A journal article co-authored by a current employee at Sandia National Laboratories has been retracted:
http://retractionwatch.com/2012/06/08/jacs-science-retracting-three-papers-from-leading-emory-chemist-craig-hill/
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
Comments
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.
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.
As listed in the article, the person did not work at SNL at the time that this work was performed or published.
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.