The Midwife Toad and Alma Mahler: Epigenetics or a Matter of Deception?

Weissmann, Gerald

doi:10.1096/fj.10-0801ufm

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the PubMed database lists biomedical research publications since 1966, along with selected articles published prior to that time, the earliest publication indexed as a retracted article in PubMed was published in 1973 and retracted in 1977 [25]. Yet it is clear that scientific misconduct resulted in fraudulent publications before 1977 [26]–[28]. Similarly, the first articles retracted for error or plagiarism were published in 1979, and the first article retracted for duplicate publication was published in 1990.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Steen¹,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.Methods and FindingsWe examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?

Steen¹,

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One could believe the incident happened so long ago that no one would any longer care, but Kammerer continues to draw unusual criticism. For instance, his retouching and colorization of photographs has been taken out of context to portray Kammerer as “the father of photographic image manipulation” (Weissman, ). In fairness, this practice was common at the time, when high‐quality photographs were hard to achieve.…”

Section: Conclusion: Moving Away From Cultural Warfare and Closer To mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In retrospect, the Kammerer episode may be attributed in no small degree to the unfortunate custom of attacking the individual, rather than discussing facts and ideas. Throughout the years, and even today, Kammerer has been called out for having strange beliefs, eugenics, scientifically wrong views, even womanizing, and “amateur musicianship” (Weissman, ). We find that Kammerer's compositions are beautiful (readers may listen to “Paul Kammerer Songs” in the “Darwin Nach Noten” CD released in 2009), but his quality as a composer is quite beyond the point.…”

Section: Conclusion: Moving Away From Cultural Warfare and Closer To mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Epigenetic Perspective on the Midwife Toad Experiments of Paul Kammerer (1880–1926)

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paul Kammerer was the most outstanding neo-Lamarckian experimentalist of the early 20th century. He reported spectacular results in the midwife toad, including crosses of environmentally modified toads with normal toads, where acquired traits were inherited in Mendelian fashion. Accusations of fraud generated a great scandal, ending with Kammerer's suicide. Controversy reignited in the 1970s, when journalist Arthur Koestler argued against these accusations. Since then, others have argued that Kammerer's results, even if real, were not groundbreaking and could be explained by somatic plasticity, inadvertent selection, or conventional genetics. More recently, epigenetics has uncovered mechanisms by which inheritance can respond directly to environmental change, inviting a reanalysis of Kammerer's descriptions. Previous arguments for mere somatic plasticity have ignored the description of experiments showing heritable germ line modification. Alleged inadvertent selection associated with egg mortality can be discarded, since mortality decreased in a single generation, upon repeated exposures. The challenging implications did not escape the attention of Kammerer's noted contemporary, William Bateson, but he reacted with disbelief, thus encouraging fraud accusations. Nowadays, formerly puzzling phenomena can be explained by epigenetic mechanisms. Importantly, Kammerer described parent-of-origin effects, an effect of parental sex on dominance. Epigenetic mechanisms underlie these effects in genomic imprinting and experiments of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. In the early 20th century, researchers had no reason to link them with the inheritance of acquired traits. Thus, the parent-of-origin effects in Kammerer's experiments specifically suggest authenticity. Ultimate proof should come from renewed experimentation. To encourage further research, we present a model of possible epigenetic mechanisms.

show abstract

“…Although the PubMed database lists biomedical research publications since 1966, along with selected articles published prior to that time, the earliest publication indexed as a retracted article in PubMed was published in 1973 and retracted in 1977 (Hamprecht & Gullis, 1977). Yet it is clear that scientific misconduct resulted in fraudulent publications before 1977 (Fisher, 1936;Hawkes, 1979;Weissmann, 2010). Similarly, the first articles retracted for error or plagiarism were published in 1979, and the first article retracted for duplicate publication was published in 1990.…”

Section: ■ ■mentioning

confidence: 99%