archive: SETI SCIENCE-WEEK EXPRESS April 30, 1999
SETI SCIENCE-WEEK EXPRESS April 30, 1999
Larry Klaes ( lklaes@bbn.com )
Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:55:21 -0400
>From: "Science-Week" <prismx@scienceweek.com>
>Organization: Science-Week
>To: prismx@scienceweek.com
>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:53:31 -0600
>X-Distribution: Bulk
>X-Total-Enclosures: 1
>X-Enclosure-Info: DOS,"SCIWEXP.TXT",,,,Text
>Subject: SCIENCE-WEEK EXPRESS April 30, 1999
>Reply-to: prismx@scienceweek.com
>Priority: normal
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------- Enclosure number 1 ----------------
>SCIENCE-WEEK EXPRESS
>
>An Abridged Version of ScienceWeek
>(see below for full SW contents)
>
>A Weekly Email Digest of the News of Science
>
>A journal devoted to the improvement of communication
>between the scientific disciplines, and between scientists,
>science educators, and science policy makers.
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>We may or may not be majestic as a species,
>but if one considers an astronomer sitting alone
>on a cold night at a telescope on a mountain top,
>one must conclude we are certainly obsessed with
>knowing what and where we are.
>-- Anonymous
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Contents of this Issue of ScienceWeek Express:
>
>April 30, 1999
>----------------
>
>-- On Fraud in Science
>-- Evidence for Lack of Protective Effect of Dietary Fiber
>
>See below for complete contents of current full-text ScienceWeek.
>Each report in ScienceWeek Express is intact and unabridged.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>Announcement:
>Beginning August 1, 1999 the subscription fee for full-text
>ScienceWeek will increase to $20 per year (52 issues). But until
>August 1st we are accepting subscriptions for 1 or more years at
>the current rate of US$10. So if you intend to subscribe to
>full-text ScienceWeek, we suggest you take advantage of the
>current rate for substantial savings. For your convenience, we
>have appended to this file instructions for subscription payment.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>ON FRAUD IN SCIENCE
>There are two prevalent myths concerning scientific fraud: The
>first myth states that since most scientific experiments are
>replicated by other laboratories, science is self-correcting
>because the discovery of fraud involving the fabrication of data
>is inevitable. The second myth is that scientific papers
>involving fabrication of data are extremely rare, with only a few
>fraudulent papers published in any one year. Concerning the first
>myth, it is not true that all or even most published experiments
>are sooner or later replicated. What is true is that research
>results that are of apparent great significance will probably be
>replicated, but not other research results. These days, in the
>front lines of fast-moving fields in science, few laboratory
>heads are inclined to waste precious manpower and funds simply
>replicating the work of others: the most successful research
>strategy is to assume the relevant published product of other
>laboratories is honest and take the next step, or better yet the
>step after that, in the push to solve a hot problem. Concerning
>the second myth, the evidence that exists suggests the number of
>scientific papers involving fabricated data published each year
>may involve hundreds and perhaps thousands of publications. For
>example, the Office of Research Integrity of the US National
>Institutes of Health (NIH) found that between 1993 and 1997, 61
>researchers receiving its grants were involved in the fabrication
>of data. The total number of NIH grants during the same period
>was approximately 150,000. These figures produce a fabrication
>rate for published papers of 0.0004, assuming each research grant
>produced on average the same number of papers. This fabrication
>rate concerns the biomedical sciences in the US (the area with
>which NIH is concerned), but there is no evidence of a lower rate
>in other areas of science. In 1998, the top 5600 scientific
>journals published approximately 1 million articles, and it is
>estimated this is approximately one-tenth of the total world
>output. Considering only the top 1 million publications and
>applying the fabrication rate derived from the NIH evidence, we
>find the expected number of publications each year in all
>scientific fields involving fabricated data is approximately 400
>papers for the top 5600 journals, and perhaps as much as 10 times
>that if all scientific journals are considered. It is certainly
>true that these estimates involve some assumptions; it is also
>true that a small fabrication rate applied to a large number of
>published articles will yield a significant number of fraudulent
>publications. In general, the idea that only a few fraudulent
>scientific papers are published each year is probably a complete
>fallacy. ... ... Alison Abbott (_Nature_) presents an extensive
>review of official handling of the problem of scientific
>misconduct (especially the problem of scientific fraud), the
>author making the following points: 1) Although the incidence of
>proven scientific fraud remains low, several high-profile cases
>have convinced the research community of the need for effective
>action, in particular by enforcing codes of good laboratory
>practice. 2) The extent of scientific misconduct of the
>"fabrication-falsification-plagiarism" type is hotly debated in
>both the US and Europe. Some scientists fear that publicized
>cases are merely the tip of an iceberg. Others remain convinced
>that the overall incidence remains low, and even those with
>direct experience of misconduct cases are often optimistic. 3) In
>one survey, published in _American Scientist_ in 1993, between 6
>and 9 percent of respondents said they were personally aware of
>results that had been plagiarized or fabricated within their
>faculties. 4) Many journal editors believe that breaches of the
>traditional ethics of scientific publication are increasing, but
>few editors are confident of how they should react. 5) Last year,
>two foundations in Germany set up a project to determine how many
>of the 550 journal papers and 80-odd book chapters written by two
>German cancer researchers, Friedhelm Herrmann and Marion Brach
>(see SW background material below), and some of their former
>colleagues, included apparently fabricated data. Investigating
>committees have already identified 58 papers by Herrmann and
>Brach that involve apparently fabricated data, but investigation
>of the publications is only 20 percent finished. The
>investigation will take months to complete, and the intention is
>to publish the results in an international journal.
>-----------
>Alison Abbott: Science comes to terms with the lessons of fraud.
>(Nature 4 Mar 99 398:13)
>Alison Abbott [a.abbott@nature.com]
>-------------------
>Summary by SCIENCE-WEEK [http://scienceweek.com] 30Apr99
>-------------------
>Related Background:
>RESEARCH FRAUD SCANDAL IN GERMANY: AN UPDATE
>What has been called in Germany and elsewhere "Germany's biggest
>ever scientific fraud" is apparently still without closure. The
>essence of the case (details are provided in the attached
>background material) is the involvement of 2 molecular
>biologists, Marion Brach and Friedhelm Herrmann (who both worked
>and lived together during their scientific collaboration at
>Harvard, Freiburg, and Berlin), in an alleged systematic
>fabrication of data in 37 publications over a 9 year period
>ending in 1996. It is now nearly 2 years after the affair was
>first revealed, but no case has yet been brought to court.
>Prosecutors in Germany are evidently finding it more difficult
>than expected to bring charges against the two scientists
>involved, both of whom achieved full professorships on the basis
>of the apparently fraudulent research reports. After being
>dismissed as full professor at the University of Lubeck in 1997
>(she assumed the post in 1996), Brach evidently left Germany and
>she is now reported to be working in New York. Herrmann resigned
>his professorship at the University of Ulm and now works in
>private medical practice in Munich. Herrmann continues to deny
>any involvement in misconduct, and says the failure to bring
>charges against him is proof of his innocence. Meanwhile
>Germany's main university research funding agency, Deutsche
>Forschungsgemeinschaft, has set up a task force to determine the
>"full extent of any scientific damage" caused by the alleged
>fraudulent publications.
>-----------
>A. Abbott (*Nature*)
>German scientists may escape fraud trial.
>(Nature 8 Oct 98 395:532)
>QY: Alison Abbot [a.abbott@nature.com]
>-------------------
>Summary by SCIENCE-WEEK [http://scienceweek.com] 6Nov98
>-------------------
>Related Background:
>ABDERHALDEN'S FRAUD REVISITED
>Last year was not a good year for German biological and medical
>science, since 1997 was marked by a major fraud scandal involving
>two full professors apparently involved in the fabrication of
>data published in dozens of scientific papers during a 9-year
>period. That story is not yet finished (see background material
>below). Now from Germany comes the publication of a "commentary"
>by two scientists, U. Deichmann and B. Muller-Hill, the
>commentary revisiting what has come to be considered the
>fraudulent career of German scientist Emil Abderhalden
>(1877-1950). Abderhalden was a biochemist involved in designing
>tests for various clinical disease entities, the tests involving
>what he called "defense enzymes" (Abwehrfermente), enzymes which
>he claimed to have identified, and which according to his
>analyses were specific proteases produced when humans were
>challenged by foreign proteins. During the years 1912 to 1950,
>Abderhalden enjoyed the status of one of the most eminent
>scientists in Germany, was professor of physiology and
>physiological chemistry at Halle University, president of the
>oldest German academy of science (the Leopoldina), editor of
>several journals, and author of several books and more than 1000
>research papers -- and all of this notwithstanding, the consensus
>today is that nearly all of his research on the so-called
>"defense enzymes" was completely fraudulent, with scores of
>colleagues and underlings either explicitly or implicitly
>colluding in the fraud over a period of decades. It is an ugly
>story with political tangents (e.g., Joseph Mengele, the
>notorious Auschwitz doctor, was one of Abderhalden's proteges).
>In their commentary, Deichmann and Muller-Hill conclude: "The
>elite of today [the biomedical elite in Germany] are loyal
>students of the old elite, and they have learned and internalized
>the old values. Has medical, clinical science in Germany today
>really changed that much? We doubt it. The Brach-Herrmann-
>Mertelsmann affair provides a brief glimpse into the abyss of
>medical science in Germany. Will it be soon forgotten by the
>German medical elite, or will there be real change in the spirit
>of true science?" [Editor's note: Roland Mertelsmann, Professor
>Herrmann's department head, was co-author of 25 suspected papers
>produced by Herrmann, but has pleaded non-involvement in the
>research.]
>QY: Ute Deichmann, Institute of Genetics, Cologne University,
>Weyertal 121, 50931, Koeln, DE.
>(Nature 14 May 98 393:109) (Science-Week 5 Jun 98)
>-------------------
>Related Background:
>GERMAN RESEARCHER ADMITS FRAUD AND CHARGES ACADEMIC COVER-UP
>Producing another chapter in the scientific fraud case that has
>caused an apparent sensation in Germany, Marion A. Brach, one of
>the accused scientists, has published a letter in the journal
>*Nature* in which she points out the following: 1) She has
>confessed to falsifying scientific papers; 2) she has resigned
>her position as a full professor at the University of Lubeck; 3)
>she does not believe further victimization is appropriate; 4) she
>has concluded that the various German investigating commissions
>met only with the intention of limiting damage to the German
>academic community rather than with the intention of discovering
>the full extent of culpability; 5) the German government has
>reneged on its legal agreement to provide her with severance pay
>following her early confession and resignation; 6) official
>bodies have found it expedient to imply that she was the major or
>only culprit in the affair.
>QY: Marion A. Brach, c/o Walter F. Kalthoff, Pacellistr. 14,
>D-80333, Muenchen, DE.
>(Nature 2 Apr 98) (Science-Week 17 Apr 98)
>-------------------
>Related Background:
>MORE DEVELOPMENTS IN GERMAN SCIENTIFIC FRAUD CASE
>The scientific fraud case that has been shocking the German
>intellectual community these past months, and which is claimed to
>be the worst case of scientific fraud in that country since 1945,
>continues to be a public spectacle. The scandal involves two
>German molecular biologists, Marion Brach (who has resigned as a
>Professor at Lubeck University), and Friedhelm Herrmann (a
>suspended Professor at Ulm University). Brach has admitted
>falsifying published data while she worked under the supervision
>of Herrmann at the Max Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine a
>few years ago. Herrmann claims he is only a clinician and had
>nothing to do with the laboratory bench work. Herrmann is a
>prominent hematologist and a leading genetic therapy researcher.
>The two biologists had worked together for some time, and each
>received professorships on the basis of that work. (Herrmann's
>salary was apparently US$278,000 per year). Now it has been
>announced that Herrmann is suing various academic investigators
>in the case for DM10 million (US5.6 million) in compensation for
>damage to his career. In addition, there is now a claim by a new
>investigation team that the two accused researchers also
>published falsified data earlier in their careers.
>(Nature 11 Sep) (Science-Week 26 Sep 97)
>-------------------
>AN UPROAR OVER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD IN GERMANY
>The German scientific community was rocked by scandal this
>spring, and the resulting repercussions are apparently not yet
>complete. The brouhaha involves two German molecular biologists,
>Marion Brach (recently resigned as a Professor at Lubeck
>University), and Friedhelm Herrmann (a suspended Professor at Ulm
>University). Brach has admitted falsifying published data while
>she worked under the supervision of Herrmann at the Max Delbruck
>Center for Molecular Medicine a few years ago. Herrmann claims he
>is only a clinician and had nothing to do with the laboratory
>bench work. Herrmann is a prominent hematologist and a leading
>genetic therapy researcher. The two biologists have worked
>together for some time, and each received professorships on the
>basis of that work. All of that work is now being investigated,
>and the German government has established a commission of
>international scientific experts to discuss research standards
>and the procedures for scientific oversight in German and
>internationally.
>(Science 11 Jul 97) (Science-Week 18 Jul 97)
>
>
>EVIDENCE FOR LACK OF PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF DIETARY FIBER
>Denis P. Burkitt, who died in 1993, was a British physician in
>Uganda. In the 1970s, the rarity of colorectal cancer in Africa
>suggested to Burkitt that the high-fiber diet of Africans was
>protective against colorectal cancer. Since then, dietary fiber
>has been postulated to prevent colorectal cancer by diluting or
>adsorbing fecal carcinogens, reducing colonic transit time,
>altering *bile acid metabolism, reducing colonic pH, or
>increasing the production of short-chain fatty acids. Despite the
>intuitive appeal of Burkitt's hypothesis, epidemiologic studies
>of a possible link between dietary fiber and colorectal cancer
>have been inconclusive. ... ... C.S. Fuchs et al (8 authors at 2
>installations, US) now present the results of a long-term study
>of the subject. The authors report they conducted a study of
>88,757 women who were 34 to 59 years old, and who had no history
>of cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, or *familial polyposis.
>The women in the study (all registered nurses) completed a first
>dietary questionnaire in 1980, and then follow-up questionnaires
>every 2 years after that. During the 16-year follow-up period
>(1980-1996), 787 cases of colorectal cancer were documented. In
>addition, 1012 patients with *adenomas of the distal colon and
>rectum ware found among 27,530 participants who underwent
>*endoscopy during the follow-up period. The authors report that
>after adjustment for age, established risk factors, and total
>energy intake, they found no association between the intake of
>dietary fiber and the risk of colorectal cancer. The authors
>suggest their data do not support the existence of an important
>protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal cancer or
>adenoma. The authors conclude: "There are cogent reasons for
>increasing fiber intake, particularly the inverse association
>with coronary heart disease observed in many studies. However, we
>found no evidence to support the hypothesis that total dietary
>fiber intake is protective against colorectal cancer or adenoma."
>-----------
>C.S. Fuchs et al: Dietary fiber and the risk of colorectal cancer
>and adenoma in women.
>(New England J. Med. 21 Jan 99 340:169)
>QY: Charles S. Fuchs, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney
>St., Boston MA 02115 US.
>-----------
>Text Notes:
>... ... *bile acid metabolism: Bile is a yellowish brown or green
>fluid secreted by the liver and discharged into the beginning of
>the small intestine (duodenum) where it assists in the
>emulsification of fats, increases peristalsis, and retards
>putrefaction. (The term "peristalsis" refers to the regulated
>waves of alternating contraction and relaxation of the intestine
>that move its contents onward.)
>... ... *familial polyposis: (multiple intestinal polyposis) A
>genetic disorder often a precursor to colon cancer and
>characterized by multiple intestinal polyps.
>... ... *adenomas: An adenoma is an ordinarily benign neoplasm in
>which tumor cells form glands or glandular-like structures.
>... ... *endoscopy: In this context, examination of the interior
>of the distal colon and rectum with an endoscope. (The instrument
>used for deep colon examination is an extended endoscope and is
>usually called a "colonoscope". In this context, the term
>"distal" means away from the center of the body.)
>-------------------
>Summary & Notes by SCIENCE-WEEK [http://scienceweek.com] 23Apr99
>-------------------
>Related Background:
>A POSSIBLE NOVEL MECHANISM OF GENE MUTATION IN CANCER
>Tumor suppressor genes are genes whose absence or corruption
>allows a malignancy to manifest itself by permitting abnormal
>proliferation or differentiation at particular stages of cell
>growth. They are recessively acting genes, which means both
>alleles (i.e., both variants on homologous chromosomes) must be
>inactivated to cause loss of growth control. A number of tumor
>suppressor genes have been identified, some cloned and others
>still uncloned, and corruption or absence of these genes has been
>shown to be involved with various cancers, including breast
>cancer and colon cancer. The colon cancer tumor suppressor gene,
>a cloned gene, is called the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC)
>gene. It contains 8538 base pairs apparently coding for a 2843
>amino acid polypeptide found in cytoplasm. If the APC gene is
>severely mutated, serious colon cancer usually occurs before age
>40, which is the end result of an inherited disease called
>familial adenomatous polyposis. Now Bert Vogelstein and Kenneth
>Kinzler (Johns Hopkins University, US) report that even an
>extremely minor corruption of the APC gene, one that involves
>only a change from thymine to adenine at a single location, can
>result in colon cancer, but without the particular precancerous
>condition associated with the absence or severe corruption of
>APC. It is apparently not a dysfunction in the APC gene
>expression which produces these other colon cancers, but a
>misreading of the code on one or both sides of the gene,
>producing defects in the adjacent genes on replication, that
>evidently results in the other cancerous colon neoplasms. So the
>idea is that single DNA base mutations, which themselves are too
>trivial to effect the gene in which they occur, may produce
>severe frame-shifting errors (a type of code-reading error) in
>the replication of neighboring genes, and thus provoke
>pathological processes. Some researchers are saying this may a
>landmark study of a novel mechanism of cancer production.
>QY: B. Vogelstein, Johns Hopkins Univ. (410) 516-8171
>(Nature Genetics September 1997) (Science-Week 12 Sep 97)
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>Contents of the Current Full-Text Issue of SCIENCE-WEEK:
>
>April 30, 1999 -- Vol. 3 Number 18
>-----------------------------------------------
>1. On Fraud in Science
>2. On Quintessence and the Evolution of the Cosmological Constant
>3. Genesis and Evolution of the 1997-1998 El Nino
>4. On the Differentiation of Germ Cells
>5. A Molecular Phylogeny of Reptiles
>6. Evidence for Lack of Protective Effect of Dietary Fiber
>-- In Focus: On the Future of the Human Species
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>ScienceWeek Express is the free abridged version of
>ScienceWeek. Both publications are published each week and
>delivered via Email. To subscribe to ScienceWeek Express,
>simply transmit "SUB SWX" as the SUBJECT of an Email message to
>
> swx@scienceweek.com
>
>To unsubscribe, transmit "UNSUB SWX" as the
>SUBJECT of an Email message to the above Email address.
>
>FULL-TEXT SCIENCE-WEEK SUBSCRIPTIONS:
>Until August 1, 1999, the subscription fee for the full-text
>edition of ScienceWeek is US$10 per year, with Email delivery
>guaranteed. Complete information concerning a subscription to
>full-text ScienceWeek follows:
>
>SCIENCE-WEEK SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:
>--------------------------------------
>
>CREDIT CARD PAYMENT:
>
>Credit card payment (Visa, MasterCard, American Express)
>can be made at http://scienceweek.com/subinfo.htm
>
>As an alternative, the following information can be supplied by Email
>or regular mail or voice telephone or Fax:
>
>Your name:
>Duration of subscription (1 or more yrs. at US$10 per yr.):
>Your Email address:
>Type of credit card (Visa, MasterCard, or American Express):
>Credit card number:
>Credit card expiration date:
>Zip or postal code (if any) of your home address:
>
>Please note: The credit card charge will be by Spectrum Press, the
>publisher of SCIENCE-WEEK.
>
>For transmission of credit card information:
>Email: prismx@scienceweek.com
>Fax: 773-281-1419 (24 hrs.- 7 days)
>Voice phone: 888-281-1419 (toll-free US) (9am-5pm M-F CST)
> 773-281-1419 (outside US) (9am-5pm M-F CST)
>
>If you have PGP software, our public key is at
>http://scienceweek.com/pgp.txt
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>CHECK OR MONEY ORDER:
>
>To subscribe by check or money order (drawn in US funds on a US
>bank), please provide your name, Email address, subscription
>duration, along with a check or money order for US$10.00 per year
>payable to "Spectrum Press", and send it to:
>
>SCIENCE-WEEK/Spectrum Press
>3023 N. Clark Street #109
>Chicago, IL 60657
>USA
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>When we receive payment, we will confirm receipt with an Email
>message to your specified Email address.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>Editor/Publisher: Dan Agin
>Managing Editor: Claire Haller
>Associate Editor: Joan Oliner
>
>Copyright (c) 1997-1999 SCIENCE-WEEK/Spectrum Press Inc.
>All Rights Reserved
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>SCIENCE-WEEK EXPRESS may be freely copied, retransmitted, or
>displayed by nonprofit and educational institutions provided it
>is retransmitted intact and with no editing or abridgments. Any
>copying, retransmission or display by commercial installations
>is explicitly forbidden without the consent of the copyright
>holder. Queries to [editors@scienceweek.com], or to
>Spectrum Press Inc., 3023 N. Clark Street #109, Chicago, IL
>60657 USA.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>