Fraudulent Dancing

A paper was published by Nature in 2005 that quantified bodily symmetry of the human mating dance—that is, club music. Researchers from Rutgers went down to Jamaica and took motion-capture videos of people dancing, all to the same popular Jamaican song. The dancers were dotted with reflective markers so their moves could be put into a computer and quantified.

Here’s what those markers looked like.

They even had a nice little movie of a male polygon figure dancing to the song. This was the symmetrical dance while this was the asymmetrical dance. The symmetrical male was really getting into it, but the asymmetrical male just kind of bounced and shook his arms. To me it looked like the asymmetric dancer was cautious, not really getting into the dance, which could be a turn-off in the mating ritual. But researchers thought of this and gave the dancers a self-esteem test. Apparently, how you feel about your dancing doesn’t translate to how your dancing looks. They also found neither age nor BMI correlated to dancing ability. They did report that facial and bodily symmetry could predict how well a young man danced (the dance ability rated by Jamaican women and Rutgers students).

Now, almost 10 years later, they’ve retracted the paper with little explanation by Nature. It turns out that since 2007 one of the authors, Robert Trivers, has been unhappy with the study. He’s been trying to get the paper retracted for years.

In 2007, when a graduate student found that the study couldn’t be repeated, Trivers dived into the data. It turns out “not only were the values changed, they were not even internally consistent,” Trivers said. A case of fraud? It turns out yes. As Trivers has posted, “the fraudster William Brown and his chief supporter Lee Cronk” had been in charge of the data set and modified data points to make it look like their dance study had found something.

Note that Nature says none of this. They simply say:

We retract this Letter, which reported strong positive associations between symmetry and dancing ability in a group of young Jamaican men. K.G. could not be contacted.

This is not the first time Nature has hidden fraudulent behavior of their authors. David Vaux has a nice post on Retraction Watch talking this very subject. It’s all about brand management for these prestigious publications. They don’t want to lose credibility, so they sweep fraud under the rug either with vague retractions or blatantly ignoring misconduct. For some reason Nature News will report misconduct, while the actual journal ignores it.

One commenter on Retraction Watch had an interesting point—they said publications such as Nature and Science aren’t really academic journals, they’re more like magazines, “gatekeepers of the Hot New Things.” Maybe it would be better to consider such “journals” as magazines, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As long as they have prestige, scientists will still be eager to publish in them… even if it means faking it.

Scooped by a Ghost

Usually when you discover something new you wan’t your name on it. Especially if you beat someone to it. I win. Give me my recognition.

But Bruce Spiegelman, a cell biologist at Harvard Medical School’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, did just get scooped. He was scooped by a mystery man. A publication appeared in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications that was an exact mimic of his current—and what he thought was unique—research. He was pissed. You could call him a mad scientist.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MADMAN.jpg

How I imagine Spiegelman looked when he first saw the paper.

But it turns out the names on the paper are made up. The attributed school, the University of Thessaly, has no idea who these authors are. The email address of the corresponding author is from a domain called mail.com. That should have tipped the editor and reviewers off, but apparently no one bothered to check that these were real people.

Spiegelman insists that the information in the paper was taken from his own work, which he’s presented at 6 academic meetings. (Why he hasn’t gotten around to writing the paper yet, I don’t know.) Although the journal was withdrawn the paper, Spiegelman wants legal action. He wants to find out who wrote the paper and press charges.

What’s strange to me is that someone went to all this trouble to mess with him. The journal article is written well, obviously by a scientists, and argues valid points. After all, the results are real. They just belong to Spiegelman.

Was this a bitter competitor wanting to piss Spiegelman off? Was it an annoyed grad student who wanted to publish but Spiegelman was holding back for whatever reason? Whatever it was, they went to quite a bit of trouble. Passive aggressive science at its best.