I’m sure there are a lot of people doing ethical things and not trying to deliberately make me embarrassed to be a member of the human race—just not on social media, and not in the news. And there is Frances Arnold.
She is an American chemical engineer and the Linus Pauling Professor of Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry at Caltech. Professor Arnold was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018 for pioneering the use of directed evolution to engineer enzymes. “Directed evolution” is a method used in protein engineering that mimics the process of natural selection to steer proteins or nucleic acids toward a user-defined goal. You know..this:
She had published a paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams in May 2019 in the Science journal. When she discovered recently that her research could not be replicated, however, Arnold repudiated her own paper, and pronounced it the product of shoddy research.
“For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to announce that we have retracted last year’s paper on enzymatic synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible,” she posted on Twitter. “It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well.”
A short, clear, Level I apology, and it is refreshing to know that there are scientific geniuses who use the word “bummed,” and who do not write like Timnit Gebru.
On one hand, I wonder if it is easier for a Nobel winner to admit something like this. On the other, I am certain that the more eminent a scientist is, the harder it is to reveal a serious error. No matter how one looks at it, Professor Arnold exhibited integrity, honesty, humility and courage, may have done as much for science by showing how an ethical scientist handles an error as she did with her work on directed evolution.
I would be more certain about that if I understood what the hell directed evolution was.
_________________________________________
Use this link if you are sharing on Facebook: https://twitter.com/CaptCompliance/status/1213583009942622208
Ethics Alarms 
She looks like a short haired Jessica Lange.
Any odds that Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Phil Jones, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, et al, (the Rock Stars of Global Warming Inc.) would summon the stones to do likewise?
Thought that, decided to be nice and not write it.
Glad to not be the only one thinking along these lines,,,
Whaaaaaat?
That the chicken littles involved in panicky hysteria over global warming would admit the research is flawed and apologize to everyone.
We have more than 12, I mean, 11 1/2 years?
“Research is flawed” is an understatement…
CLIMATE CHANGE
Have read my pal Zoltar Speaks! post many times and it never gets old.
Especially the charts which, except for the cherry-picked one by the self-exiled Chris, show that Mother Gaia has a gosh darn heart-beat!
Nice?
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is …. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
I’m thrilled to see Ms. Arnold agrees with Dr. Feynman. Climate Alarmists such as Mann, Hayhoe, and most of the rest have resolutely ignored him.
“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Thomas Huxley
Deserving of mention would be the 2011 OPERA Experiment results, which showed CERN scientists observing neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light.
This lightning-in-a-shotglass discovery would have called into question Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity,” turned science-as-we-know-it on its head, and guaranteed these researchers a place on science’s Mount Rushmore.
To their credit, AND with a nod to research ethics, the first thing they did was consistent with THE most basic aspect of scientific inquiry; make their findings (methodologies, data sets, etc.) available for independent testing/scrutiny to be either reproduced or falsified, with the latter prevailing.
Speaking of Herr Einstein: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Couple of good related reads on this:
Christopher Wesler’s The Irreproducibility Crisis Of Modern Science and
Jonah Lehrer’s rather dark The Truth Wears Off
Didn’t I read somewhere about the lack of women in STEM? Maybe it was something caused by the “math is hard” meme promoted by the Barbie doll. [Note: it is hard, but necessary.]
Professon Arnold has some serious cred.
Give me a few more minutes with that diagram, I’ve almost got it figured out…. uhhh, never mind.
All the graph means is that you attempt to create the traits you want, then select the germs that show those traits (tossing the others) and run the process again on the best candidates.
“Directed evolution” is a method used in protein engineering that mimics the process of natural selection to steer proteins or nucleic acids toward a user-defined goal. I believe directed evolution studies were was begun on the Island of Dr. Moreau.
All kidding aside, periodic apologies or retractions relating to scientific works should actually strengthen the validity of propositions of that scientist. Such humility demonstrates the individual’s requirement for scientific rigor rather than pushing an agenda. I am far more willing to take such a scientists word on some matter when he or she is willing to admit fallibility.
I agree that Frances Arnold is an ethics hero but the problem I see is that the only reason that she’s considered an ethics hero is that so many other “scientists” have breached their basic ethics and knowingly presented flawed research to the public as if it’s fact. It’s happening more an more often that flawed agenda driven research is presented as fact when it is far from fact. Frances Arnold did what any reputable scientist should have done.