
Millions of dollars’ worth of research in limbo at NIH - endswapper
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/millions-of-dollars-worth-of-research-in-limbo-at-nih/2017/06/04/34bb5606-38dd-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-low_nihlabs-329pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
======
epmaybe
Whenever I read stories like these I tend to take it with a grain of salt.
There is always another part of the story we are missing. It will however be
interesting to follow the development of this. Hopefully Washington Post or
another outlet follows up with this.

~~~
xenophonf
Here's the backstory:

[http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/firing-veteran-nih-
sc...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/firing-veteran-nih-scientist-
prompts-protests-over-publication-ban)

It sounds like these junior postdocs are trying to salvage their careers after
getting seriously screwed over by Braun's misfeasance. That sucks but I'm not
sure the data management issues are as trivial as they claim. Experimental
protocols are designed to protect the safety of human subjects. Those
protections exist because of past transgressions that lead to serious harm and
suffering---remember the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? NIDCD is probably right
to throw out the data if the protocol was violated for nearly half the study
participants covered by their audit.

~~~
nonbel
True story, I once went to try out being a subject for one of these take a
drug then do some tests with an EEG hooked up, etc kind of study. They never
once mentioned it, but then in the informed consent form there was a whole
section agreeing to a _spinal tap_. I was like wtf, and they said "sorry we
gave you an old version on accident" then replaced the form with one without
the spinal tap section.

The study seemed legit so it probably was just an honest error, but I wonder
how many people agreed to a spinal tap without realizing what it was.

~~~
Cass
Research/academia can certainly be kind of screwed up, but I doubt that any
ethics board in a developed country is going to okay a study that involves
_tricking_ people into a spinal tap. And all the consent forms patients are
asked to sign before agreeing to a procedure, the ones that tell you about the
procedure and the risks in excruciating detail, are as much for the protection
of the doctor as the patient. That way, if the patient ends up paralyzed, at
least they can't claim you didn't warn them when the case goes to court.

So unless you were dealing with a single rogue Mad Scientist, I'd assume that
was an error.

~~~
nonbel
I dunno, csf samples (and corresponding data) can be quite valuable.

For example, I know someone who had a spinal cyst removed and learned that to
this day they do not understand if the fluid is coming from inside or outside
the cyst. We lack basic mechanistic information about these issues because
there is so little data (then again the papers I looked at that did have such
data only checked averages and otherwise weak/incorrect analysis).

------
nonbel
Once again, just go back to the old school ways. These new ways are not robust
at all. You need to regularly perform _independent_ replications (no, it
shouldn't be done in parallel and published in the same paper).

This will filter fraud, honest errors, and non-stationary effects. It will
also encourage publication of usable methods sections, and much more.

~~~
nonbel
I know we aren't supposed to comment on the votes, but it is notable that the
scientific method gets downvoted here...

------
Shivetya
So which group has the overall authority to decide one way or another is the
data is valid and if the restrictions are warranted? Who is the parent? NIH?
Someone else? Seems odd that a professional level pissing match could get so
out of control? is this common?

------
mnutsch
The most important footnote in this article:

"Returns vary significantly by school and major."

~~~
larrik
I think you posted to the wrong article.

