from Hacker News

Comment on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts

by picture on 1/16/25, 5:24 PM with 81 comments

by owlninja on 1/16/25, 5:53 PM
I guess I'll bite - what am I looking at here?
by 5mk on 1/16/25, 6:45 PM
I've always wondered about gel image fraud -- what's stopping fraudulent researchers from just running a dummy gel for each fake figure? If you just loaded some protein with a similar MW / migration / concentration as the one you're trying to spoof, the bands would look more or less indistinguishable. And because it's a real unique band (just with the wrong protein), you wouldn't be able to tell it's been faked using visual inspection.
Perhaps this is already happening, and we just don't know it... In this way I've always thought gel images were more susceptible to fraud vs. other commonly faked images (NMR / MS spectra etc, which are harder to spoof)
by smusamashah on 1/16/25, 6:11 PM
They have a playlist of 3500 videos showing images like this one
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlXXK20HE_dV8rBa2h-8P9d-0...
by snowwrestler on 1/16/25, 7:33 PM
There is so little content and context to this link that it is essentially flame war bait in a non-expert forum like HN.
by mrshu on 1/16/25, 7:47 PM
For reference, the title of the paper this appeared in is "Novel RNA- and FMRP-binding protein TRF2-S regulates axonal mRNA transport and presynaptic plasticity"
Google Scholar reports 43 citations: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Novel+RNA-and+FMRP-bind...
The images still seem to be visible in both PubMed and Nature versions.
PubMed version: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26586091/
Nature version: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9888
Nature version (PDF): https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9888.pdf
by robwwilliams on 1/17/25, 1:47 AM
Just for context:
The senior author is Mark Mattson: one of the world’s most highly cited neuroscientists with amazing productivity and large lab while at NIH when this work was done.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=N3ObarMAAAAJ&hl=en...
Mattson is well known as a biohacker and an expert in intermittent fasting and health benefits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Mattson
He retired from the National Institute on Aging in 2019 and is now at Johns Hopkins University. Still active researcher.
https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2019/08/23/mattson-expert-brain-ag...
by lxe on 1/16/25, 6:08 PM
Not just same bands, but same noise and artifacts too. They copypasted the data?
by doodda on 1/16/25, 6:00 PM
Here's me, clicking and expecting to read about someone fleecing Spotify by setting up fake bands.
by neilv on 1/16/25, 8:07 PM
If you just looked at all the undergrads trying to find ways to cheat on their homework, exams, and job interviews, it'd be easy to imagine that university lab science conducted by those same people is also full of cheating whenever they thought they could get away with it.
But I've wondered whether maybe some of the fabrications are just sloppy work tracking so many artifacts.
You might be experienced enough with computers to have filing conventions and workflow tools, around which you could figure out how to accurately keep track of numerous lab equipment artifacts, including those produced by multiple team members, and have traceability from publication figures all the way to original imaging or data. But is this something everyone involved in a university lab would be able to do reliably?
I'm sure there's a lot of dishonesty going on, because people going into the hard sciences can be just as shitty as your average Leetcode Cadet. But maybe some genuine scientists could use better computer tools and skills?
by barbazoo on 1/16/25, 5:54 PM
Would this imply that someone faked data in a paper they published?
by w10-1 on 1/16/25, 6:18 PM
The opportunity here is to automate detection of fake data used in papers.
I could be hard to do without access to data and costly integration. And like shorting, the difficulty is how to monetize. It could also be easy to game. Still...
The nice thing about the business is that market (publishing) is flourishing. Not sure about state of the art or availability of such services.
For sales: run it on recent publications, and quietly ping the editors with findings and a reasonable price.
Unclear though whether to brand in a user-visible way (i.e., where the journal would report to readers that you validate their stuff). It could drive uptake, but a glaring false negative would be a risk.
Structurally, perhaps should be a non-profit (which of course can accumulate profits at will). Does YC do deals without ownership, e.g., with profit-sharing agreements?
by sega_sai on 1/16/25, 6:22 PM
At least this paper has only 43 citations over last 10 years, which is really nothing for Nature, which means it's basically irrelevant. (Obviously it is still a good idea to identify cheaters)
by cosmojg on 1/16/25, 7:04 PM
Ooh, I love that this website exists, and major props to whoever made that visualization!
by mellosouls on 1/17/25, 4:24 AM
The image with meaningless blotches, technical diagrams and implied dubiousness feels like the beginning of a "please check and comment" meme.
by dr_dshiv on 1/16/25, 6:02 PM
Is there an obvious way to tell that these are exactly the same? Or is this a pixel level comparison that is not mentioned?
by jvanderbot on 1/16/25, 6:16 PM
A desperate need for automated experiment verification and auditing is needed. Something as simple as submitting exif + archiving at time of capture, for crying out loud.
A imgur for scientific photos with hash-based search or something. We have the technology for this.
by NotAnOtter on 1/16/25, 10:21 PM
Pruitt? Is that you?
by egberts1 on 1/16/25, 6:39 PM
Copypasta.
by bdangubic on 1/16/25, 7:28 PM
damn you spotify … :)
by philipwhiuk on 1/16/25, 6:03 PM
Can someone change the title to:
"Comment on Nature paper on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts"
The current title would suggest music to most lay-people.