"The quick backtrack illustrates the danger of bypassing peer review when announcing new results, Peter Doran, an Arctic and Antarctic researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told OurAmazingPlanet.
. . . .
"'You can say anything you want in a press release,' Doran said. 'The peer review literature (by contrast) is very controlled. It needs to be substantiated, and written in clear language.'"
Yep. That's the problem. There is a well known science news cycle
in which a researcher announces a preliminary result, but as a press release is compiled, the result is hyped up. Then credulous journalists who don't know much about science hype it some more.
My all-time favorite link to share in any Hacker News discussion of a speculative research finding like those posted here in the last few days is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research.
What does this mean for any future findings from this effort? For the purpose of examining ancient lifeforms in this lake; is the lake now considered contaminated by surface organisms?
Kind of bummed out over this news to be honest. Well, we still have deep sea exploration - I'm sure there's something down there that we haven't found yet.
Not really. There was no fraud going on and they double checked their results as they were supposed to. Their only sin maybe here was having over zealous PR.
The Internet these days makes potential findings hard to keep secret as well as easy to disseminate and misinterpret.
"The quick backtrack illustrates the danger of bypassing peer review when announcing new results, Peter Doran, an Arctic and Antarctic researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told OurAmazingPlanet.
. . . .
"'You can say anything you want in a press release,' Doran said. 'The peer review literature (by contrast) is very controlled. It needs to be substantiated, and written in clear language.'"
Yep. That's the problem. There is a well known science news cycle
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
in which a researcher announces a preliminary result, but as a press release is compiled, the result is hyped up. Then credulous journalists who don't know much about science hype it some more.
My all-time favorite link to share in any Hacker News discussion of a speculative research finding like those posted here in the last few days is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research.
http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
Check each submission to Hacker News you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the submission.