Connect with us

Science

Column: How a scientific ‘breakthrough’ fell apart amid allegations of plagiarism and fakery

Published

on

Column: How a scientific ‘breakthrough’ fell apart amid allegations of plagiarism and fakery

As scientific breakthroughs go, the one announced last March by a team from the University of Rochester was especially eye-opening.

Led by physicist/engineer Ranga P. Dias, they reported in an article in Nature the discovery of a room-temperature superconductor — a material that can conduct electricity with no loss of efficiency from friction and no production of heat.

The paper generated breathless news reports touting the prospect for batteries of unprecedented efficiency and electrical devices of unprecedented power —potentially “longer-lasting batteries, more-efficient power grids and improved high-speed trains,” the Wall Street Journal wrote the day after Nature’s publication.

Journals tend to take an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach when they see a paper that could rack up the citations and boost their ranking. That means a lot of crap ends up in the literature when it shouldn’t.

— Ivan Oransky, Retraction Watch

Advertisement

Sadly, those advances still lurk far off in the future. The article that set off a frenzy of speculation and anticipation was retracted by Nature on Tuesday after months of rising doubts about its claims and Dias, its lead author.

Dias didn’t reply to my request for comment. A representative speaking for him told the Rochester Beacon, an independent online publication, that he and two of his 10 co-authors “have not consented to the retraction.” The remaining eight co-authors, however, had requested the retraction.

The spokesman for Dias also denied “allegations of research misconduct” and said the physicist “intends to resubmit the scientific paper to a journal with a more independent editorial process.”

The case illustrates two discordant elements of scientific research. One is the effectiveness of science’s self-corrective process: Researchers into superconductivity raised questions about the Dias paper starting almost immediately after its publication.

Advertisement

The other, however, is the imperfect quality control in scientific publishing, for the question is how such a dubious paper reached the pages of Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world — which had already retracted one paper by Dias.

The answer is that even leading journals such as Nature strive for attention.

“Journals tend to take an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach when they see a paper that could rack up the citations and boost their ranking,” says Ivan Oransky, the co-founder and co-editor of the indispensable blog Retraction Watch. “That means a lot of crap ends up in the literature when it shouldn’t.”

Doubts about Dias’ paper continued to rise during the months after its publication, in part because the reported results failed a fundamental test of validity: They could not be replicated by other researchers. Dias also resisted requests for detailed data that would allow others to validate his claims.

Dias had long been treated as a rising star in his research field. Time named him to its 2021 list of 100 “emerging leaders who are shaping the future,” next to the performer Dua Lipa, poet Amanda Gorman, Republican politician Ben Sasse, and dozens of others.

Advertisement

Yet the record of his previous research was checkered. In August, a 2021 paper in Physical Review Letters was retracted with the consent of nine of its 10 co-authors, not including Dias, due to “serious doubts” about some of the data.

In September 2022, Nature itself had retracted a Dias paper claiming the discovery of room-temperature superconductivity published in 2020. The journal’s retraction notice stated that some of the data in the paper had been subjected to a “nonstandard, user-defined procedure,” which made it sound as if Dias and his co-authors had conjured it out of thin air.

In April, Science aired accusations that Dias had plagiarized extensively for his 2013 doctoral thesis at Washington State University.

It’s evident, therefore, that Dias’ most recent research reached print despite its considerable baggage. The University of Rochester, for its part, told me by email that it “has a comprehensive investigation underway into questions raised about the integrity of data across multiple papers led by Professor Dias. This investigation is ongoing and is being conducted by experts who are external to the University of Rochester.”

Let’s pause here for a quick primer on superconductivity.

Advertisement

The phenomenon is a Holy Grail for materials and energy researchers. That’s because transmitting electricity friction-free would enable a multitude of world-changing applications, such as “incredibly efficient power lines and electronics that never overheat,” as Scientific American outlined in March, at the time of Dias’ most recent paper.

Additionally, observes Scientific American, superconductors repel magnetic fields, which could lead to more efficient magnetic levitation, or maglev, trains. These materials “could produce super strong magnets for use in wind turbines, portable magnetic resonance imaging machines or even nuclear fusion power plants.”

The principle of superconductivity was discovered in 1911 by the Dutch physicist Heike Kammerlingh Onnes, who identified it in mercury at the temperature of 4.2 degrees above absolute zero, which is minus 273.15 degrees Celsius, or minus 460 degrees Fahrenheit. (He won a Nobel Prize in physics in 1913 for related research.)

Ever since then, scientists have been trying to develop materials that would exhibit the same property under real-world conditions. For the most part, they have been able to produce superconductivity only in the lab, either at super-cold temperatures or at somewhat higher temperatures but under intense pressure akin to that found near the center of the Earth.

What gave Dias’ most recent paper its pizzazz was its claim to have produced superconductivity in a compound of the artificial metal lutetium and hydrogen and doped with nitrogen, at about 69.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 145,000 pounds per square inch of pressure. That’s room temperature, and commercially achievable pressure, at least in short bursts.

Advertisement

So it’s not surprising that the paper generated instant excitement. Dias’ claim raised “tantalizing possibilities.” The Wall Street Journal called Dias’ finding “The Scientific Breakthrough That Could Make Batteries Last Longer,” and paired its article with an illustrated package online describing how his team achieved it.

News articles quoted an effusive Dias and featured photographs of him beaming in triumph in front of a blackboard filled with abstruse scribbles.

“This is the start of the new type of material that is useful for practical applications,” he told a physics conference in Las Vegas the day before his paper’s formal publication. The Wall Street journal quoted him as predicting that “we could magnetically levitate trains above superconducting rails, change the way electricity is stored and transferred, and revolutionize medical imaging.”

But doubts surfaced almost simultaneously with the publication in Nature, both because of the earlier retractions and features of the new paper that experts in the field considered dubious.

Some researchers, commenting anonymously, pointed to indications that the data in the paper appeared to be presented inaccurately and that, even if they were genuine, they didn’t show superconductivity. A paper published in Nature in May by a team of Chinese physicists re-created Dias’ compound and reported the “absence of near-ambient superconductivity” in the material, flatly contradicting Dias’ claim.

Advertisement

The most severe blow to the paper’s credibility came in September, when eight of its co-authors submitted a letter to Nature requesting that it be retracted. Nature’s editors had already initiated a post-publication review by outside experts. One of the experts reported that Dias had failed to “clear and timely responses” to their queries, which placed “the credibility of the published results … in question.”

In their letter to Nature, the eight dissenting co-authors, some of whom had been graduate students working under Dias, said that they had “raised concerns about the study prior to publication,” Science reported. They said Dias gave some of them the choice of removing their names from the paper or allowing it proceed to publication. “Neither choice seemed tenable given that Dr. Dias was in control of our personal, academic, and financial circumstances,” they told Nature. “We did not feel that we were able to speak freely.”

It’s true that the publication of apparently unverifiable claims about superconductivity and their subsequent retraction doesn’t produce the level of social harm that we’ve seen in other cases of inaccurate or unsupported data making it into print.

These include a retracted study claiming that the COVID vaccines had killed 300,000 Americans, and the granddaddy of pernicious fakery, the 1998 publication of a British study falsely linking the MMR childhood vaccine to autism.

The first was published by the respectable medical journal BMC Infectious Diseases, the second by the even more respectable medical journal the Lancet. Both were retracted, but not before they undermined public health (the baleful influence of the latter bedevils pediatric healthcare to this day).

Advertisement

This case is merely a pothole in the quest for room-temperature, commercially practical superconductivity, which will continue. The harvest is black eyes for Dias, the University of Rochester and Nature.

The most intriguing mystery is why Nature would accept a paper from the author of a paper it had retracted once, and on the same topic, without subjecting it to a level of scrutiny that might have derailed the later paper before publication.

As Oransky notes, even a journal as prestigious as Nature inclines itself toward the most provocative and attention-grabbing content. But that won’t do, given Nature’s implicit duty to defend the credibility of science, not undermine it.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Cluster of farmworkers diagnosed with rare animal-borne disease in Ventura County

Published

on

Cluster of farmworkers diagnosed with rare animal-borne disease in Ventura County

A cluster of workers at Ventura County berry farms have been diagnosed with a rare disease often transmitted through sick animals’ urine, according to a public health advisory distributed to local doctors by county health officials Tuesday.

The bacterial infection, leptospirosis, has resulted in severe symptoms for some workers, including meningitis, an inflammation of the brain lining and spinal cord. Symptoms for mild cases included headaches and fevers.

The disease, which can be fatal, rarely spreads from human to human, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ventura County Public Health has not given an official case count but said it had not identified any cases outside of the agriculture sector. The county’s agriculture commissioner was aware of 18 cases, the Ventura County Star reported.

Advertisement

The health department said it was first contacted by a local physician in October, who reported an unusual trend in symptoms among hospital patients.

After launching an investigation, the department identified leptospirosis as a probable cause of the illness and found most patients worked on caneberry farms that utilize hoop houses — greenhouse structures to shelter the crops.

As the investigation to identify any additional cases and the exact sources of exposure continues, Ventura County Public Health has asked healthcare providers to consider a leptospirosis diagnosis for sick agricultural workers, particularly berry harvesters.

Rodents are a common source and transmitter of disease, though other mammals — including livestock, cats and dogs — can transmit it as well.

The disease is spread through bodily fluids, such as urine, and is often contracted through cuts and abrasions that contact contaminated water and soil, where the bacteria can survive for months.

Advertisement

Humans can also contract the illness through contaminated food; however, the county health agency has found no known health risks to the general public, including through the contact or consumption of caneberries such as raspberries and blackberries.

Symptom onset typically occurs between two and 30 days after exposure, and symptoms can last for months if untreated, according to the CDC.

The illness often begins with mild symptoms, with fevers, chills, vomiting and headaches. Some cases can then enter a second, more severe phase that can result in kidney or liver failure.

Ventura County Public Health recommends agriculture and berry harvesters regularly rinse any cuts with soap and water and cover them with bandages. They also recommend wearing waterproof clothing and protection while working outdoors, including gloves and long-sleeve shirts and pants.

While there is no evidence of spread to the larger community, according to the department, residents should wash hands frequently and work to control rodents around their property if possible.

Advertisement

Pet owners can consult a veterinarian about leptospirosis vaccinations and should keep pets away from ponds, lakes and other natural bodies of water.

Continue Reading

Science

Political stress: Can you stay engaged without sacrificing your mental health?

Published

on

Political stress: Can you stay engaged without sacrificing your mental health?

It’s been two weeks since Donald Trump won the presidential election, but Stacey Lamirand’s brain hasn’t stopped churning.

“I still think about the election all the time,” said the 60-year-old Bay Area resident, who wanted a Kamala Harris victory so badly that she flew to Pennsylvania and knocked on voters’ doors in the final days of the campaign. “I honestly don’t know what to do about that.”

Neither do the psychologists and political scientists who have been tracking the country’s slide toward toxic levels of partisanship.

Fully 69% of U.S. adults found the presidential election a significant source of stress in their lives, the American Psychological Assn. said in its latest Stress in America report.

The distress was present across the political spectrum, with 80% of Republicans, 79% of Democrats and 73% of independents surveyed saying they were stressed about the country’s future.

Advertisement

That’s unhealthy for the body politic — and for voters themselves. Stress can cause muscle tension, headaches, sleep problems and loss of appetite. Chronic stress can inflict more serious damage to the immune system and make people more vulnerable to heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, infertility, clinical anxiety, depression and other ailments.

In most circumstances, the sound medical advice is to disengage from the source of stress, therapists said. But when stress is coming from politics, that prescription pits the health of the individual against the health of the nation.

“I’m worried about people totally withdrawing from politics because it’s unpleasant,” said Aaron Weinschenk, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay who studies political behavior and elections. “We don’t want them to do that. But we also don’t want them to feel sick.”

Modern life is full of stressors of all kinds: paying bills, pleasing difficult bosses, getting along with frenemies, caring for children or aging parents (or both).

The stress that stems from politics isn’t fundamentally different from other kinds of stress. What’s unique about it is the way it encompasses and enhances other sources of stress, said Brett Ford, a social psychologist at the University of Toronto who studies the link between emotions and political engagement.

Advertisement

For instance, she said, elections have the potential to make everyday stressors like money and health concerns more difficult to manage as candidates debate policies that could raise the price of gas or cut off access to certain kinds of medical care.

Layered on top of that is the fact that political disagreements have morphed into moral conflicts that are perceived as pitting good against evil.

“When someone comes into power who is not on the same page as you morally, that can hit very deeply,” Ford said.

Partisanship and polarization have raised the stakes as well. Voters who feel a strong connection to a political party become more invested in its success. That can make a loss at the ballot box feel like a personal defeat, she said.

There’s also the fact that we have limited control over the outcome of an election. A patient with heart disease can improve their prognosis by taking medicine, changing their diet, getting more exercise or quitting smoking. But a person with political stress is largely at the mercy of others.

Advertisement

“Politics is many forms of stress all rolled into one,” Ford said.

Weinschenk observed this firsthand the day after the election.

“I could feel it when I went into my classroom,” said the professor, whose research has found that people with political anxiety aren’t necessarily anxious in general. “I have a student who’s transgender and a couple of students who are gay. Their emotional state was so closed down.”

That’s almost to be expected in a place like Wisconsin, whose swing-state status caused residents to be bombarded with political messages. The more campaign ads a person is exposed to, the greater the risk of being diagnosed with anxiety, depression or another psychological ailment, according to a 2022 study in the journal PLOS One.

Political messages seem designed to keep voters “emotionally on edge,” said Vaile Wright, a licensed psychologist in Villa Park, Ill., and a member of the APA’s Stress in America team.

Advertisement

“It encourages emotion to drive our decision-making behavior, as opposed to logic,” Wright said. “When we’re really emotionally stimulated, it makes it so much more challenging to have civil conversation. For politicians, I think that’s powerful, because emotions can be very easily manipulated.”

Making voters feel anxious is a tried-and-true way to grab their attention, said Christopher Ojeda, a political scientist at UC Merced who studies mental health and politics.

“Feelings of anxiety can be mobilizing, definitely,” he said. “That’s why politicians make fear appeals — they want people to get engaged.”

On the other hand, “feelings of depression are demobilizing and take you out of the political system,” said Ojeda, author of “The Sad Citizen: How Politics is Depressing and Why it Matters.”

“What [these feelings] can tell you is, ‘Things aren’t going the way I want them to. Maybe I need to step back,’” he said.

Advertisement

Genessa Krasnow has been seeing a lot of that since the election.

The Seattle entrepreneur, who also campaigned for Harris, said it grates on her to see people laughing in restaurants “as if nothing had happened.” At a recent book club meeting, her fellow group members were willing to let her vent about politics for five minutes, but they weren’t interested in discussing ways they could counteract the incoming president.

“They’re in a state of disengagement,” said Krasnow, who is 56. She, meanwhile, is looking for new ways to reach young voters.

“I am exhausted. I am so sad,” she said. “But I don’t believe that disengaging is the answer.”

That’s the fundamental trade-off, Ojeda said, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

Advertisement

“Everyone has to make a decision about how much engagement they can tolerate without undermining their psychological well-being,” he said.

Lamirand took steps to protect her mental health by cutting social media ties with people whose values aren’t aligned with hers. But she will remain politically active and expects to volunteer for phone-banking duty soon.

“Doing something is the only thing that allows me to feel better,” Lamirand said. “It allows me to feel some level of control.”

Ideally, Ford said, people would not have to choose between being politically active and preserving their mental health. She is investigating ways to help people feel hopeful, inspired and compassionate about political challenges, since these emotions can motivate action without triggering stress and anxiety.

“We want to counteract this pattern where the more involved you are, the worse you are,” Ford said.

Advertisement

The benefits would be felt across the political spectrum. In the APA survey, similar shares of Democrats, Republicans and independents agreed with statements like, “It causes me stress that politicians aren’t talking about the things that are most important to me,” and, “The political climate has caused strain between my family members and me.”

“Both sides are very invested in this country, and that is a good thing,” Wright said. “Antipathy and hopelessness really doesn’t serve us in the long run.”

Continue Reading

Science

Video: SpaceX Unable to Recover Booster Stage During Sixth Test Flight

Published

on

Video: SpaceX Unable to Recover Booster Stage During Sixth Test Flight

President-elect Donald Trump joined Elon Musk in Texas and watched the launch from a nearby location on Tuesday. While the Starship’s giant booster stage was unable to repeat a “chopsticks” landing, the vehicle’s upper stage successfully splashed down in the Indian Ocean.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending