Comments on: NaH: Magical Oxidizing Pixie Dust Part II: The Revenge

By: Carbon-Based Curiosities » Blog Archive » all organic and no electronics makes CBC a dull blog

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:45:14 +0000

[...] But where are all the hardcore materials folk? Hiding out while everyone else aruges about NaH?[1] Perhaps I can entice some delurking with a picture of some solar [...]

By: Getting your JACS debunked before it leaves ASAP | The Chem Blog

Getting your JACS debunked before it leaves ASAP | The Chem Blog — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:56:38 +0000

[...] Missed it. Do this in a glove box and it doesn’t work. Open it up to air and you get 80% yield. [...]

By: uncle sam

uncle sam — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:59:32 +0000

“It isn’t fair to the people running the blog, though, to drop fraud claims.”

True, that’s why I only go after stuff that the blog author has posted. There is too much crap that doesn’t work in the chemical literature and a good percentage of it is probably a little fraudulent. With stuff like yield and substrate scope. There are many many times I’ve tried to repeat some procedures…. Demanding bosses and depressed students is a recipe for disaster. Just ignore it and move onto the next procedure.

It’s one of the reasons why I really want to leave chemistry as a career even though I like it well enough. Not a major reason, but it’s one nonetheless. After I travel around the world doing postdocs for a bit of course.

By: Hap

Hap — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:08:05 +0000

Appealing to the granting agency probably wouldn’t do much for him. I don’t know how well Chinese granting agencies would deal with problems or respond to them. On the other hand, I don’t know how much leverage they would have here.

It isn’t fair to the people running the blog, though, to drop fraud claims. One might get a blog of one’s own and post one’s suspicions, questions, and evidence there – you could refer people there if they have questions. It’s more polite to ask people if they see a problem and point to your claims and evidence than to put others at risk (even if the risk is minimal).

By: milkshake

milkshake — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:21:09 +0000

In US it is extremely difficult to sue for libel. Corporate lawyers may try to send you ominously-sounding letters to harass you (or your IP provider) into submission but there is no realistic chance of you losing such a case against you, unless they can prove that you were knowingly spreading false accusations with a malicious intent. This tactics can actually back-fire because the case can get much wider publicity then it would have otherwise (“A giant company is trying to strong-arm poor blogger for posting critical stuff”) and there are freedom-of-speech advocacy groups willing to lend you a support.

Far more realistic approach for a big company lawyers shutting you up is going after your employer. Say, you work for at University or Institute that gets occassionally donations/research sponsorship from industry, or there are close personal contacts with some professors being on advisory scientific boards of the said corporation and sending their graduates to there… Or you are employed with a little company that has a weasel for HR boss or your group manager. Your employer can order you to remove the contentious post and strongly recommend you to stop posting stuff online because this could become a distraction in your job. Would you risk your job in situation when so many other chemists are unemployed?

By: Hap

Hap — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:53:36 +0000

I think that’s the key, though – the evidence was pretty strong to make a claim of dishonesty there – the lack of evidence for his synthesis (no SI or data for compounds – and its lack of provision years after publication), the questionable data that was there (shifted solvent peak, no satellites), the nature of some of the reactions (Mitsunobu reactions at tertiary centers (subsequently done, but hard to plan on in the middle of a synthesis), unprecedented [4+2] cycloadditions in strained systems with multiple dienes without ene reactions), the prepn. of the actual compound by Porco and its comparison with both the data given by LaClair and the that calcd. by Rychnovski all point to something rather hinky. Even then, the most damning/libelous claims (Kyle’s post, the post on tenderbutton about a rambling discussion given by La Clair on his synthesis) were either amended or removed. In this case, there might be evidence, but probably not enough to claim fraud.

With hexacyclinol, there were also a lot of bloggers and others interested in it, and so people were willing to put themselves on the line for what they believed. It’s sort of different to put someone else on the hook for libel based on what you believe to be fraud. The people running the blog have the right to decide when to put themselves on the line and expose themselves to legal action and when not to do so – it’s not reasonable to presume that they will do so based on someone’s word alone, particularly when they don’t know the person. While I can understand not being willing to reveal oneself openly for fraud investigations for fear of reprisal (whistleblower laws provide about as much coverage as a bikini on a 300 lb. man in Edmonton in February), it’s not reasonable for someone to expect others to accept consequences for one’s beliefs that one isn’t willing to accept for oneself. If people look at the paper and decide for themselves that something is wrong, then they can do as they feel right, but it’s not reasonable to assume that people are willing to accept libel/slander charges on your behalf – since they are liable for the consequences, they get to decide for themselves what to do.

By: KNP

KNP — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:52:39 +0000

Not that this is the place for an witch hunt on JACS papers, but I must say that bridgedragon had a point and indicated those inconsistencies in his post. I have seen FAR worse discussions on these blogs in discussion of LaClair’s fabrication (albeit there is really damning proof in that case). Not that I have any great point, but I am sure bridgedragon felt “called out” on his initial statement, and therefore provided his proof. The supporting information for that paper is quite weird. The pre-addition of 1 microM melamine before the “test” melamine (nanoM) addition is quite weird (third paragraph of SI). Perhaps it was a language discrepancy and it comes across wrong on paper? I am not making any judgements from this data however.

By: Hap

Hap — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:14:08 +0000

But then isn’t the JACS editor the appropriate place to send it first without posting it here? If you think the editor’s circular filing it, the granting agencies for the research are another good place to go (I would assume government agencies might get cranky about supporting bogus research). Maybe he’s tried those and not gotten a response, so he filed it openly so that it couldn’t be round filed, but other than that it makes no sense to cross post it here. There isn’t much that people here can do that would be helpful, and it seems to be a libel threat, so there isn’t a real reason to post it here. Maybe Chemical Forums/The Chemistry Blog would be a better place, but I don’t know if it would go well there for similar reasons. There are people who can validly assess the paper (Chip has replies on the other post that seem sensible), but even then claims of fraud are probably beyond any blog’s ability to assess – people can tell that something is funny and potential not reproducible, or that there are inconsistencies in the paper, but the real evidence is likely to be elsewhere (lab notebooks, etc., to which we have no access), if it exists at all.

I was a dumbass in the first reply, though. Sorry.

By: excimer

excimer — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:37:28 +0000

And said complaint will not be posted here.

By: Moody Blue

Moody Blue — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:15:26 +0000

Looks like bridgedragon has taken his/her grievances to the proper place. It’s a copy of the complaint s/he has sent to JACS editor that has been ccd here.