This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Well I'm not sure this is a big deal. A lot of "scientific fact" is speculation based on intuition gained from simulating the experiment and matching the data. Good measurements, analysis, and careful error estimates are probably more important to other workers in the same field. They are "free" to offer their own interpretations.
To be honest from looking into this it does not seem to be a bid deal either in the sense that it is just part of the scientific process. However that being said if it makes scientists look bad or it makes Sandia look bad than ya I will go along with this being a big deal that shows how bad people with a Phds are or how bad people without a Phd that work at Sandia, or people that I do not like.
The retraction notice does not suggest any wrongdoing, stating that the data is correct, just not the interpretation. Furthermore it states that the work faced controversy since when it was first presented. The fact that the authors also faced up to scrutiny at every step of the way tells you that there is no intentional wrongdoing.
Here are examples of what would be considered wrongdoing: Fabricating data to make incorrect conclusions appear correct Inexplicable error bars that could not possibly be correct. Co-authors who contributed little or nothing technical (only inane editorial contributions) to a paper
Here are indicators of potential wrongdoing: No independent verification of data, analysis, interpretation performed. Lack of transparency: all raw data and pertinent information and assumptions not made openly available to the public (many journals allow you to post all raw data on a repository website). Retaliation or perceived retaliation associated with counter-publications. Lack of a corrigendum, addendum or official explanation to discrepancies when discrepancies are noted. Experiments and theory/modelling sitting right on top of eachother within the error bars.... But on the WRONG curve... No official explanation!
Thanks to whoever brought to our attention this notice of retraction for the JACS publication. It is clear that if THAT paper deserved to be retracted (with no wrongdoing).... Then the Deuterium EoS paper ABSOLUTELY needs to be retracted.
This breaking news brought to you from June 8, 2012. "Has been retracted" implies that this is a recent event, and this post should be corrected to "was retracted" given the 1.5 year gap of no one giving a care about this.
As listed in the article, the person did not work at SNL at the time that this work was performed or published.
I am not, and never have been, associated with Sandia at either location. I have followed this blog off and on for a few years, and I am struck by the persistent and intense attacks on Sandia, I assume by LLNL employees, past and present. One common attack concerns PhD's, or lack thereof, among managers. I feel that this particular theme is a little weak, since the current acting director of LLNL, and former manager at LLNL, has no PhD. But I am most interested in knowing where all of this anger is coming from. Please bring us up to speed.
You must not actually read much of this blog. Sandia certainy gets no more (and I think a LOT less) vitriol than LANL or LLNL. Sandia-bashing is neither persistent nor intense by the standards of this blog.
This blog is all vitriol, all the time. If you're looking for any sort of balance, you've come to the wrong place.
That being said, there is one poster that seems to have a real problem with non-PhD lab directors. Nobody else cares much about that.
In truth I have probably read 95% of this blog ever since it was clear that the NIC was a fiasco. Let me amend that; for the past 1 1/2 years, as the NIC was being redefined from ignition to gain. The fiasco was clear much earlier. And I am not looking for balance at all. I am interested in why people are angry and it is clear there is such toward Sandia. And yes this blog and a majority of blogs are all vitriol; last night I scanned one on Scientific American concerning climate change. It was intense. I like to watch the irrationality of Man and I want to see how things are going to play out over the next couple of decades, especially in certain areas of science; not only the national weapons labs. So I do not yet have an answer to my question. Why the anger toward Sandia? Oh, and I do not see that the one poster has a problem with all non-PhD lab directors and managers.
This blog is the balance. The only other source of information is the public outlet, which is mostly lies and half-truths. Read the media releases and public statements, then read what people think about that here, and make your own evaluations.
10 comments:
Well I'm not sure this is a big deal. A lot of "scientific fact" is speculation based on intuition gained from simulating the experiment and matching the data. Good measurements, analysis, and careful error estimates are probably more important to other workers in the same field. They are "free" to offer their own interpretations.
To be honest from looking into this it does not seem to be a bid deal either in the sense that it is just part of the scientific process. However that being said if it makes scientists look bad or it makes Sandia look bad than ya I will go along with this being a big deal that shows how bad people with a Phds are or how bad people without a Phd that work at Sandia, or people that I do not like.
The retraction notice does not suggest any wrongdoing, stating that the data is correct, just not the interpretation. Furthermore it states that the work faced controversy since when it was first presented. The fact that the authors also faced up to scrutiny at every step of the way tells you that there is no intentional wrongdoing.
Here are examples of what would be considered wrongdoing:
Fabricating data to make incorrect conclusions appear correct
Inexplicable error bars that could not possibly be correct.
Co-authors who contributed little or nothing technical (only inane editorial contributions) to a paper
Here are indicators of potential wrongdoing:
No independent verification of data, analysis, interpretation performed.
Lack of transparency: all raw data and pertinent information and assumptions not made openly available to the public (many journals allow you to post all raw data on a repository website).
Retaliation or perceived retaliation associated with counter-publications.
Lack of a corrigendum, addendum or official explanation to discrepancies when discrepancies are noted.
Experiments and theory/modelling sitting right on top of eachother within the error bars.... But on the WRONG curve... No official explanation!
Thanks to whoever brought to our attention this notice of retraction for the JACS publication. It is clear that if THAT paper deserved to be retracted (with no wrongdoing).... Then the Deuterium EoS paper ABSOLUTELY needs to be retracted.
This breaking news brought to you from June 8, 2012. "Has been retracted" implies that this is a recent event, and this post should be corrected to "was retracted" given the 1.5 year gap of no one giving a care about this.
As listed in the article, the person did not work at SNL at the time that this work was performed or published.
I am not, and never have been, associated with Sandia at either location. I have followed this blog off and on for a few years, and I am struck by the persistent and intense attacks on Sandia, I assume by LLNL employees, past and present. One common attack concerns PhD's, or lack thereof, among managers. I feel that this particular theme is a little weak, since the current acting director of LLNL, and former manager at LLNL, has no PhD. But I am most interested in knowing where all of this anger is coming from. Please bring us up to speed.
You must not actually read much of this blog. Sandia certainy gets no more (and I think a LOT less) vitriol than LANL or LLNL. Sandia-bashing is neither persistent nor intense by the standards of this blog.
This blog is all vitriol, all the time. If you're looking for any sort of balance, you've come to the wrong place.
That being said, there is one poster that seems to have a real problem with non-PhD lab directors. Nobody else cares much about that.
In truth I have probably read 95% of this blog ever since it was clear that the NIC was a fiasco. Let me amend that; for the past 1 1/2 years, as the NIC was being redefined from ignition to gain. The fiasco was clear much earlier. And I am not looking for balance at all. I am interested in why people are angry and it is clear there is such toward Sandia. And yes this blog and a majority of blogs are all vitriol; last night I scanned one on Scientific American concerning climate change. It was intense. I like to watch the irrationality of Man and I want to see how things are going to play out over the next couple of decades, especially in certain areas of science; not only the national weapons labs. So I do not yet have an answer to my question. Why the anger toward Sandia? Oh, and I do not see that the one poster has a problem with all non-PhD lab directors and managers.
This blog is the balance. The only other source of information is the public outlet, which is mostly lies and half-truths. Read the media releases and public statements, then read what people think about that here, and make your own evaluations.
If that JACS paper deserves a retraction, then for sure, the LLNL deuterium EOS paper needs to be retracted or corrected.
Post a Comment