Retraction of flawed MPA study implicates larger problems in MPA science

A retraction is a Big Deal in science, especially from a prominent journal. What’s strange in this story is how the conflict of interest intersects with the science. The conflict of interest was apparent immediately upon publication, but it wasn’t until major problems in the underlying science were revealed that an investigation was launched, and the paper eventually retracted. But with increased press comes increased scrutiny. The critiques pointed out errors and impossible assumptions that strongly suggested the paper was inadequately peer reviewed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) later determined that the person responsible for assigning Cabral et al.’s peer reviewers, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, had a conflict of interest. >click to read< 10:36

One Response to Retraction of flawed MPA study implicates larger problems in MPA science

  1. Jane Lubchenco is a walking, talking conflict of interest…….amongst other things. Until people like her who hold positions of power are held personally accountable nothing is going to change.
    Whether it be politicians or appointed people in local, state or federal agencies. We the people deserve nothing less.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.