Short abstract:

One error in physics in the early 20th century persisted 15 years through work by 3 Nobel Prize winners and was eventually corrected by a graduate student. This case and other long-standing errors and "error cascades" help indicate when and how errors are corrected.

Long abstract:

Well, that’s how long it took to correct the error. By a graduate student, no less. Who had to fix something his advisor had received a Nobel Prize for. Along with errors in the work of two other Nobel Prize winners. All compounded, one upon another, with no one correcting the fundamental error -- an erroneous value for the viscosity of air. This tale of compounded error shows just how science failed to self-correct -- neither peer review nor replication (regarded conventionally as the stopgaps) caught the error. Correction did occur, ultimately?, stemming from conflicting results and substantial additional work tracking the source of the discrepancy. In general, error correction occurs when an incongruence --observational discordance, anomaly, or interpretive disagreement or ambiguity-- leads to further experimental work that probes alternatives and compares one case against another until some factor can be attributed to be ultimately responsible for an errant result, and thence remedied. > Allchin, D. 2015. Correcting the 'self-correcting' mythos of science. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 10, 19–35.

Short abstract:

Alzheimer’s disease is explained and treated based on a scientific premise that has been repeatedly disproved yet dominates. Via recent examples of research fraud and pharmaceutical failure, I explore the individual and institutional reasons why this hypothesis “refuses to die”.

Long abstract:

This work examines the journey and legacy of an actively disputed hypothesis in molecular neuroscience, using this as a starting point to speculate more broadly on the staying power of scientific errors, and the material and institutional conditions that may surround and support their longevity.

Here, I trace the development of the actively contested yet dominant “amyloid” hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease, from just another plausible explanation of pathology to practically an ideology that is the (questionable yet enduring) basis for the majority of therapies currently in clinical trials. In this narrative, I look at contemporary instances of fraudulent discoveries, misconduct in scientific reportage and the spectacular medical and financial failure of adacanumab as a pharmaceutical intervention. In doing so,this talk contributes to extant STS explorations of the extrinsic institutional, academic, and social pressures that have an outsized influence on not just research questions but research answers. What do ‘erroneous’ decisions look like in the social fabric of molecular neuroscience? What explains and sustains scientific “stubbornness”, and what motivates the mutation of persistence to perversion - on individual, collective, and systemic levels? And what can we even do about it?

Long abstract:

The Voinnet affair (around 2015) recounts the story of a rising biologist forced to retract a hefty number of his publications in retrospect, upon allegations of scientific misconduct concerning gel electrophoresis images. Actually, for the last ten years, within molecular life sciences, the reproducibility crisis discourse reflects a crisis of trust in scientific digital images.

Beyond the contentious perception of "questionable research practices" associated with a digital turn in the production of images, we highlight transformations of gel electrophoresis as a family of experimental techniques from the 1980s to the 2000s. Our aim is to analyze the evolving epistemic status of electrophoresis images.

To this end, we discuss the advent of two tiers of gel electrophoresis, each with different standardization procedures, different epistemic statuses of generated images and different ways of generating (dis)trust in images. The first tier is characterized by specialized devices processing images as quantitative data. The second tier is described as a routine technique making use of image as qualitative "virtual witnessing".

The difference between these two tiers is particularly apparent in the ways images are processed, even though both tiers involve image digitization. Our account thus highlights different views on reproducibility within the two tiers. Comparability of images is insisted upon in the first tier while traceability is expected in the second tier. In the second tier, Photoshop entails distrust, whereas a form of collective disciplining in the first tier implies a general sentiment of trust.

Long abstract:

Over the last 20 years, a large literature has grown on the apparent ‘pro-social’ actions of intranasal oxytocin (IN-OT) in humans. This interest was spurred by a paper in Nature that reported an effect of IN-OT on interpersonal trust in humans; a paper that quickly become the highest cited paper ever published on oxytocin. It was rapidly joined by several other highly-cited papers that arrived at similarly bold claims. These established IN-OT as a ‘hot topic’, and many papers followed in high-impact journals, strengthening the perception that this was a promising area, with potential utility in treating conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorders. However, the findings in the original, highly-cited papers proved to be poorly replicable. This has led to controversies that involve issues that exemplify current concern about the reliability of published evidence and the detrimental impacts of ‘hype’. Questions have been raised, for example, over whether any IN-OT actually reaches the brain, about whether assays used to measure oxytocin are valid, about the validity of statistical analyses, and the adequacy of publication practices. This paper analyses the evidence behind claims regarding the social effects of IN-OT, studies how that evidence spread through literature, and how it was described in citing papers via citation network analysis. I aim to understand whether selective citation and other citation distortions shaped understanding of the social effects of OT in human as the literature grew, and how controversies over reliability have affected what evidence is cited and how it is interpreted.

Long abstract:

Nanotechnology is a scientific field where STS scholars have observed the influence of magical thinking. Here we contribute to that literature by describing a discovery in the field of drug delivery (known as "the EPR Effect") which, when the nano boom of the 2000s brought intense interest and investment from outside the field, spawned so many efforts and enterprises in nano-based drug delivery that it became virtually the entire basis for nanomedicine. The collapse of the field that followed the 2016 failure of the most prominent of these biotech enterprises offers insights into the initial formation of nanomedicine. It also offers a platform from which we consider how contemporary science may incorporate elements of the magical, and how attributions of magic or enchantment to technoscience are best assessed.

Short abstract:

In this research, we defend the idea that the term ‘protein corona’ presents a kind of trilemma as a field being able to produce many scientific articles but whose epistemic gain is still challenging to evaluate and identify.

Long abstract:

From 2007 onwards, the expression “protein corona” has been used in hundreds of scientific articles. Its proponents claim that it is central to the field of bionanoscience. This expression has had great “quantitative” success: several hundreds of protein corona scientific articles are being published each year in peer reviewed journals. Yet, on a qualitative level, after more than 15 years of research in this field, estimating the specific achievements of the field other than the cataloguing of which proteins might be adsorbed on the surface of which type of particle seems uneasy. Is the protein corona a legitimate subject of research? Or is it a science hype bubble which could end up self-correcting into inexistence?

In this research, we defend the idea that the term ‘protein corona’ presents a kind of trilemma as a field able to produce many scientific articles but whose epistemic gain is still challenging to evaluate and identify. Yes, the protein corona has become a powerful label for publishing and attracting resources. Yet, its 'conceptual' function seems to lose relevance, since its de facto scientific production appears to be oriented towards the accumulation of technical practices. Eventually, it may be that the core value of the 'protein corona' is to provide nanoscience groups working on the boundary between disciplines (chemistry, physics, and biology) a common language to engage with.

Long abstract:

In recent decades, nanoscientists have announced many new nanoparticles, made from varying materials, in varying shapes, sizes etc. They name and rename them, claim and highlight particular features and uses, creating argumentative chains that link chemistry to application in various and changing ways. We conceptualise these recategorizations as argumentative realignments, based on earlier studies by, among others, Bastide and Callon. By aligning a particular chemical structure, chemical or physical property, process and application, some researchers argue that the particles they produce are useful in a particular way. Over time, elements of these chains get relabelled and new connections are made, steering the development of new particles, or simply repurposing old ones.

To see if and how this alignment may change over time, we track parts of the argumentative chain in scientific articles, using a case study: Spherical Nucleic Acids. Using two key publications in the development of these particles as entries, we analysed abstracts and citation contexts and compare them over time, tracking particular terms used in the argumentative chain. To differentiate between the original inventors of these particles and how other researchers pick up parts of argumentative chains, we compared self-citations with citations by others.

The argumentative chain can also be used as a way to map error allegations. Criticism can occur at any part of the argumentative chain. For example, an opponent could argue that a claimed physical or chemical property is not actually present, or that certain links in the argumentative chain are skipped.

Long abstract:

Scientific findings can be scrutinized and potentially corrected in different ways. One possibility is to revise published results by replicating them with a diagnostic motive (Peterson and Panofsky, 2021). Such replication studies involve challenges on a conceptual (e.g. developing guidelines, creating a corpus) and empirical level (e.g. optimizing protocols, having access to the same models of the original article). We focus on a project in the nanobiosciences that aims to replicate experiments, which use nanoparticles for sensing targets inside mammalian cells. Maha uses cellular biology and microscopy techniques to replicate experiments and test the nanoparticles’ ability to sense inside cells. Candida uses lab and conference ethnography to observe how the project is set up, presented, and received. Over the last three years, we have observed that a replication project can evoke a lack of institutional support, no response from the original authors, and criticism from researchers in the field, which leads to caution to collaborate with members of the project. However, scientists who have faced problems with reproducibility can be interested in cooperating. Based on these (anticipated) responses, it is vital for the project members to build social infrastructures. They establish labs for different experiments, organize access to scientific instruments, contribute to conferences, create publication outlets for Registered Reports, order from reliable vendors, and invite colleagues and contractors to participate in multi-lab replications. We argue that the construction of these social infrastructures requires a significant amount of time and resources, but they provide a necessary foundation for doing contested science.

Long abstract:

The role of "science detective" is now well-established in both the scientific community and the media. Key players such as Elizabeth Bik, Leonid Schneider and Guillaume Cabanac have helped to define the contours of this role and enjoy a high profile in the mainstream media. However, little is known about the recent history and context of the emergence of the detective role. In this presentation we will look at the first uses of the notion of "watchdog" applied to the correction of science, as well as the first steps of post-publication peer review on blogs created around the 2010s. Looking back at the pioneering contribution made by scientists using digital technologies such as blogs or social networks, the aim is to see how these scientists have helped to define the components of the role of detective and, more broadly, the conditions for open critical discussion of scientific publications. In particular, we'll be looking back at the origins and context of the creation of blogs such as Abnormal Science, Science Fraud and Pubpeer.

Long abstract:

In recent years, momentum around the importance of correcting scientific literature, has given rise to a group of academics, who engage in advocacy and practical initiatives, oriented towards improving the system and processes of scientific research.

Sometimes referred to as “epistemic activists”, this group of scientists not only advocate for better standards of research, but also expose and attempt to curb the many ways in which the reliability of scientific knowledge becomes compromised.

Along the various means and modes of communication that epistemic activists employ, they often can draw (considerable) attention from both specialised and mainstream news media, obtaining a powerful platform to communicate about systemic problems in science to the academic community and beyond. This makes it interesting to explore epistemic activists as actors in the public science communication landscape.

This talk will present work in progress for a project investigating news media content featuring epistemic activists. This project uses media content analysis as a way to investigate the causes and concerns of epistemic activists, as well as representations of systemic problems in science that epistemic activists communicate. In this regard, it explores how systemic problems in science are framed in terms of issues, solutions and actors involved. Moreover, what imageries of science may emerge from these discourses and how epistemic activism and epistemic activists themselves are portrayed?

In the process, this project attempts to understand epistemic activism as a genre of science communication.

Long abstract:

In the realm of scientific inquiry, challenges have arisen that cast doubt on the integrity and effectiveness of the scientific endeavor. This presentation critically examines the multifaceted errors in science, encompassing bubbles, hypes, broken promises, incomplete instructions, miscitations, tortured phrases, uncomfortable knowledge, ghost-managed medicines, and general flaws of capitalist techno-science and the publication system.

This exploration posits that language is never neutral and our comprehension and resolution of scientific errors are fundamentally intertwined with our understanding of communication. The talk surveys scientific and science communication through the lens of four distinct language games, each shaping our interpretation of errors and guiding interventions:

1.     Information Signal Transmission: Reviewing en-/decoding errors in information transfer shows how missing keys hinder replication of studies torture technical terms.

2.     Rhetoric: Investigating instances where a speaker's text misses the intended purpose highlights differences of accurate and motivating science communication versus alarmism, hype, and self-over-promotion.

3.     Speech Act Theory: Examining accidental, broken, and ignored promises and truth-claims as commitment for subsequent discourse and action shed light on social conventions and the socio-epistemic values of a retraction.

4.     Discourse Theory: Trend analysis and oppositional reading reveal privileged speaker positions to manufacture truth with power and hinder the investigation, acknowledgement, and dissemination of uncomfortable facts.

With indicators and suggested interventions for each perspective, this talk provides a framework for understanding and addressing errors in science from different angels. It highlights how different language games pre-structure our problem perception and interventions we suggest.

Long abstract:

The contribution presents the practice of open notebook science, conceived by Jean-Claude Bradley, a Chemistry professor and researcher at Drexel University in, who aimed to promote a vigorous debate on open collaboration, deal with the false appearance of infallibility in science and the harmful effects of the “model based on trust” – to be replaced by transparency and the preservation of data provenance. The author acknowledged the problematic aspects of scientific practice, referring cases of fraud, plagiarism and corruption, but he invested on what he considers the system's structural faults: the concepts of “reliable source”, the excessive confidence between peers and the notion of “scientific fact”. When he stated that “There are no facts in science, just evidences embedded in assumptions” (Bradley, 2008), he rejected the founding concept of Modern Science because he understood that, at best, measurements and experiments results can only be used as evidences, never as unchallengeable facts.

Given its characteristics, we points out that open notebook science engenders a new epistemic culture that is not based on the construction of “matter of facts”, but in we have called “matter of proof”. It values the meticulous documentation of scientific practice above the making of scientific facts. It also favours the virtualization of “testers” since it is an open collaboration/curation platform where peers can question descriptions and results, point out omissions, suggest other ways of elaboration, repeat the experiment, suggest alterations, rectifications, and future developments. It may provide feedback and renew scientific research continuously.