{"id":32297,"date":"2017-07-24T16:18:24","date_gmt":"2017-07-24T14:18:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it\/?p=32297"},"modified":"2021-12-27T19:12:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-27T18:12:21","slug":"petits-malins","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/2017\/07\/24\/petits-malins\/","title":{"rendered":"P'tits malins"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nicolas Rougier e John Timmer (un’abitudine!<\/a><\/strong>) hanno pubblicato<\/p>\n

Ten simple rules for scientific fraud and misconduct<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

che raccomando a studenti, dottorandi e ricercatori, a partire dall’avvertenza<\/p>\n

Disclaimer.<\/strong> We obviously do not encourage scientific fraud nor misconduct. The goal of this article is to alert the reader to problems that have arisen in part due to the Publish or Perish imperative, which has driven a number of researchers to cross the Rubicon without the full appreciation of the consequences. Choosing fraud will hurt science, end careers, and could have impacts on life outside of the lab. If you\u2019re tempted (even slightly) to beautify your results, keep in mind that the benefits are probably not worth the risks.<\/p>\n

Probabilmente no, ma in Cina un ricercatore che pubblica su una rivista molto quotata riceve questo tipo di bonus:<\/p>\n

\"\"Fonte<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

… academic fraud in China, such as plagiarism, academic dishonesty, ghostwritten papers, fake peer review scandal, and so on also appeared in a growing number of publications (Hvistendahl, 2013). After searching the WoS, we found that the number of paper corrections authored by Chinese scholars increased from 2 in 1996 to 1,234 in 2016, a historic high.<\/p>\n

Le “Dieci regole” erano segnalate da Retraction Watch che oggi racconta<\/a> <\/strong>come sono state applicate da un gruppo di neuroscienziati in Australia.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Gene drive\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Il gene drive modifica una bestiola per impedirle di farci dei danni. C’era un articolo ottimista<\/a> <\/strong>su\u00a0Le Scienze<\/em>, ma come sempre la storia \u00e8 pi\u00f9 complicata del previsto.<\/p>\n

Ewen Callaway<\/a> <\/strong>ha scritto su Nature<\/em>:<\/p>\n

The JASONs, a\u00a0group of\u00a0elite\u00a0scientists that\u00a0advises\u00a0the US government on national security<\/a>, has weighed in on\u00a0issues ranging from cyber security\u00a0?to\u00a0renewing America\u2019s\u00a0nuclear arsenal. But at a meeting in June, the secretive group\u00a0took stock of a new threat:\u00a0gene drives, a genetic-engineering\u00a0technology\u00a0that can swiftly spread modifications through entire populations and\u00a0could\u00a0help vanquish malaria-spreading mosquitoes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That meeting forms part of a broader US national security effort this year to grapple with the possible risks and benefits of a technology that could\u00a0drive species extinct and alter whole ecosystems<\/a>. On 19 July, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced US$65 million in funding to scientists studying gene-editing technologies; most of the money will be for work on gene drives. And a US intelligence counterpart to DARPA is planning to fund research into detecting organisms containing gene drives and other modifications…<\/p>\n

(rif. anche Kelly Servick<\/a><\/strong> su Science<\/em>)
\nServizi segreti, militari, aziende private con brevetti da sfruttare, il mix non \u00e8 molto rassicurante.
\nCi sono gi\u00e0 stati esperimenti <\/a><\/strong>con le zanzare gm portatrici di patogeni basate su svariate tecniche. Anche se per ora i risultati sono incerti, altri sono in programma con la tecnica CRISPR-Cas9 che sarebbe pi\u00f9 precisa. Mi stupisce che se ne progetti l’uso pur dicendo che rischia di estinguere non soltanto la specie-bersaglio, pur sapendo che \u00e8 efficace nel 30-50% degli individui-bersaglio e che, al pari di mezzi meno sofisticati, accelera l’evoluzione di una resistenza nei sopravvissuti.<\/p>\n

\"journal.pgen.1006796.g002.PNG\"<\/p>\n

fonte:\u00a0com. stampa<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>del Messer Lab<\/p>\n

Si comincia solo adesso a capire come e quando funziona in vivo<\/em>\u00a0la CRISPR-Cas9, e forse i Jason avrebbero fatto meglio ad aspettare l’ultima pubblicazione<\/a><\/strong> del gruppo di Philipp Messer a Cornell:<\/p>\n

we developed two CRISPR\/Cas9 gene drive constructs using different promoters and target sites in the model organism\u00a0Drosophila melanogaster.<\/em><\/p>\n

Due perch\u00e9 il costrutto solo (guida del RNA per il corpo giallo con attaccata la proteina per gli occhi rossi fluorescenti)\u00a0 finiva al 50% nel posto sbagliato.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>We observed that these constructs produced resistance alleles at high rates <\/strong>both in the germline and post-fertilization in the embryo.\u00a0Additionally, conversion efficiency and resistance allele formation rates varied substantially among genetically diverse fly lines.<\/p>\n

Che sorpresa…<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Dal\u00a0commento\u00a0<\/a><\/strong>di Warren Pearce, altri sociologi britannici e Mike Hulme<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Several studies have been using quantified consensus within climate science as an argument to foster climate policy. Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful. We argue that repeated efforts to shore up the scientific consensus on minimalist claims such as \u201chumans cause global warming\u201d are distractions from more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.<\/p>\n

Euh… I don’t think so.<\/p>\n

Nessun ricercatore insiste nel dire che c’\u00e8 un consenso scientifico sulle nostre emissioni di gas serra quale principale causa del GW perch\u00e9 se la gente lo sapesse sarebbe favorevole a una “climate policy”. Insiste ogni volta che politici bigoilisti gli ripetono che una “climate policy” non ha senso\u00a0finch\u00e9 gli scienziati non concordano sull’effetto serra o meno delle nostre\u00a0emissioni di gas serra.<\/p>\n

We maintain that researchers concerned about the relationship of knowledge to policy would be better advised to invest their efforts in these areas rather [the more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement] than in exercises of quantifying consensus about tightly drawn statements of scientific fact.<\/p>\n

Nessun ricercatore si occupa unicamente di quantificare il consenso. Da quello che visto fin qui, quelli disposti a\/capaci di comunicare investono sforzi proprio in quelle aree.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Does Willis Eschenbach have Any\u00a0Honor?<\/a><\/strong>
\nI don’t think so, happy to be proven wrong though…<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Ivanka Trump<\/a> twitta:<\/p>\n

“If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” – Albert Einstein<\/p>\n

Hilarity ensues<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nicolas Rougier e John Timmer (un’abitudine!) hanno pubblicato Ten simple rules for scientific fraud and misconduct che raccomando a studenti, dottorandi e ricercatori, a partire dall’avvertenza Disclaimer. We obviously do not encourage scientific fraud nor misconduct. The goal of this article is to alert the reader to problems that have arisen in part due to… Continua a leggere P'tits malins<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,10,11,13,17],"tags":[1535,2814,2924,3699,4535,6393],"class_list":["post-32297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bufala","category-clima","category-cronaca","category-drosophila-fanzine","category-genetica","tag-comunicazione","tag-frode","tag-gene-drive","tag-jasons","tag-misconduct","tag-sociologia","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32297"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45037,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32297\/revisions\/45037"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archivio.ocasapiens.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}