A dedicated community of science sleuths is bringing overlooked research errors into the spotlight, unsettling some of the world’s most respected scientific institutions. With the aid of artificial intelligence, these independent investigators are more efficiently identifying flaws and potential misconduct in scientific research, raising the call for academic and publishing reform. High-profile cases involving prominent scientists, such as the former Stanford University president and leaders at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, have gained national attention, making science sleuths impossible for the research community to ignore.

 

The momentum of these revelations has editors and academic leaders bracing for new cases. “At the rate things are going, we expect another one of these to come up every few weeks,” remarked Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of *Science*. For sleuths, exposing errors is a vital step in correcting the scientific record and protecting future researchers from investing in dead-end inquiries based on flawed studies. Biologist Michael Eisen, a former editor of *eLife* and vocal advocate for change, expressed empathy for the sleuths, noting, “Everybody — the author, the journal, the institution, everybody — is incentivized to minimize the importance of these things.” 

 

For years, science sleuths identified problematic research images, posting findings on online forums like PubPeer, but often with limited response. A turning point came last summer when Stanford’s then-president, neuroscientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne, stepped down amid scrutiny of alleged image manipulation in his work. Though Tessier-Lavigne was cleared of direct misconduct, a report highlighted that some of his lab members had manipulated images in questionable ways. Another notable case surfaced this January when a blog post exposed image issues in studies by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute leaders, leading the institution to retract six articles and issue corrections on many others.

 

This surge in scrutiny has opened a national conversation on research integrity, further fueled by artificial intelligence advancements. New tools help sleuths detect a range of issues, from recent sloppiness to decades-old errors in scientific images. While this technology sharpens sleuths' capabilities, universities and journals are beginning to integrate similar tools in their own processes. Thorp shared that the *Science* journals have recently adopted an AI tool, Proofig, to screen submissions for image issues, quietly deploying it about six months before publicly announcing it in January. The tool has allowed the journal to reject papers with problematic images while permitting authors with logical explanations to address minor issues before publication.

 

Meanwhile, Chris Graf, research integrity director at Springer Nature, reported that they, too, are testing in-house AI software to spot image duplications. Though AI speeds up this work, he stressed the importance of human oversight, adding that “the human element of all our investigations is crucial” to guard against false positives.

 

Beyond individual errors, the uptick in retractions, which hit a record 10,000 last year according to *Nature*, signals a growing acknowledgment of these issues. Yet the increased vigilance has also stirred questions about motivations behind error-hunting efforts, especially as prominent figures discuss deploying AI to scrutinize research at institutions with ideological differences. Bill Ackman, a venture capitalist, recently raised the issue on X, suggesting AI could target leaders of prestigious universities for political motives. Eisen, however, does not believe the science sleuths are engaging in a “McCarthyist” hunt, stating, “I think they’ve been targeting a very specific type of problem in the literature, and they’re right — it’s bad.”

 

Despite these advancements, sleuths often grow frustrated at institutional inaction, with public critiques on platforms like PubPeer sometimes ignored. Dana-Farber research critic Sholto David admitted to largely “giving up” on notifying journal editors after receiving inadequate responses. Image sleuth Elisabeth Bik echoed the sentiment, describing her many attempts to flag issues only to find that “nothing happens.”

 

Thorp contends that the slowness of universities to respond only heightens public mistrust. “Universities are so slow at responding and so slow at running through their processes,” he said, suggesting that universities could mitigate damage by swiftly taking ownership of errors.

 

Based on a report from NBC News 2024-10-29

 

 

 

Ohh dear,  maybe those "nut jobs"  questioning the "science"  for the last few years were actually onto something after all ?

People forget, all science is looked at by others before it is proven. 

 

18 minutes ago, Purdey said:

People forget, all science is looked at by others before it is proven. 

Let me correct that for you ...

 

... " People forget, all science should be looked at by others before it is proven."

The real proof of the pudding is in the eating. What really matters is if any significant findings are repeatable because if they really are significant they will be tested independently, over and over again.

Things like below, along with recent covid/vaccine BS, that many, myself included simply don't trust folks like FDA or CDC anymore.

 

Hoping not to go off topic, with vaccine debate, as more than enough threads already.

 

"High-profile cases involving prominent scientists, such as the former Stanford University president and leaders at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, have gained national attention, making science sleuths impossible for the research community to ignore."

 

They seem to keep pushing info and advice that is contradictory to new data.  Or worst, just totally false, think current drama.  Back to treatment of cancer for instance ...

 

Watched and excellent YT vid last night, coincidently, reinforcing what I already knew, but explaining the finer details of that knowledge.

 

How the 'advisory' folks are still recommending cancer treatments & diet, on old data, and simply ignoring new data.  Hopefully out of ignorance, but suspect it to be more profit driven, sadly, and just IMHO of course.

 

There's a push to get the new data accepted in the medical community, but obviously not in the best interest of Big Pharma, so a very uphill fight.

 

They are still pushing the very profitable treatment of most cancer based on the 'somatic mutation theory', when the data clearing points to 'mitochondrial metabolic theory'.

 

Again, for profits ... just IMHO of course.

 

This really is a must watch IMHO

 

 

7 minutes ago, Card said:

The real proof of the pudding is in the eating. What really matters is if any significant findings are repeatable because if they really are significant they will be tested independently, over and over again.

 

Unless the findings are not to the likening of the scientists, and then the study results will simply not be made public.

We had just a few days ago a news topic about such an event, and I'm sure it was not a standalone

9 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Unless the findings are not to the likening of the scientists, and then the study results will simply not be made public.

We had just a few days ago a news topic about such an event, and I'm sure it was not a standalone

Well perhaps not just ‘the scientists’:

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt

 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1497700/

 

 

23 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Unless the findings are not to the likening of the scientists, and then the study results will simply not be made public.

We had just a few days ago a news topic about such an event, and I'm sure it was not a standalone

Nonsense. Most scientists are eager for the truth. That's why they become scientists in the first place. Where is the link to your extremely vague assertion?

2 hours ago, Card said:

Nonsense. Most scientists are eager for the truth. That's why they become scientists in the first place. Where is the link to your extremely vague assertion?

 

I'm not your personal assistant. The link is on AN in the world news forum

this is something I know for a decade

 

most science is fake, bought and paid by big pharma

 

vioxx and many other cover ups... the opioid crisis that killed ....???

 

safe and effective.... woehahaha... did not protect you or loved one's but most fell for it...

 

and for mr and mrs critial... some references...

 

• Opioid crisis

  In 2022, Cardinal Health, McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Johnson & Johnson settled for $26 billion to address the opioid crisis. This settlement included $23.9 billion to fund efforts to stem the crisis. In 2023, more than a dozen companies paid out about $1.5 billion in settlement funds to state and local governments. 

   

   
•  

  GlaxoSmithKline

  In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion to settle a lawsuit for promoting drugs for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data. 

   

   
•  

  Pfizer

  In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion to settle a lawsuit for falsely promoting drugs like Bextra, Geodon, Lyrica, and Zyvox. 

   

   
•  

  Johnson & Johnson

  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson pleaded guilty to misbranding the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. 

   

   
•  

  Abbott

  In 2012, Abbott pleaded guilty to unlawfully promoting Depakote for uses not approved by the FDA. 

   

   
•  

  Eli Lilly

  Eli Lilly paid $1.42 billion to settle a lawsuit for promoting Zyprexa for uses outside the FDA's approval. 

   

   
•  

  Bayer and Johnson & Johnson

  In 2019, Bayer and Johnson & Johnson paid $775 million to settle a lawsuit for downplaying the risks associated with their anticoagulant drug, Xarelto. 

   

   
•  

  Endo, Teva, and Teikoku Seiyaku

  In 2018, Endo, Teva, and Teikoku Seiyaku paid over $270 million to settle a lawsuit alleging illegal deals to delay cheaper Lidoderm generics. 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, johng said:

Ohh dear,  maybe those "nut jobs"  questioning the "science"  for the last few years were actually onto something after all ?

No 😁

2 hours ago, candide said:

No 😁

No ! , everything is obviously "set in stone"   especially the "science" that anyone might have the audacity to ask questions about..

ha ha just remembered  "sit down and shut up" was a catch phrase of one of my science teachers at school..obviously promoting the very best teaching methods open minded  discussion and critical thinking  always starts with "shut up"  😁

8 minutes ago, johng said:

No ! , everything is obviously "set in stone"   especially the "science" that anyone might have the audacity to ask questions about..

ha ha just remembered  "sit down and shut up" was a catch phrase of one of my science teachers at school..obviously promoting the very best teaching methods open minded  discussion and critical thinking  always starts with "shut up"  😁

The Science sleuths in this article have nothing to do with the usual Science conspiracy nutters on YT and social networks.

Science is never settled until it is approved by the left. 

 

Science generally needs funding. The people that provide the funding decide what science is worth funding.

47 minutes ago, johng said:

No ! , everything is obviously "set in stone"   especially the "science" that anyone might have the audacity to ask questions about..

ha ha just remembered  "sit down and shut up" was a catch phrase of one of my science teachers at school..obviously promoting the very best teaching methods open minded  discussion and critical thinking  always starts with "shut up"  😁

I expect you heard a lot of that.

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I expect you heard a lot of that.

Anyone that disagrees with the left hears a lot of that.

Just now, mogandave said:

Anyone that disagrees with the left hears a lot of that.

So science is a thing of the left.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So science is a thing of the left.

 

 

No. “shut up” is a thing of the left. 

 

Sorry for the confusion.

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

No. “shut up” is a thing of the left. 

 

Sorry for the confusion.

Who on the left said shut up (literally or figuratively?) to the Science sleuths mentioned in the OP?

7 minutes ago, candide said:

Who on the left said shut up (literally or figuratively?) to the Science sleuths mentioned in the OP?

You would have to more specific, as the OP refers to likely tens of thousands of science sleuths. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You would have to more specific, as the OP refers to likely tens of thousands of science sleuths. 

 

 

Your comment was a generalization. Do you have evidence of the left saying shut up to critics published on the PubPeer website (It's the main one), or is it just your usual baseless rant?

 

Note: if you want, I can show evidence that Didier Raoult, widely praised by RW conspiracy nutters, tried to silence critics on PubPeer.

1 minute ago, candide said:

Your comment was a generalization. Do you have evidence of the left saying shut up to critics published on the PubPeer website (It's the main one), or is it just your usual baseless rant?

 

Note: if you want, I can show evidence that Didier Raoult, widely praised by RW conspiracy nutters, tried to silence critics on PubPeer.

Didier Raoult? 

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Didier Raoult? 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-oz-on-hydroxychloroquine-the-u-s-government-respects-that-reality

Anyway that's not the point.

 

Do you have evidence of the left saying shut up to critics published on the PubPeer website (It's the main one), or is it just your usual baseless rant?

 

7 minutes ago, candide said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/dr-oz-on-hydroxychloroquine-the-u-s-government-respects-that-reality

Anyway that's not the point.

 

Do you have evidence of the left saying shut up to critics published on the PubPeer website (It's the main one), or is it just your usual baseless rant?

 

Yes

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes

Then show it.

 

 

There is no reason to suppose there are no ‘bad’ scientists….. there are plenty of bad lawyers, politicians, teachers, airline pilots…….etc

 

The clever part is peer reviews which hardly exist in any other profession….and peer reviews are cut throat.

 

As an aside nothing is ever ‘proven' in science…..there are just best theories based on the current evidence and observations.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I expect you heard a lot of that.

Only from that one teacher...well until the "Covidiocy" struck  then it was default mode  for anyone who had a question.

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

You would have to more specific, as the OP refers to likely tens of thousands of science sleuths. 

 

 

While you only refer to ‘the whole of the left’.

 

 

15 minutes ago, johng said:

Only from that one teacher...well until the "Covidiocy" struck  then it was default mode  for anyone who had a question.

It must difficult for you being the only person knowing the truth and with no need for science, evidence or proofs.