and the important work he’s doing shedding light on falsified, fabricated, fraudulent, and plagiarized articles in the scientific literature. Follow Ivan: @ivanoransky.

When researchers publish a new study on chronic fatigue syndrome, a group of patients cry foul—and decide to investigate for themselves. A landmark study on chronic fatigue syndrome sets off a multi-year battle between patients and scientists. On one side, we have a team of psychiatrists who have researched the condition for decades, and have peer-reviewed studies to back up their conclusions. On the other, a group of patients who know this condition more intimately than anyone and set out to expose what they think is bad science.     (Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)   A note to our listeners: This episode references studies that are both controversial and complex. Our interest is always to provide accurate and complete information to our listeners, and to provide context in which the science we cover can be understood. To that end, we’d like to share additional information on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Two systematic reviews (studies of studies) by The Cochrane Collaboration examine cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise as treatments for ME/CFS. These may help contextualize the findings of the PACE trial and aid our listeners in drawing their own conclusions.   GUESTS Julie Rehmeyer, author of "Through the Shadowlands" Michael Sharpe professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University David Tuller, journalist and visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley Ivan Oransky, journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch   FOOTNOTES The PACE trial home page, includes trial materials, FAQ, and links to the papers that came out of the trial. The PACE trial data and readme file. Virology Blog including David Tuller’s original three part series criticizing PACE (“Trial by Error”), as well as responses from the authors, and more. Patients’ first reanalysis (published on the Virology Blog) of the PACE recovery paper. They later published the re-analysis in the journal Fatigue and the PACE researchers responded to the patients’ re-analysis. PLOS ONE expression of concern, including a response from the authors. Retraction Watch’s recap of the legal proceedings regarding Alem Matthees’ request for anonymized trial data.   CREDITS This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton. Fact-checking help by Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky.  

When researchers publish a new study on chronic fatigue syndrome, a group of patients cry foul—and decide to investigate for themselves. A landmark study on chronic fatigue syndrome sets off a multi-year battle between patients and scientists. On one side, we have a team of psychiatrists who have researched the condition for decades, and have peer-reviewed studies to back up their conclusions. On the other, a group of patients who know this condition more intimately than anyone and set out to expose what they think is bad science.     (Original art by Claire Merchlinsky)   A note to our listeners: This episode references studies that are both controversial and complex. Our interest is always to provide accurate and complete information to our listeners, and to provide context in which the science we cover can be understood. To that end, we’d like to share additional information on the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy as treatments for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Two systematic reviews (studies of studies) by The Cochrane Collaboration examine cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise as treatments for ME/CFS. These may help contextualize the findings of the PACE trial and aid our listeners in drawing their own conclusions.   GUESTS Julie Rehmeyer, author of "Through the Shadowlands" Michael Sharpe professor of psychological medicine at Oxford University David Tuller, journalist and visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley Ivan Oransky, journalist and co-founder of Retraction Watch   FOOTNOTES The PACE trial home page, includes trial materials, FAQ, and links to the papers that came out of the trial. The PACE trial data and readme file. Virology Blog including David Tuller’s original three part series criticizing PACE (“Trial by Error”), as well as responses from the authors, and more. Patients’ first reanalysis (published on the Virology Blog) of the PACE recovery paper. They later published the re-analysis in the journal Fatigue and the PACE researchers responded to the patients’ re-analysis. PLOS ONE expression of concern, including a response from the authors. Retraction Watch’s recap of the legal proceedings regarding Alem Matthees’ request for anonymized trial data.   CREDITS This episode of Undiscovered was reported and produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff. Editing by Christopher Intagliata. Thanks to Science Friday’s Danielle Dana, Christian Skotte, Brandon Echter, and Rachel Bouton. Fact-checking help by Michelle Harris. Original music by Daniel Peterschmidt. Our theme music is by I am Robot and Proud. Art for this episode by Claire Merchlinsky.  

With minor changes having taken effect in the segments of our podcast, here we are with a new episode on which we talked about an Italian psychic, Facebook taking on fake news, Science Busters releasing the video featuring James Randi, Wikipedia vs Acupuncturist, Swedish skeptical awards announced and Retraction Watch having had a great year! If you're interested in the events happening across Europe, please visit our calendar page at http://theesp.eu/Events_in_Europe This week's logical fallacy is Tokenism and it was the Swedish Democrats who've been really wrong this time.

Ivan Oransky is the co-founder (with his colleague Adam Marcus) of Retraction Watch, a website that tracks retractions in the scientific literature. This episode was recorded during Ivan's visit to Georgia Tech to give the Phillips 66 / C.J. "Pete" Silas Program in Ethics and Leadership lecture. We discussed his motivations for starting Retraction Watch, the reasons for the rising number of retractions, and what drives (a very small number of) scientists to commit fraud.Show details: • Hosted and edited by Michael Filler (@michaelfiller) • Recorded on August 31, 2016 • Show notes are available at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/archive/18 • Submit feedback at http://www.fillerlab.com/nanovation/feedback

Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch and global editorial director at MedPage Today, discusses which areas of science are most affected by research fraud, and what motivates individuals to risk their careers by fabricating data.

This episode Derek has a discussion with Dr. Ivan Oransky, MD. Dr. Oransky is the global editorial editor for MedPage Today, and co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site which reports on scientific integrity, fraud, and other issues. He previously was executive editor of Reuters Health and held an editorial position at Scientific American and The Scientist. His main passion is the promotion of science based medicine and encouraging those in the medical field to use a more common sense approach to diagnosis and focus less on 'pre-conditions' and possible symptoms of less-than-certain diseases.

Masculine masks: what a bushy beard says about a man's attitudes to women, and why a hit of the male hormone testosterone could have you reaching for your make up bag. Download the MP3 NOTE (8th Feb 2016): The scientists behind the testosterone and make up research have voluntarily retracted their paper. For more information, visit Retraction Watch. Rate me! Rate, review, or listen in iTunes or in Stitcher. Read the transcript! Feeling Hormonal? Slap on the Makeup Are Bearded Men More Sexist? Eurovision winner, Conchita Wurst. Pretty much the perfect image for a podcast about beards and make up. Alexander Gotter/FlickrThe articles covered in the show: Fisher, C. I., Hahn, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (in press). Women’s preference for attractive makeup tracks changes in their salivary testosterone. Psychological Science. Read summaryOldmeadow, J. A., & Dixson, B. J. (in press). The association between men’s sexist attitudes and facial hair. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Read summary

TSK Chef Michael Clarke talks with Ivan Oransky, the co-founder and editor of Retraction Watch, about the blog and its influence, how retractions come to light, how the community responds to retractions for misconduct versus retractions for honest errors, and more.

When science journalist Ivan Oransky co-founded Retraction Watch, a blog with the express purpose of making scientific retractions more public, he didn’t think he would be posting much. “Adam Marcus, my co-founder, was quoted as saying, ‘yeah, we figured we’d post periodically, our mothers would read it, they’d be very happy, nobody would read it other than them.’ Obviously that hasn’t been the case,” says Oransky in this first of a series of podcasts on scientific integrity.

Ivan Oransky is vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today and co-founder of Retraction Watch. On the show this week we talk to Oransky about retractions and the gospel of the scientific paper.iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/inquiring-minds/id711675943RSS: feeds.feedburner.com/inquiring-mindsStitcher: stitcher.com/podcast/inquiring-mindsTumblr: http://inquiringshow.tumblr.com

Today on the show, writer Mike Sacks explains how it’s easier than ever to begin a career in comedy. In his book Poking a Dead Frog, Sacks asks comedians to explain their process without killing their humor. Plus, Dru Johnston reads his essay “I Think I Should Get More Credit for Killing Hitler” from the Occasional. And Ivan Oransky of MedPage Today and Retraction Watch unwraps the illicit world of peer-review fakery. Get The Gist by email as soon as it’s available: slate.com/GistEmail Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/slate…id873667927?mt=2 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Interview with Ian O'Neill; This Day in Skepticism: Isaac Asimov; News Items: Fairy Circle Update, Zombie Parasites, Retraction Watch, Genetic Transistors, Prescribing Placebos; Who's That Noisy; Science or Fiction

Interview with Ian O'Neill; This Day in Skepticism: Isaac Asimov; News Items: Fairy Circle Update, Zombie Parasites, Retraction Watch, Genetic Transistors, Prescribing Placebos; Who's That Noisy; Science or Fiction