A major study
replication effort
had a 100%
failure rate,
for a whole series
of studies from the
ARC Centre of
Excellence for
Coral Reef Studies
at JCU, confirming
the concerns of
Professor Ridd,
who had been fired
for his concerns !
SUMMARY
On Oona Lönnstedt:
The idea of "saving"
the Great Barrier Reef,
or even the whole world,
from climate change,
seemed to be intoxicating.
It appears to be virtuous,
to play loose with facts
and conclusions, when they
support such a noble cause.
Lönnstedt was receiving
recognition and status
well beyond her years
and experience.
James Cook University
was eager to publicize
her research, and
take credit for it.
Professor Peter Ridd:
Science fraud concerns
were first raised by
Professor Ridd in 2017.
Concerns were
confirmed by
an extensive
three-year effort,
by an international
team of seven
researchers from
four countries.
JCU is publicly funded,
so Australian Minister
of Education Dan Tehan
has a responsibility
to clean JCU’s house
of those responsible.
The Science:
Research grants
from governments
are a major element
of university funding.
Universities receive
one third to one half
of the budget
of research grants,
for administration
of the grants and
providing facilities
for the studies.
The status
of academics,
and the level
of their salaries,
is strongly related
to their ability
to obtain grants.
Getting a
government
grant is
very highly
competitive.
There's also
a scramble
for publication
in the leading
scientific journals.
Being the
lead author
( the first name )
is obviously
very important.
Most of the
studies in
top journals,
list multiple
co-authors,
with a five
or more,
common.
The first name
on the study
used to be
the person
who did the
key work,
of discovery
and/or wrote
the manuscript.
Now it is often
the grant-getter.
They may have
multiple grants.
Being adept at
obtaining grants
has become
a highly skilled,
and in demand
ability, too valuable
to waste time on
the actual research.
Assistants,
colleagues
and students
will do the
actual research ,
study writing,
and journal
articles about
the study.
Most academic
research is now
highly dependent
on government
funding, and the
conclusions are
definitely shaped
by the grants.
Publish "wrong"
study conclusions
= don't apply for
any more grants !
Governments
rely heavily on
scientific research
they pay for, when
determining policies.
What could
go wrong
with that ?
AUSTRALIA'S
JAMES COOK
UNIVERSITY
SCIENCE FRAUD
June 2016:
Research journal
Science published
a study claiming
some serious
behavioral
impairments
in larval fishes
caused by
micro-plastics
in sea water.
The study was done
at an island laboratory
in the Baltic Sea.
Soon after publication
in Science, seven
other researchers
issued a statement
affirming serious
misrepresentation
in the duration
and extent of the
reported work.
Two of the seven
had been visiting
the Baltic lab
when the work
reported
in Science
was claimed
to have been
carried out.
At the University
of Uppsala in Sweden,
where the two authors
of the disputed study
were employed,
an in-house
investigation
found no evidence
of misconduct.
Sweden's Central
Ethical Review
Board conducted
a more thorough
inquiry.
They found
serious
misconduct
-- research fraud --
by the lead author,
Dr. Oona Lönnstedt.
The University
of Uppsala
quickly
established
a new in-house
investigation and
came to the
same conclusion.
A year after
the initial
publication,
the study
was formally
withdrawn.
Dr. Lönnstedt
had received
her PhD at
James Cook
University
in Townsville.
She was either
the lead author,
or co-author,
on some 18
or more
published
studies
-- a huge
achievement
for such a young
researcher
in a short time.
One study
Ms. Lönnstedt
had published,
while at JCU,
involved
the predatory
behavior
of lionfish.
Following
the finding
of fraud in the
Science paper,
a concern
was raised
about the
large number
of lionfish
claimed
to have
been used
in this study.
It should
have been
very difficult
to capture
so many
lionfish at
the location
where the study
was conducted.
There were also
further questions
about a study
illustration
of 50 fish,
which included
multiple images
of some, and
two images that
had been flipped
making two fish
appear to be four.
When questions
about this research
were raised in 2017,
the response by
James Cook
University was
to announce
an investigation.
Almost three
years later ( ! ),
the latest news
from JCU is that
a retired judge
has been appointed
to head the inquiry.
JCU is obviously
delaying, hoping
the whole thing
will be forgotten.
On January 8, 2020,
a new paper published
in the UK journal Nature
reported a 100%
failure rate in an
extensive three-year
effort by the same
seven researchers
from Australia, Canada,
Norway and Sweden.
The same researchers
had originally exposed
the false claims by
Lönnstedt in the 2016
Baltic microplastics
study.
The 2016 study
had led them to
an examination
of other work
Lönnstedt
had done at JCU,
such as studies
reporting serious
detrimental effects
of “ocean acidification”
on the behavior of
various coral reef
fish species.
The attempt
to replicate
those effects,
with a much more
detailed investigation,
concluded that
end-of-century
ocean acidification
levels will have
negligible effects
on important behaviors
of coral reef fishes.
The reported effects
of ocean acidification
were NOT reproducible,
despite extensive
experiments involving
over 900 fish of
six different species.
The Scientific Reason:
Seawater is
strongly buffered
against acidification,
and is not acidic,
even at much higher
levels of CO2.
It only becomes
slightly
less alkaline,
from more CO2,
not acidic.
The pH reduction
being predicted,
for the end
of the century,
is not that large.
It's smaller than
the pH change
on shallow reef tops,
during low tide at night,
when photosynthesis
ceases consuming
CO2, but the
whole community
of reef organisms
continues to
produce CO2.
A huge diversity
of fishes live
in fresh water,
where a lack
of buffering
permits actual
acidic pH levels
to prevail.
This includes
a significant
number
of species,
from
a variety
of reef fish
families,
which have
a capacity
to also live
in fresh water,
and they regularly
enter streams
and rivers.
Of the eight key studies
which failed to replicate,
all involved JCU researchers,
with one author in appearing
in all, and as lead author
in four.
That one author
was Philip Munday,
Professor & Chief
Investigator at the
ARC Centre
of Excellence
for Coral Reef
Studies at JCU.
Oona Lönnstedt
was one of
the co-authors.
Professor Peter Ridd,
had been head
of the Physics
Department at JCU,
with several decades
research experience
in siltation, currents
and water movements
on the Reef.
Profesor Ridd
had become
increasingly
concerned
about the
doubtful quality
of much of the
reef research
being relied on
for Australian
government policy.
In 2017,
Ridd went public
with his concerns,
about the quality
of Barrier Reef
research. and the
need for replication,
or other assessment,
of any research
used by government.
JCU administrators
threatened Ridd,
and then fired him.
Ridd brought suit
for breach of his
employment
contract and,
in April 2019,
the court
found his firing
was unlawful.
JCU's
unlawful
dismissal
resulted in Ridd
being awarded
damages of
$1.2 million
( not enough ).
JCU appealed,
and a hearing
is scheduled
for March 2020.