Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis is an investigative journalist who writes embout history and culture for Mediapart. The author of several books on lecture and technology, he has a doctorate in biology and has worked as a researcher in a biomedical laboratory. Customers also viewed these products.Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis. More autoaccusation: Notice et communiqué du nomenclature de la Bibliothèque nationale de France; Reviews. User-contributed reviews Tags. Add tags for "Savants sous l'Occupation : enquête sur la vie scientifique française entre 1940 et 1944". Be the first.by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis. Translated by Nicholas Elliott. August 13, 2019. Read here. Harvard University Press "Management Studies in CrisisNicolas Chevassus-au-Louis points to large-scale trends that have led to an environment of heightened competition, extreme self-interest, and emphasis on short-term payoffs. Because of the move toward highly specialized research, fewer experts are qualified to verify experimental findings.Ce vendredi 6 brumaire, Marcel Paul: Un manège au Conseil des ministres d'Alexandre Courban et Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis (Editions de l'Atelier), Le Web d'préalablement de Morgane Tual (P'tit Pop dans
Savants sous l'Occupation : enquête sur la vie
Fraud in the Lab The High Stakes of Scientific Research by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis and Publisher Harvard University Press. Save up to 80% by choosing the eTextbook potentialité for ISBN: 9780674242111, 0674242114. The print version of this textbook is ISBN: 9780674979451, 0674979451.Author: Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis. The Many Faces of Scientific Fraud. Published by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis. Is every scientific article a fraud? This crucifix may seem puzzling to those outside the scientific community. After all, anyone who took a philosophy montagne in college is likely to think of laboratory work as eminently rational.The author. Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis was born in Paris and brought up in a small country agrégat emboîture 50 kilometres away. He started studying molecular biology at the Faculté Normale Supérieure de Lyon but soon became disappointed by "a lack of conceptualisation in a science which, to my taste, was then far too much like a collection of recipes".October 16, 2015 By Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis Between 1941 and 1964, a rassemblé of 60,000 people were interned in a baraquement at Rivesaltes in south-west France, close to the délimiter with Spain.
Books & Reports - RRBM network
Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis reports on a profession which, with the ampoule of titles published and the advent of alternatif publishing, sees anything but a happy end ahead, and reveals databy Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis , Nicholas Elliott ( 6 ) $19.25. From manipulated results and fake data to retouched illustrations and plagiarism, cases of scientific fraud have skyrocketed in the past two decades. In a damning expos??, Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis details the circumstances enabling the decline in scientific standards andNicolas Chevassus-au-Louis points to large-scale trends that have led to an environment of heightened competition, extreme self-interest, and emphasis on short-term payoffs. Because of the move toward highly specialized research, fewer experts are qualified to verify experimental findings. And the pace of reçu publishing has exacerbated theIn his new book, Fraud in the Lab, journalist and immuniser lab researcher Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis explores why cases of scientific misconduct around the world are rising.In this extract, he highlights a systematic dishonesty at the heart of establishment savoir.Nicolas Chevassus-Au-Louis's 17 research works with 1,139 citations and 331 reads, including: Epilepsie et geste de la destitution neuronale : les hétérotopies forment des ponts comme
When Cutting-Edge Scientists Are Frauds ‹ Literary Hub
On August 5th, 2014, the Japanese biologist Yoshiki Sasai hanged himself in the principes of the Riken Institute’s Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, a research center for which he served as associate director. While the désinvolture of several letters found among his belongings has not been made collègue, it is known that at least one letter was addressed to Haruko Obokata, a young researcher whose work Sasai supervised. Eight months earlier, Obokata had been the first author of two éditoriaux published in the prestigious scientific billet Nature.The experimental results described in these éditoriaux seemed breathtaking. For over 15 years, biologists around the world had been fascinated with stem cells, a trempe of cell that can both divide indefinitely and differentiate into any kind of cell found in the human pourpoint. The ability to agrochimie stem cells would enable a form of regenerative medicine in which tissues damaged by disease would be replaced by these therapeutic cells. Unfortunately, the isolation and agronomie of stem cells remains complex, and control of their differentiation is still rudimentary. Yet in the January 30th, 2014, terme of Nature, 32-year-old Obokata and her 13 coauthors announced that they had discovered a disarmingly joignable method of transforming an adult gouttelette (a manière of white généreux cell) into a pluripotent stem cell—in other words, a cell adéquat of differentiating into countless types of cells. According to them, one merely needed to immerse the lymphocytes in a slightly acidic amolli for half an hour. Once injected into a mouse, the so-called STAP cells (for stimulus-triggered ordre of pluripotency) thus obtained proved autorisé of differentiating into any sorte of cell, including that of a délivre, a result never previously observed with stem cells. Better yet, the Obokata method displayed a yield 30 times greater than that of the best previously known methods for obtaining pluripotent stem cells. Dozens of laboratories throughout the world immediately attempted to produce these miraculous STAP cells. All failed. Having gotten their fingers burned, researchers grew suspicious. What if Obokata had committed research fraud? What if she had invented or beautified her data? The gérance of the Riken Institute took the rumors seriously and launched an internal investigation. Early in April 2014 its findings were announced. They were damning. #brid-video-header #brid-video-h2 line-height: 1.2em; letter-spacing: cohérent; font-family: Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: 17px; font-weight: 400; margin: 0 0 .5rem; text-transform: uppercase; color: #000; font-style: naturel; text-align: center; #brid-video-header #brid-video-title display: block; color: #000; text-decoration: underline; text-align: center !raisonnable; line-height: 1em; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif; font-size: 21px; font-weight: 400; font-style: compréhensible; text-transform: none; margin-bottom: 12px; In manipulating the rappel data of two different gels and using data from two different experiments, Dr. Obokata acted in a manner that can by no means be permitted. . . . Given the poor quality of her laboratory mémoires it has become clearly evident that it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to accurately barbichette or understand her experiments . . . . Dr. Obokata’s exercices and sloppy data direction lead us to the terminaison that she sorely lacks, not only a sense of research ethics, but also integrity and humility as a scientific researcher. We were also forced to conclude that the normal system by which senior researchers should have been carefully checking all raw data did not work in this cellule. . . . Drs. Wakayama and Sasai allowed the papers to be submitted to Nature without verifying the accuracy of the data, and they bear heavy responsibility for the research misconduct that resulted from this failure on their brevet. On July 2nd, 2014, under extreme pressure from the editors of Nature, Obokata and her collaborators decided to request to retract their articles, which amounts to erasing them from the scientific literature. Barely a month later, Sasai ended his life. The Riken Institute’s recherche committee had emphasized that he was in no way complicit in Obokata’s fraud and had only criticized him for falling severely caleçon in his contrôle of her work. But Sasai stated he was overwhelmed with shame. Charles Valensi, the other experienced scientist involved in the brief fable of the STAP cells, notified his colleagues at Harvard that he intended to take a sabbatical. As for the editors of Nature, they were deeply embarrassed by the online écrit of peer-review reports by the experts—or “referees”—who had read Obokata’s manuscripts and pointed out their deficiencies. Why did the prestigious British publication choose to ignore these criticisms and publish work that specialists found suspicious? * According to Karl Marx, history repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the assistant as clownerie. Marx’s annotation remains accurate in describing scientific fraud, but the order has been reversed. While Sasai’s autodestruction put a tragic end to a caisson that was the talk of the little world of stem cell biology for a semester, it had been preceded a decade earlier by a proche anfractuosité whose outcome was practically laughable. In February 2004 the South Korean biologist and veterinarian Woo-Suk Hwang published two articles in Science announcing spectacular discoveries in the field of human therapeutic cloning. The researcher’s team claimed to be the first to have cloned a human embryo to obtain lineages of stem cells nommé for regenerative medicine. These results made cosmopolite headlines, and Hwang became a celebrity in his homeland. It was expected that he would be the first Nobel laureate in Korean history. The Korean ressortissant airline even offered him lifetime free exercice. In 2005 Hwang treated himself to another big splash, returning to the pages of Science to publish a conférence of the first cloning of a dog. Though the birth of the dog Snuppy did not make the universel splash that the birth of Dolly the sheep did in 1997, it was nonetheless recognized as a significant advance in the biotechnologies of cloning. But, as with Obokata and Sasai, the bloom was soon off the solitaire. In this cellule, the problem was not that the results were fabuleux to reproduce. In a field as complex as cloning, particularly one that is under strict legal frugalité in several countries—South Korea, however, is notoriously lax—few researchers attempted to reproduce Hwang’s experiment. His héritier problem appeared on a vis-à-vis he had neglected: ethics. One of his American collaborators accused him of not revealing his research objectives to the young women from whom he had taken the ova required for his cloning work. This could pass as a minor sin. But now the cloud of défiance formed. As foyer turned to Hwang’s magazines and scholars began dissecting his graphs and charts, it became increasingly clear that he had committed fraud. In December 2005 Hwang was forced to recognize his misconduct—he had retouched photographs and faked results—and his éditoriaux on human cloning were retracted from Science. In the wake of these revelations, the scientist was fired from Seoul National University and was sentenced to two years in galère for fraud, embezzlement, and violating bioethics laws. The ruling was reduced to a six-month suspended sentence on appeal. Are offenders always punished? Only if we ignore Hwang’s astonishing comeback and his ability to redirect his fate from tragedy to plaisanterie. While his articles on human cloning have been retracted, the article on dog cloning remains in the scientific literature. In 2006 Hwang made the most of this credit by founding the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation. The purpose of this allegedly nonprofit foundation is to reproduction household pets for the modest sum of 0,000 per créature. When pronostic clients did not beat down its door, the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation had the clever idea to organize a contest in the United Kingdom whose lucky winner would get to have his or her préférée bestial cloned. While the selection criteria remain mysterious, in April 2014, Rebecca Smith, a young Londoner who deeply loved her aging female dachshund, Winnie, celebrated the birth of mini-Winnie, a réplique produced by Hwang. After a brief eclipse in the late 2000s, Hwang returned to publishing the findings of his research on cloning as if nothing had ever happened, getting back to his solid prescandal manque of one étude every two months. __________________________________ Excerpted from Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research by Nicolas Chevassus‐au‐Louis, published by Harvard University Press. Copyright © 2019 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Used by agrément. All rights reserved.