it's the end of the world as I know it

According to an article in the "New Scientist", half the scientific papers that get published are wrong. I think that perhaps the conclusions could be misleading, but unless there's clearly forged data, I have a hard time believing that half published works are wrong.

I recently read a paper that was focused on nicotinic receptors on lymphocytes. The strongest thing I remember is something in the discussion that went something like this "there is conflicting results in regards to expression of nicotinic receptors" and to back up that assertion was a reference to my paper, and a paper by a different group.

I think the biggest reason for the inaccuracies is related to what I call "reference hell", having to provide every obvious point you wish to make in your paper. There are hundreds of papers that show that there are physiological differences between mouse species, let alone mouse, human, and other species. I admit that I have in my attempts to find references only read the abstract, and not the details of their experiments. So, someone that publishes based on one species of mouse cannot be used by a different researcher that used a different species of mouse.

Our department suffered a small scandal when the highest producing professor was accused of faking her data in papers and grants. After a long protracted struggle, ties were cut, and we tried to move on. So I must admit that the possiblity of fake data is possible, but I don't think it's half the published results. I think it's more misunderstandings that lead to the can discredit a paper.

I am very happy today

Okay, my period cramps are pretty bad, but by Thursday they'll be history for a few weeks anyway. I've had terrible cravings for things I'm not supposed to have lately. Last week it was brownies, then it was bread, beer, and finally Coke-Cola.

Today at the diabetes data symposium, they were kind enough to have catered lunch since it was during lunchtime. What they offered - deli sandwiches on french bread. *grrrrrr!* Sure, some salt was rubbed in my wounds, but I was good and ate the lunchmeat, cheese, and lettuce from the slices of bread.

But the nagging for coke was beginning to really bother me. But celiac.org just provided me a gem of great news:

Carmel Color in North America does not use gluten containing products"

Off to get a coke, and I will enjoy it.

UPDATE: it's even better than I remember; plus I won a 1 liter bottle free.

blood boiling

I know that being 75% Polish, I inherited quite a bit of temper from various relatives. I'm trying to think about this rationally and calmly, but having a difficult time with it.

First, I read that Bush is comparing the war in Iraq to WWII. Okay, I admit that I didn't find anything in quotes except for "war on terror", but we've already shown that Iraq had no connection to Bin Laden, and could not attack any country with biological or radiological weapons. Here's part of the article, and then I'll explain why it bothers me so much:

He said that as in the time of World War II, the United States now faces "a ruthless enemy" and "once again we will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure."

Uhh, Iraq was not about to attack ANYONE, let alone the United States. Yes, Bin Laden's terror network is a ruthless enemy (anyone willing to die for their cause is a force to be recognized). But again, what does Iraq have to do with this, except PROMOTING the cause of the enemy. The first insult for them was when Saudia Arabia allowed western troops to enter their holy lands. Now, we appear to them to have no regard for their lands by essentially invading Iraq.

Did the normal speech writers take a month long vacation too, leaving Bush to write this speech for himself?

Then I read this summmary from the president at the same location:

They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy… After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities.

I don't agree that his assessment. If anything, these organizations have shown they can still operate with impunity to our forces, and that we ARE still vulnerable.

I'm going to have to end it there - there's a diabetes symposium that I figure is a good way to kill an hour and still look productive