The rush to be first unfortunately sometimes means sacrificing being right.
A 2013 study in the journal PLOS ONE found that retractions of science paper publications are on the rise, according to Live Science, due to a few factors. "Predatory" online journals take money for studies that they guarantee will be published. Other retractions are due to fraudulent data and sloppy science.
In the spirit of "Top ____ of 2014" lists, here are some of the year's notable retractions.
Fraudulent HIV Vaccine Success
This story broke in 2013, but the retraction occurred in 2014, according to The Scientist. Dong-Pyou Han, a former researcher at Iowa State University, tainted samples of rabbit blood with human blood, so it seemed as if his HIV vaccine was working. In a rare turn of events, the researcher is facing criminal charges and ISU has to pay back $500,000 of his salary.
Happy Meal Blues
A study that estimated the effects of fast food on children's weight has been retracted since it was found the scientists used an outdated model for childhood weight changes, according to Retraction Watch. Researchers initially claimed that children who eat fast food twice a week could avoid weight gain of two pounds per year if meals that come with toys were kept under 550 calories.
Enough, Jenny McCarthy!
There was some confusion and the anti-vaccine crowd thought they had a winner, but it turns out that vaccines still don't cause autism, according to Live Science.
In August, the website Natural News reported a tip from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whistleblower who said the CDC covered up the link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.
Almost concurrently, anti-vaccine researcher Brian Hooker published "Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data," that claimed black children were at increased risk of autism due to the MMR vaccine.
But by the end of August, "Translational Neurodegeneration" removed the paper citing "serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions," according to Live Science. By October, the paper was fully retracted with the journal citing "undeclared competing interests on the part of the author" and "concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis."
