Two items of note, including one from obit writer Bryan Marquard on a patient who survived Mass General’s first living-donor double-lung transplant which was “so new that no one could venture odds for long-term survival.Mr. Bean was 20 that July day as he lay on the operating table, helping advance science as much as he hoped to extend his life. He was 38 when he died in Mass. General on April 14, several months after his body began to reject the transplanted lungs and complications set in.”
And from Carolyn Y. Johnson’s always solid but hard-to- find science blog. Read it inside the Monday business section. Good luck finding it online. Here’s some help:
Something would turn out to be wrong with both papers. Where these two tales diverge is how these problems have been handled.
In the weeks since the paper describing the acid bath technique was published in the journal Nature, it has been thoroughly — and publicly — picked apart. Several of its Japanese authors have held press conferences. The president of the RIKEN research institution in Tokyo, where many of the authors work, has apologized to the scientific community, prefacing his public remarks with a deep bow. RIKEN has released detailed reports and been specific about what portions of the paper it was investigating and what was found. It publicly accused a young scientist named Haruko Obokata of fraud, a finding she is appealing.
The incident has sparked a national discussion about the state of science in Japan and the need to ensure high standards in order not to lose the world’s trust.
In contrast, the 2012 paper was withdrawn in April without fanfare: a barebones retraction notice posted by the journal Circulation stated an institutional review had found that the paper contains unspecified “compromised” data. No details were provided about what was wrong with the data.