you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
The journal Nature seems to be against this idea.
An unknown agitator using the presumed pseudonym Marco Berns is engaged in an e-mail and Internet offensive against two biomedical researchers whom he accuses of scientific fraud.
It seems as though they (Nature) are against "blinding". This agitators greatest crime is his/her anonymity. What do we know about the people who wrote this article in Nature? They represent authority just like Silvia Bulfone-Paus in her role as a principle investigator. What really matters? Are we religiously placing faith in Nature editors and tenured professors? Perhaps anonymity is a scientific imperative. There needs to be a "blinding" of the judges and those presenting the case. Then take a different angle at looking at the problem. That is what we do in clinical trials. That is what we do in the laboratory with our "controls". The content of the claims is what needs to be analyzed. Rather than addressing the issues, Nature has chosen to attack an unknown person for going about things the wrong way. But what are the chances of getting Nature or the Research Center Borstel to explain to the rest of us how they came to their conclusions? Is it not a pattern for these organizations to protect the scientists and attack their detractors through anonymous reasoning? Just trust them because they are in charge?
What you don't hear about in many articles about the Silvia Bulfone-Paus story is what exactly her "agitator" is saying. It is interesting stuff. This is the stuff you want to know if you are honestly doing what Feynman suggests. I'm not talking about IL15 and the papers that need to be retracted. I'm talking about whether or not Silvia was not at fault. The data that was fabricated supported her story. She didn't look into it nor did anyone else try to repeat a simple western blot. The false data fit her story and she stuck with it. It's a crime against the good name of science.