Shifting the topic from research misconduct to good laboratory practices, I don't really understand how someone would forget to take pictures of their gels often enough that they would feel it necessary to fake data. (I think you're recounting something you saw someone else do, so this isn't criticizing you.) The only reason to run the experiment to collect data. If there's no data in hand, why would they think the experiment was done? Also, they should be working from a written protocol or a short-form checklist so each item can be ticked off as it is completed. And they should record where they put their data and other research materials in their lab notebook, and copy any work (data or otherwise) to a file server or other redundant storage, before leaving for the day. So much has to go wrong to get to research misconduct and fraud from the starting point of a little forgetfulness.
I mean, I've seen people deliberately choose to discard their data and keep no notes, even when I offered to give them a flash drive with their data on it, so I understand that this sort of thing happens. It's still senseless.
I wouldn't have an issue with sharing information with advertisers if it were solely for promotional purposes. However, the concerning part is that all data is up for grabs to anyone willing to pay for it, including scammers and the like. It's somewhat absurd that we have to protect something as simple as our birthdays, which should ideally be just harmless numbers with no potential for misuse. Unfortunately, the actual situation is far from reassuring, the surveillance nature of the internet is slowly taking shape. Sometimes I wonder if the digital identity problem could ever be solved and whether that will usher us under complete surveillance.
>If you get a positive with an uncertainty in its accuracy, at the very least, the test is repeated. But even more, you can use the information from the investigation of the reason for the false positive to improve the tests in the first place.
This assumes that the false positive is caused randomly. That's not the case. False positive tests are usually followed by false positive tests. Then it will take years to find out if it was a false positive or not.
That is very interesting. I assumed that false positives is generally a testing error (testing with another method or from another company would not lead to the same result). If the false positive is a result of a non-dangerous anomaly of the person being tested, then, I see how testing without symptoms can be worse.
Herein lies the real issue. Biology is a very, very messy science. So yes it could just be a testing error. But it might not be. It might be that something in your body behaves in a way that's unexpected. It might be some other non-dangerous anomaly as you cite.
We understand far more than we did say 20 years ago. But the problems are non-trivial on a scale most people don't appreciate.
According to the article on question:
The effects of caffeine intake on the quality and quantity of sleep depend on the timing of its consumption. More specifically, caffeine consumed in the evening hours prolongs sleep latency10,11,12,13,14, reduces total sleep time (TST)10,11,12,14,15, shortens deep sleep10,12,13,14,15, and decreases electroencephalographically (EEG)-derived slow-wave activity (SWA)10, while activity in the sigma range is increased10.
reply