ThomasJoel2;56306 wrote: Dr. Dong-Pyou Han from Iowa State University has resigned this week after admitting he spiked rabbit blood samples with healthy human blood to falsely show the presence of antibodies that would “prove” his AIDS vaccine worked.
The NIH later found the fraud after attempting to replicate Han’s work and figuring out something was terribly wrong with the research.
That’s great news!
In any field of human activity, there are some frauds at work. Unfortunate as this may be, it is reality. For this very reason, medical research is never accepted on face value. Every finding has to be replicated.
Preferably, this replication has to be done by a different group of researchers, which consist of independent people, using a different technique, in a different place, at a different time, using different methods for verification.
Only after the results have been successfully replicated this way, will the finding be accepted.
In addition to trying to replicate the results (which one may call the “positive” approach), the report will be scrutinized by others who try to find flaws that could have been made (either knowingly or unwillingly) during any point of the process. This scrutinizing, or trying to find faults (which one may call the “negative” approach), is just as important as the replication of the results.
Your example of the discovery of Mr. Han’s fraud shows how necessary both of these approaches are. I’m happy that they are standard practice, and that they worked so well in this case!