comment:
Rehashed work is still better than wrong papers
by anonymous poster

[Comment posted 2008-11-25 14:51:48]


The fly field is not exception to controversies. I fully understand Peter Lawrence's concern about somebody republishing data similar to his published work. At another extreme, one fly neurobiologist at a high-profile University has published one incorrect paper in Neuron and another 100% wrong one in Nature. None of these papers have been retracted so far. They do not fool colleagues within the synaptic fields; however, they still mislead readers at large. In comparison, Jeff Axelrod is not that bad. As correctly pointed out by Lawrence, these folks are willingly or under pressure to publish high-profile and flashy stories in top journals. Why? They need these for their promotions and for securing NIH grants! Thus, this malpractice will never stop unless funding agencies such as NIH and NSF set strict rules. I bet that they will reduce the chance if NIH stops their funding.

Flies are wonderful experimental creatures and have served the scientific community well for over 100 years. Do not contaminate this fine culture, please!!