- Email: [email protected]
Comment: Reaching for the stars
OPINION
Beating the cheats The case of the fraudster dubbed the “medical Madoff” shows that we need a new anti-corruption regime, says fraudbuster Eugenie Samuel Reich FOR 13 years, Scott Reuben was at the top of his profession. An anaesthesiologist at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, he was an influential figure in the treatment of post-operative pain. But in March, Reuben was exposed as a fraud. An internal audit found that he had faked 21 of his studies. As a result of his misconduct, thousands of patients may have been treated with drugs that did nothing to aid their recovery. When the fraud came to light, the editor-in-chief of the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published 10 of the fraudulent papers, was quoted saying that he couldn’t fathom Reuben’s behaviour. “The act of fabricating data is so difficult for me to comprehend,” Steven Shafer told The Boston Globe. The journal was informed of the fraud on 22 January and notified its readers around a month later. April that the journal eventually Shafer’s bafflement seems retracted three of the papers. surprising. As in all spheres of It is too much to expect life, science has its fair share of wrongdoers. Fraud has always been journals to spot all fraudulent part of the scientific landscape. research in advance, or to come Yet stunned inaction in the face to an instant conclusion on papers of misconduct allegations is not “If journal editors have uncommon. In 2005, when New anything to fear from fraud Scientist uncovered irregularities it is that they look complicit in research published in the when it comes to light” journal Immunity by Luk Van Parijs, the journal took no action. The California Institute of containing alleged fraud. But Technology, where Van Parijs had editors could make a difference worked, informed Immunity of the by taking prompt action. problem in 2007. It still took no They can do this as soon as action. In January this year, the US concerns arise. In 2005, when The Department of Health and Human New England Journal of Medicine Services revealed details in the learned of problems with a study Federal Register, but it wasn’t until it had published on the recently 22 | NewScientist | 2 May 2009
rejected a technical comment that would have cast doubt on Schon’s work six months before the fraud emerged. If editors have anything to fear from scientific fraud, it is that they look complicit or incompetent when it comes to light. The number-one way to combat this is to be less astonished and more prepared to challenge and correct research in the same journal that published it. ■ Eugenie Samuel Reich’s book, Plastic Fantastic: How the biggest fraud in physics shook the scientific world, is published by Palgrave Macmillan this month
3… 2… 1… aaaaaargh! withdrawn drug Vioxx, it responded by publishing an “expression of concern”. The study has not been retracted but the expression of concern stands. Similarly, when New Scientist exposed problems with stem cell research at the University of Minnesota, the journal Blood used a “notice of concern” to flag the research until investigations were complete. The paper in question was eventually retracted. Another tool is the technical comment, in which independent experts are given room to dispute a finding. In the case of Jan Hendrik Schon, the physics fraudster whose case I cover in my book, editors at Nature
As the most important space-science launch for decades approaches, Stuart Clark is chewing his fingernails LATER this month, the European Space Agency will launch two long-anticipated scientific missions, Herschel and Planck. It is difficult to overstate the importance of these probes. They are space science as it used to be: big and bold – and risky. Not for decades has there been so much riding on a rocket launch, literally and metaphorically. The Herschel Space Observatory
Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion
Stuart Clark is a writer based in the UK. He is author of The Sun Kings (Princeton University Press)
Viewfinder Opinions from around the world “Hardly anyone is overweight by choice. If people can’t stop themselves from overeating for the sake of their health, they won’t be able to stop for the sake of the biosphere.” George Monbiot in The Guardian, London, on research showing that obesity is bad for the environment
“The difference between SERE and the Bush interrogation program is the difference between S&M and rape. There is no consent.” William Saletan in Slate, contesting the US army’s claim that waterboarding is acceptable because it is inflicted on their own soldiers during training in survival, evasion, resistance and escape (SERE)
“Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists’ arguments by using the term ‘theory’ when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law.” Robin A. Cox in a reader letter to Scientific American
Good week for… The Great Wall of China A mapping study has uncovered an extra 300 kilometres of wall which had been buried by sand. The rediscovered section was built during the Ming dynasty
Bad week for… Renée Zellweger A test of Google’s new “similar images” function found 16 pictures of her when the BBC searched for images of UK politician John Prescott, not usually known for his Hollywood looks TIM HALL/AXIOM
is an infrared telescope almost four times as big as its NASA rival (see New Scientist, 4 April, p 32), Spitzer. Planck will map the aftermath of the big bang with a precision that NASA’s scientists can only dream of. Separately, each is a major mission. Together, they constitute a landmark in astrophysics. The probes could revolutionise our understanding of the cosmos. If everything goes to plan, Herschel and Plank will dominate space science for at least five years. But if the launch goes wrong… With science budgets shrinking, launching two such important missions on the same rocket smacks of madness, especially given that the launcher, an Ariane 5 rocket, has suffered a couple of high-profile and expensive failures. In 1996, a computer bug caused the loss of ESA’s Cluster mission, which was rebuilt at a cost of €315 million. In 2002, a commercial launch exploded, forcing ESA to delay its Rosetta mission and costing it a further €100 million. With the combined bill for Herschel and Planck coming in at more than €2 billion, it is nearinconceivable that they will be rebuilt if something goes wrong. Their loss would leave ESA reeling. The agency has other missions in the pipeline, including a mission to Mercury and a star-mapping project called Gaia. These have excellent scientific potential but they somehow seem small in comparison. In short, if we lose Herschel and Planck, the heart of ESA’s – and arguably the world’s – space science programme would be ripped out. Let us all wish ESA the very best of luck. The next truly big launch is not until 2013 at the earliest, when the NASA-led James Webb Space Telescope takes to the skies – on an Ariane 5 rocket. ■
Essential numbers
98
per cent of supermarket products touted as green are actually “greenwash”, a survey by environmental marketing agency TerraChoice concludes 2 May 2009 | NewScientist | 23
Beating the cheats The case of the fraudster dubbed the “medical Madoff” shows that we need a new anti-corruption regime, says fraudbuster Eugenie Samuel Reich FOR 13 years, Scott Reuben was at the top of his profession. An anaesthesiologist at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, he was an influential figure in the treatment of post-operative pain. But in March, Reuben was exposed as a fraud. An internal audit found that he had faked 21 of his studies. As a result of his misconduct, thousands of patients may have been treated with drugs that did nothing to aid their recovery. When the fraud came to light, the editor-in-chief of the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, which published 10 of the fraudulent papers, was quoted saying that he couldn’t fathom Reuben’s behaviour. “The act of fabricating data is so difficult for me to comprehend,” Steven Shafer told The Boston Globe. The journal was informed of the fraud on 22 January and notified its readers around a month later. April that the journal eventually Shafer’s bafflement seems retracted three of the papers. surprising. As in all spheres of It is too much to expect life, science has its fair share of wrongdoers. Fraud has always been journals to spot all fraudulent part of the scientific landscape. research in advance, or to come Yet stunned inaction in the face to an instant conclusion on papers of misconduct allegations is not “If journal editors have uncommon. In 2005, when New anything to fear from fraud Scientist uncovered irregularities it is that they look complicit in research published in the when it comes to light” journal Immunity by Luk Van Parijs, the journal took no action. The California Institute of containing alleged fraud. But Technology, where Van Parijs had editors could make a difference worked, informed Immunity of the by taking prompt action. problem in 2007. It still took no They can do this as soon as action. In January this year, the US concerns arise. In 2005, when The Department of Health and Human New England Journal of Medicine Services revealed details in the learned of problems with a study Federal Register, but it wasn’t until it had published on the recently 22 | NewScientist | 2 May 2009
rejected a technical comment that would have cast doubt on Schon’s work six months before the fraud emerged. If editors have anything to fear from scientific fraud, it is that they look complicit or incompetent when it comes to light. The number-one way to combat this is to be less astonished and more prepared to challenge and correct research in the same journal that published it. ■ Eugenie Samuel Reich’s book, Plastic Fantastic: How the biggest fraud in physics shook the scientific world, is published by Palgrave Macmillan this month
3… 2… 1… aaaaaargh! withdrawn drug Vioxx, it responded by publishing an “expression of concern”. The study has not been retracted but the expression of concern stands. Similarly, when New Scientist exposed problems with stem cell research at the University of Minnesota, the journal Blood used a “notice of concern” to flag the research until investigations were complete. The paper in question was eventually retracted. Another tool is the technical comment, in which independent experts are given room to dispute a finding. In the case of Jan Hendrik Schon, the physics fraudster whose case I cover in my book, editors at Nature
As the most important space-science launch for decades approaches, Stuart Clark is chewing his fingernails LATER this month, the European Space Agency will launch two long-anticipated scientific missions, Herschel and Planck. It is difficult to overstate the importance of these probes. They are space science as it used to be: big and bold – and risky. Not for decades has there been so much riding on a rocket launch, literally and metaphorically. The Herschel Space Observatory
Comment on these stories at www.NewScientist.com/opinion
Stuart Clark is a writer based in the UK. He is author of The Sun Kings (Princeton University Press)
Viewfinder Opinions from around the world “Hardly anyone is overweight by choice. If people can’t stop themselves from overeating for the sake of their health, they won’t be able to stop for the sake of the biosphere.” George Monbiot in The Guardian, London, on research showing that obesity is bad for the environment
“The difference between SERE and the Bush interrogation program is the difference between S&M and rape. There is no consent.” William Saletan in Slate, contesting the US army’s claim that waterboarding is acceptable because it is inflicted on their own soldiers during training in survival, evasion, resistance and escape (SERE)
“Scientists have, to some extent, contributed to creationists’ arguments by using the term ‘theory’ when referring to evolution. It is not a theory but an established law.” Robin A. Cox in a reader letter to Scientific American
Good week for… The Great Wall of China A mapping study has uncovered an extra 300 kilometres of wall which had been buried by sand. The rediscovered section was built during the Ming dynasty
Bad week for… Renée Zellweger A test of Google’s new “similar images” function found 16 pictures of her when the BBC searched for images of UK politician John Prescott, not usually known for his Hollywood looks TIM HALL/AXIOM
is an infrared telescope almost four times as big as its NASA rival (see New Scientist, 4 April, p 32), Spitzer. Planck will map the aftermath of the big bang with a precision that NASA’s scientists can only dream of. Separately, each is a major mission. Together, they constitute a landmark in astrophysics. The probes could revolutionise our understanding of the cosmos. If everything goes to plan, Herschel and Plank will dominate space science for at least five years. But if the launch goes wrong… With science budgets shrinking, launching two such important missions on the same rocket smacks of madness, especially given that the launcher, an Ariane 5 rocket, has suffered a couple of high-profile and expensive failures. In 1996, a computer bug caused the loss of ESA’s Cluster mission, which was rebuilt at a cost of €315 million. In 2002, a commercial launch exploded, forcing ESA to delay its Rosetta mission and costing it a further €100 million. With the combined bill for Herschel and Planck coming in at more than €2 billion, it is nearinconceivable that they will be rebuilt if something goes wrong. Their loss would leave ESA reeling. The agency has other missions in the pipeline, including a mission to Mercury and a star-mapping project called Gaia. These have excellent scientific potential but they somehow seem small in comparison. In short, if we lose Herschel and Planck, the heart of ESA’s – and arguably the world’s – space science programme would be ripped out. Let us all wish ESA the very best of luck. The next truly big launch is not until 2013 at the earliest, when the NASA-led James Webb Space Telescope takes to the skies – on an Ariane 5 rocket. ■
Essential numbers
98
per cent of supermarket products touted as green are actually “greenwash”, a survey by environmental marketing agency TerraChoice concludes 2 May 2009 | NewScientist | 23