Research Misconduct in the Age of Open Science: The Case of STAP Stem Cells

In early 2014, Dr Haruko Obokata and her co-authors caused a global media storm by publishing two scientific papers in Nature on stem cells. The papers proposed a surprisingly simple new method called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) to generate pluripotent stem cells for research purposes in a fast and inexpensive way. To the dismay of many, both papers were retracted within six months of their release due to data fabrication and falsification. The rise and fall of the STAP research illustrates the impacts of open science practices of quality control and validation on new scientific claims. In the STAP case, collective action generated through two online forums—the Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog and PubPeer—exposed not only data manipulation in the two papers but also the irreproducibility of the purported new cellular reprogramming method. The case brings to the fore the tentative possibilities as well as potential pitfalls of ‘accelerated virtual witnessing’ through crowdsourced post-publication peer reviews that value accessibility and inclusiveness. Indeed, it calls for empirically grounded discussion on the ongoing reconfiguration of the shared system of values and norms or the moral economy of science.     

The effect of witnessing consequences on the behavioral recordings of experimental observers

The cueing effects of interviewer praise contingent on a target behavior and expectation of behavior change were examined with six observers. Experiment I investigated the effect of cues in conjunction with expectation. Experiment II assessed the relative contributions of cues and expectation, and Experiment III examined the effect of cues in the absence of expectation. The frequencies of two behaviors, client eye contact and face touching, were held constant throughout a series of videotaped interviews between an "interviewer" and a "client". A within-subjects design was used in each experiment. During baseline conditions, praise did not follow eye contact by the client on the videotape. In all experimental conditions, praise statements from the interviewer followed each occurrence of eye contact with an equal number of praises delivered at random times when there was no eye contact. Three of the six observers dramatically increased their recordings of eye contact during the first experimental phase, but these increases were not replicated in a second praise condition. There were no systematic changes in recorded face touching. Witnessing the delivery of consequences, rather than expectation seemed to be responsible for the effect. This potential threat to the internal validity of studies using observational data may go undetected by interobserver agreement checks.     

Called to repair injustice: Connecting everyday practices to societal phenomena,creating momentum for solidarity and change

I have been working with a model of witnessing for more than 30 years (Weingarten, 2000a). In this article, I add layers to its conceptualization by discussing several related concepts: the implicated subject (Rothberg, 2019) and ethical loneliness (Stauffer, 2015) among them. What distinguishes the Witnessing Model positions from the implicated subject is that the implicated subject is always aligned with power and/or domination, whereas a witness may not be. Certain responsibilities accrue if we take our implication seriously. Just as I have suggested there are steps one can take from positions two, three and four of the Witnessing Model to enter, return or remain in the aware and empowered position, a position from within which accountability is more likely, I offer ideas about how one can respond accountably when one acknowledges one's implication. Throughout this article, I raise questions, some of which I cannot answer. For instance, can empathic repair be undertaken by one party to a ruptured relationship, one segment of a society, without an unfolding process of mutual recognition and compassion? The contemporary moment in which we are living presents us with dire outcomes if the answer is “no.” The entire article is an extended meditation on the following central question: How can we, implicated subjects, practice solidarity to diminish ethical loneliness and create movement toward the personal, interpersonal and structural changes necessary to address the truths that our implication entails?     

‘I have not witnessed it personally myself,but…’: Epistemics in managing talk on racism against immigrants in Ireland

Social psychologists who study racism or prejudice argue that various versions of these are constructed in ways to suppress or minimise their relevance. However, researchers have not particularly examined how knowledge-claims about racism can also be variously made or negotiated in attending to the relevance of racism. We offer such an examination through a discursive psychological analysis of interview talk with Irish nationals on immigration, since in these settings issues of immigration and racism are not readily relevant. Findings show that participants treated how knowledge of racism can be accessed and who has the rights to make knowledge-claims about racism, as relevant. Epistemic access and rights were negotiated in ways that showed sensitivity to possibilities for suppressing alternative claims about racism. These findings are discussed in relation to current social psychological and discursive approaches to racism.