w***r
发帖数: 709 | 1 Key points: However, of the 976 citations of the Bellgrau et al. paper,
about 700 were subsequent to publication of the retraction
Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about
correcting the scientific record
David Vaux
In September 1995 Nature asked me to review a manuscript by Bellgrau and co-
workers, which subsequently appeared. I was very excited by this paper, as
it showed that expression of CD95L on Sertoli cells in allogeneic mismatched
testes tissue transplanted under the kidney capsule was able to induce
apoptosis of invading cytotoxic T cells, thereby preventing rejection. As I
wrote in a News and Views piece, the implications of these findings were
enormous – grafts engineered to express CD95L would be able to prevent
rejection without generalized immunosuppression.
In fact, I was so taken by these findings that we started generation of
transgenic mice that expressed CD95L on their islet beta cells to see if it
would allow islet cell grafts to avoid rejection and provide a cure for
diabetes in mismatched recipients.
Little did we know that instead of providing an answer to transplant
rejection, these experiments would teach us a great deal about editorial
practices and the difficulty of correcting errors once they appear in the
literature.
What we found was that unfortunately, these grafts were not protected, and
indeed CD95L-expressing grafts seemed to provoke more, not less, of an
inflammatory response. Puzzled by this, we decided to repeat the experiments
by Bellgrau et al., but unlike them, we found that allogeneic mismatched
testes grafts were rejected. A subsequent more thorough reading of the
literature revealed that similar mismatched testes tissue grafts had been
performed previously, both in the mouse and the rat, and their results were
the same as ours, and opposite those of Bellgrau et al., i.e. the unmatched
testes tissue was rejected.
Knowing that Nature had an explicit editorial policy to publish, in some
form, work which refutes an important conclusion of any paper which appears
in its pages, we submitted our findings describing the transgenic mice and
our failure to replicate the work from Bellgrau et al. to Nature. We
received two very positive reviews, but based on a third, very negative one,
from Bellgrau et al., the editors decided not to publish our findings as a
letter or as correspondence.
In 1996, we submitted our manuscript to Nature Medicine, but it was rejected
without review, with the comment from the editor in chief, Adrian Ivinson,
that he did “not think formal submission to Nature Medicine would be
appropriate”. We then sent the manuscript to PNAS, where it has attracted
305 citations. Subsequently, another paper appeared describing transplants
of beta cells from CD95L transgenic mice, and their findings were the same
as ours, i.e. graft CD95L did not confer protection, but if anything,
provoked inflammation. To our surprise, this paper appeared in Nature
Medicine, accompanied by a News and Views by Lau and Stoeckert emphasizing
the importance of the findings.
I was becoming increasingly frustrated by Nature’s refusal to abide by its
own ethical policies to publish rebuttals, and Nature Medicine’s decisions
apparently based on papers’ sources rather than their contents, when I had
a flash of inspiration – I had published a News and Views extolling the
virtues of Bellgrau et al.’s paper – now I could retract it!
I wrote to Phillip Campbell at Nature saying that I wished to retract my
News and Views piece because I no longer had confidence in the findings on
which it was based. My reasons for doubt were:
1.We were unable to reproduce Bellgrau et al.’s findings;
2.Three earlier groups who had published similar experiments had also come
to the opposite conclusion;
3.The failure of transgenic CD95L to protect allogeneic islet cells was
contrary to the model they proposed.
I added “I regret having to take this course, but as Nature refuses to
abide by its own ethical policy, namely to “publish refutations of any
important conclusion that appears in its pages,” I am left with no other
option.
Thankfully, Nature did agree to publish the retraction, but, perhaps
unsurprisingly, they were unhappy with the wording. The retraction included
just two sentences:
I wish to point out that I no longer stand by the views reported in my News
and Views article “Immunology: Ways around rejection” (Nature 377, 576–
577; 1995), which dealt with a paper in the same issue (“A role for CD95
ligand in preventing graft rejection” by D. Bellgrau et al. — Nature 377,
630–635; 1995). My colleagues and I have been unable to reproduce some of
the results of Bellgrau et al., as reported by J. Allison et al. (Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3943-3947; 1997).
This was accompanied by:
D. Bellgrau et al. consider that their results are reproducible and stand by
them. They note, however, that the magnification in Figure1g of their paper
should be 113 times, not 45 times as printed. Both groups believe that
other published data support their views, and interested readers can contact
them directly for further details. — Editor, Nature.
Note that they did not say that the results were reproducible, or that they
had actually reproduced them, they just considered them to be reproducible.
Indeed, no one, including Bellgrau et al., have subsequently reported
reproducing these results. Furthermore, it turned out that Sertoli cells do
not even express CD95L.
The retraction was published in 1998, and has attracted 16 citations of its
own. However, of the 976 citations of the Bellgrau et al. paper, about 700
were subsequent to publication of the retraction, so it’s clear many remain
unaware that its findings are questionable. Clearly, the processes that
allow the scientific record to self-correct can be improved, not least by
Nature. | m********8
发帖数: 314 | 2 google一下，这篇论文的引用又继续增加了几百次，到1200多次了。
A role for CD95 ligand in preventing graft rejection” by D. Bellgrau et al.
— Nature 377, 630–635; 1995 | h********0
发帖数: 12056 | 3 nature/science/cell fanboys 的脑残程度是没有限度的。
你没看到这个板上每天都在赞美 某某牛因为他们发了 什么什么。。
好像 nature 发的文章就比 PNAS 的重要， 这不是脑残吗？ | F*Q
发帖数: 3259 | 4 多少人靠CNS尤其是N获得心理的成就感，靠那些东西来把自己和民科区别开来并把自己
贴上稳拿和大牛的标签的。你们都这么埋汰Nature，让那些“稳拿”“大牛”情何以堪？
【在 h********0 的大作中提到】
: nature/science/cell fanboys 的脑残程度是没有限度的。
: 你没看到这个板上每天都在赞美 某某牛因为他们发了 什么什么。。
: 好像 nature 发的文章就比 PNAS 的重要， 这不是脑残吗？
| h********0
发帖数: 12056 | 5 一篇文章因为它重要而重要，不是因为它发表在什么地方。
重要的标准大家都知道，反正不是由在那发表决定的。
堪？
【在 F*Q 的大作中提到】
: 多少人靠CNS尤其是N获得心理的成就感，靠那些东西来把自己和民科区别开来并把自己
: 贴上稳拿和大牛的标签的。你们都这么埋汰Nature，让那些“稳拿”“大牛”情何以堪？
| s**********e
发帖数: 2888 | 6 我们领域有一篇Science也没有人能够重复，但是因为很多原因，被引用了无数次。我
博厚老板的一个学生曾经拿到nature editor的位置，后来没有去，去了欧洲一个大学
作了教授。我们实验室经常开玩笑，说他当年如果去了nature，老板的很多文章命运可
能就不一样。
常常好奇，nature的很多编辑，虽然也有phd/post-doc，但是有些根本就没有发表什么
文章或者好文章，有什么资格或者能力判断投稿是不是应该送审？ | F*Q
发帖数: 3259 | 7 PUBMED呀，pubmed上人气多的就是好东西，pubmed上文章多的就是牛人。pubmed上文章
少的就是民科。这是某些“大牛”常用的标准吧？
【在 s**********e 的大作中提到】
: 我们领域有一篇Science也没有人能够重复，但是因为很多原因，被引用了无数次。我
: 博厚老板的一个学生曾经拿到nature editor的位置，后来没有去，去了欧洲一个大学
: 作了教授。我们实验室经常开玩笑，说他当年如果去了nature，老板的很多文章命运可
: 能就不一样。
: 常常好奇，nature的很多编辑，虽然也有phd/post-doc，但是有些根本就没有发表什么
: 文章或者好文章，有什么资格或者能力判断投稿是不是应该送审？
| j******i
发帖数: 939 | 8 很简单啊，他们看了通讯作者就有数了。
【在 s**********e 的大作中提到】
: 我们领域有一篇Science也没有人能够重复，但是因为很多原因，被引用了无数次。我
: 博厚老板的一个学生曾经拿到nature editor的位置，后来没有去，去了欧洲一个大学
: 作了教授。我们实验室经常开玩笑，说他当年如果去了nature，老板的很多文章命运可
: 能就不一样。
: 常常好奇，nature的很多编辑，虽然也有phd/post-doc，但是有些根本就没有发表什么
: 文章或者好文章，有什么资格或者能力判断投稿是不是应该送审？
| w******r
发帖数: 3156 | 9 生物这一行充满了这种垃圾paper
co-
mismatched
I
【在 w***r 的大作中提到】
: Key points: However, of the 976 citations of the Bellgrau et al. paper,
: about 700 were subsequent to publication of the retraction
: Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about
: correcting the scientific record
: David Vaux
: In September 1995 Nature asked me to review a manuscript by Bellgrau and co-
: workers, which subsequently appeared. I was very excited by this paper, as
: it showed that expression of CD95L on Sertoli cells in allogeneic mismatched
: testes tissue transplanted under the kidney capsule was able to induce
: apoptosis of invading cytotoxic T cells, thereby preventing rejection. As I
| s*********s
发帖数: 110 | 10 就像版上的一些人一样
经常就是某某真是牛啊，又发了几篇Cell Nature Science
但是根本不知道别人到底做了什么
更可悲是有些PhD刚毕业的同志
要找postdoc
要抱着这种态度去找所谓的新星 rising star
结果可想而知。 | F*Q
发帖数: 3259 | 11 那就是Randy说的，CNS误导的结果，而且那正是CNS所要的结果，一切向CNS看。
本人刚入道的时候，也是被那个实验室刚发的CNS所迷惑，认为能发CNS的实验室应该很
牛，结果即使在那个老板给我看的他们自己的文章里发现不少低级错误，还是加入了他
的实验室，最后的结局是我做的东西虽然经过多个第三方的验证检验，但由于不支持实
验室以前发表过的多篇文章的结果，那个老板坚决不让发表。
【在 s*********s 的大作中提到】
: 就像版上的一些人一样
: 经常就是某某真是牛啊，又发了几篇Cell Nature Science
: 但是根本不知道别人到底做了什么
: 更可悲是有些PhD刚毕业的同志
: 要找postdoc
: 要抱着这种态度去找所谓的新星 rising star
: 结果可想而知。
|
|
