prljavi pokvareni prevaranti

[kurdi]

iscitah ovo sve skoro pazljivo, i ne vidim gde ima nesto o prevarama?

[Indy]

Mozda nije naucna prevara, ali neka vrsta navlacenja jeste indirektno (ima o tome malo vise ovde, a 3 godine staro: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/living-longer-with-resveratrol.html )Dok se situacija ne razjasni, u medjuvremenu ja i dalje preporucujem crveno vino. Pocev od sebi.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Indy

[betty]

ja nisam iscitala, ali repliciranje genetskih studija nosi razne teskoce koje druge naucne oblasti nemaju. za pocetak, koliko podici kriterijum statistickog testa, ako se testira 30.000 gena svaki ponaosob. za test koji je dovoljno strog, sanse su toliko male da se ista nadje da nije neobicno da neko drugi ne pronadje na nekom drugom uzorku, cak iako je gen tu. a ako je crta poligenska, desi se da jedno istrazivanje nadje jedan gen, drugo neki drugi, itd. visina je primer ljudske karakteristike koja je sasvim jasno odredjena genima (odnosno vrlo nasledljiva), a za koju nisu pronadjeni geni. niko ne smatra da ne postoje, vec samo da ih je mnogo. sizofrenija je drugi primer. inteligencija, po mom uverenju, je treci.

[fonTelefon]

Mozda nije naucna prevara, ali neka vrsta navlacenja jeste indirektno (ima o tome malo vise ovde, a 3 godine staro: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/living-longer-with-resveratrol.html )Dok se situacija ne razjasni, u medjuvremenu ja i dalje preporucujem crveno vino. Pocev od sebi.

e i ti kad bi se covek obazirao na sve lose primere nikad ne bi uzivao u zivotu uprkos tome sad pijem chianti uz palacinke sa domacim dzemom. jedan dogadjaj sa casa biologije jos u proslom milenijumu davi nas profesorka jednom nogom u grobu kako je dimljeno meso kancerogeno na sta nas punacki drug bolje da umrem od raka nego od gladi.

[lostfanforever]

iscitah ovo sve skoro pazljivo, i ne vidim gde ima nesto o prevarama?

zavisi kako je definises. Nema (makar ne za sad poznatih) imaginarnih setova podataka, izmisljenih experimenata/referenci itd, kao u prethodnih nekoliko primera ali ocigledno ima: lose interpretacije rezultata, neogovarajucih kontrola kao i prenaduvavanja rezultata.(Ne)namerno? Prevara?koga mrzi da cita sve, par kljucnih stvari1) (In)direktna veza izmedju dietary restriction and SIR2 Guarente describes being taken aback by the challenge. “Initially, I didn't know what to think,” he says, “until I looked really closely and saw the conditions were different.” Kaeberlein and Kennedy, he argues, starved their yeast much more aggressively than he had.Kennedy saw no need to retreat either. Guarente's argument about different dietary conditions, Kaeberlein says, is a “red herring”; the yeast in the 2004 paper were tested under varying glucose concentrations, including one commonly used by Guarente. 2) Uloga resveratrolaResveratrol wasn't doing anything—not extending life, not activating SIR2. They tested it in the same yeast strains Sinclair was using, to no avail. Sinclair proffered various explanations: The glucose concentrations used to restrict calories or the plastic on the petri dishes might be throwing results off. Kaeberlein and Kennedy went ahead and published in 2005 in The Journal of Biological Chemistry. Their bottom line: Contrary to Sinclair's Nature papers, resveratrol did nothing to help yeast cells live longer. 3) Smoothing out differences (genetically modified strain vs. control)Outcrossing the worms up to six times revealed that SIR2 had no effect on life span. “It's basically a boring little story that says if you do the experiment properly, you arrive at the correct result”, Partridge says. 4) Guarente izdaje korekciju rada:Guarente tested the worms himself. He discovered that unbeknownst to him and Tissenbaum 10 years earlier, the animals carried a second genetic mutation unrelated to sirtuins, and that eliminating it left only about a 10% to 15% extension of life span from SIR2, not the 30% reported.da sumiramo na temu prevare: “If it turns out that this was a giant bubble—how is it possible for so many publications, so much money, it shouldn't have got that far, it shouldn't have happened,” he says. He knows of some groups that chose not to publish negative results in the field. “There's a view that seems to be current, that somehow one doesn't engage in quarrels. Sometimes, you have to.”

[Indy]

Lostfan, nisam ubedjen (iz ovih nekoliko linkova) da je jos data zadnja rec o ovim "proteinima dugovecnosti". Ono sto celu stvar izdvaja iz standardne nesigurnosti po pitanju dejstva gena (ovako kako je lepo objasnila ljilja srpkinja) je moment komercijalizacije. Prodavanje preparata za koje nije sigurno da bilo sta rade za skupe pare. Znaci, skoro jedan Raul Amon trenutak.:)Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zverilla]

evo ga i nase gore list!

Edited April 23, 2012 by Zverilla

[kepa]

Srpsko novinarstvo ETN umesto ETH, pa jebemu mater postoji internet pa se ode na sajt instituta.Mali je kreten, koji ce mu kinta od drzave ako ga je neko primio na PhD na ETH gde ce imati mesecno od 3000-4500 CHF. Mada ga uopste i nema kao PhD studenta na ETH, jedino da je bio external collaborator na nekom projektu. Imam drugara tamo u grupi za fizicku hemiju, svajcarca, i kaze mi da niko nikad nije cuo za ovog lika.

[betty]

stefan the lazni fizicar nam se obraca. prvo se hvali a druge kritikuje, petlja i mulja, kenja i kenja i kenja... ali onda, nakon 11 minuta, nastaje neocekivani obrt! preporucujem taj deo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5hVdrR3Ug4

[lostfanforever]

ovo je bas scaryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/whistleblower-uses-youtube-to-assert.html

Jigen says he began looking into Kato's publications after a colleague told him about a correction to a 2009 Nature paper that appeared in October 2011. Several images "were inadvertently duplicated or erroneously created during figure assembly," the correction notice reads. Jigen and his colleague then examined 24 papers from the Kato group and spotted the allegedly problematic images.Two months before the correction appeared in Nature, Kato's group retracted two papers that had appeared in The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in March 2007 and May 2004. In both cases, the articles were retracted "at the request of the authors as they had plagiarized the majority of their paper" from their own previously published work, according to the retraction notices. Jigen says he was aware of the earlier retractions but did not have any role in uncovering the problem.

a ko zeli samo youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXaOqwanWnUmoj PI objavljivao radove sa njim pre sto godina, i sad je bas u neverici. kapiram da ce od sad sve kod njega na duplu kontrolu, iako je inace po mom ukusu i previse opusten.

[Dagmar]

stefan the lazni fizicar nam se obraca. prvo se hvali a druge kritikuje, petlja i mulja, kenja i kenja i kenja... ali onda, nakon 11 minuta, nastaje neocekivani obrt! preporucujem taj deo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5hVdrR3Ug4

Izvlači se na neuračunljivost.

[kapetanm]

Udario junak na junakaPrvo sam mislio da je mali opak prevarant, a sad sam ubeđen da je potpuno lud. Tvrdi da zbog sputavanja njegovih projekata™ nemamo šanse za EU.

Edited May 16, 2012 by kapetanm

[Dr Arslanagić]

Profesor je kopirao rad srpskog kolege s dječjim vlakićem i postao šef katedre!

[Indy]

Neko ko pise (anonimno) umesto onog ko je potpisan.

[Amelija]

ju!a zašto bi iko pristao na tako nešto? jel dobije bar neki citat il novce il nešto?onaj koji bi želeo da angažuje duha verovatno zato što on ima dobre rezultate ali nema pojma da piše?