Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« More Details | Main | Laboratory Crime, Not Paying »

May 8, 2012

Buckyball Longevity: The Lead Author Replies

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've received a reply from Dr. Fathi Moussa at Université Paris-Sud, lead author of the C60 longevity paper that I blogged about here, which turned out to have a duplicated figure. With permission, here are the main points of the e-mail:

Of course, you are right: in the published figure 4 the GAog and GAip panels are identical. These two panels were meant to represent the well-known effect of intra-peritoneally (i.p.) administered CCl4 on rat livers. The mistake was obviously due to the fact that the pretreatment of control animals with water either orally (GAog) or i.p. (GAip) cannot influence the effects of CCl4 on livers. Therefore the effects on liver are identical and the corresponding figures are expected to be closely alike. Anyway we sent to the Editor an erratum that will be published soon.

We are very grateful to you for warning us about this figure. We are very furious against ourselves. We still do not understand how such error could have escaped our notice during the revision process. While this mistake has not any influence on the validity of the results described in the text, this could raise a certain amount of doubt over the work. The extension of the lifespan of rats is real and we fear that our error could delay or even prevent control experiments we are expecting to be made by others.

We have published on C60 toxicity since 1995 and all our results have been confirmed by several independent teams. . .

That point in the second paragraph is an important one: if these results are real, they're quite important and interesting. But, as with any other scientific result, they won't be accepted as real until they've been replicated, and replicating this experiment is already a substantial undertaking. The mistake with the figures doesn't help to get these started. (I should note that I've also called the authors' attention to the other points raised here in the comments).

My hope is that other groups studying longevity effects in rodents (and having already made the commitment that entails) will be able to add a C60 arm to their experiments as a comparison.

Comments (10) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Aging and Lifespan


COMMENTS

1. PPedroso on May 8, 2012 8:08 AM writes...

There is still some hope for Buckyballs!
However, the other questions were quite relevant and I wish they had been answered, more specifically the one about the Estimated Median Lifespans.

Well, let us wait another 5 years for a replicate of the study.

Permalink to Comment

2. Rick Wobbe on May 8, 2012 8:40 AM writes...

Judging from the enthusiastic spread of "fountain of youth" proclamations on the Internet, calls for caution until the observations are confirmed are too little too late. The primal urge to live forever and the venal urge to make a lot of money have conspired to make this a potential wildfire that will be difficult to control. The chaotic regulation of "supplements" (see resveratrol) makes it entirely possible that buckyballs will be too entrenched in society for results of experiments five years hence to alter popular perceptions. As with the discussion surrounding the engineering of transmissible bird flu viruses, this raises questions about how well scientists govern the release of hot-topic research info to a public starving for a fantastic story and able to spread it and profit from it with breathtaking speed. It really, really makes me wish the authors had been more diligent and followed Carl Sagan's advice that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.".

Permalink to Comment

3. Virgil on May 8, 2012 8:51 AM writes...

He seems confident that this will be dealt with by an erratum, as indicated by the statement "...will be published soon". Derek, you contacted the journal directly... would you care to contact them again, and ask them to confirm whether Moussa's statement is correct? Is this a done deal? I would bet good money the journal is still investigating, and has not yet reached a decision, and when they do it will be in favor of retraction, rather than an erratum.

Permalink to Comment

4. CanadianChemist on May 8, 2012 9:08 AM writes...

I wouldn't call for a retraction just yet. In my mind, there's a big difference between inconclusive preliminary results and scientific misconduct, and the latter is far from proven in this case.

In any case, my thirteen milligram sample of fullerenes remains largely undissolved in 15 ml of extra virgin olive oil (after almost a week on a stir-plate). Boss said it was just as be predicted, but I won't rule out a kinetic dissolution barrier just yet.

If it still looks the same in a week, I'll start trying out more powerful approaches to putting the things in solution. If that doesn't work, you can include this in your letters to the author/publisher.

Permalink to Comment

5. Design Monkey on May 8, 2012 9:28 AM writes...

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. (Ecc 1:10)

The whole mess looks very much like the old stuff with radioactivity - right after it was discovered, there were peddled a lot of radioactive patent potions, which promised to cure baldness, impotence and anything, and, of course, to give longevity as well. A little bit later it came clear, that they had somewhat diametrically opposite action though.

Permalink to Comment

6. Ginsberg on May 8, 2012 9:34 AM writes...

"The mistake was obviously due to..."

"Therefore the effects on liver are identical and the corresponding figures are expected to be closely alike."

Obviously? What was obvious was the re-use of the photo. I think I would have left it as a random error.

Permalink to Comment

7. biotechchap on May 8, 2012 9:45 AM writes...

you are always bashing pfizer alone, please shower your godly !! comments on abbotts 1.6 billion dollar fine, you were very critical when pfizer got billion dollar fine but please dont ignore BMS, Abbott, Merck, and other CRO's doing highly honest work, you are very quick to highlight china and india's shabby manufacturing , please comment on Novartis european plant and J&J OTC plant ethics, try not to be biased....

Permalink to Comment

8. Biotechtranslated on May 8, 2012 9:54 AM writes...

@#6,

I agree. This smells a bit funny.

The comment that the "figures are expected to be alike", leads me back to my original conclusion: the data is being massaged to fit a predetermined conclusion.

I'm not saying that there might not be something to the results, but this "mistake" is something you see a lot of in research.

Scientist: Oh wow! I think I have something here! Experiments A,B and C confirm it, now let's look at experiment D.

Scientist: Huh! Why does experiment D look weird? It should look like the results from experiment C. Well, it's obviously because of a bad reagent, so why don't I just substitute the results from experiment C for experiment D? No one will notice and if they do, I'll just run the experiment again and I'm sure it will work the second time.

The difference between a good and a bad scientist is that the goods ones never assume anything. If you can't get experiment D to work, then you need to get back to the bench and figure out what the heck is going on.

Mike


Permalink to Comment

9. anon-xtra on May 8, 2012 10:41 AM writes...

Derek, are you aware of the series of papers that claim hydroxylated fullerene derivatives are antineoplastics? These are not cytotoxic- rather it is claimed (and at very low doses, curiously) that the hydroxylated fullerenes 'activate the immune system'.

Permalink to Comment

10. barry on May 8, 2012 11:11 AM writes...

further study is needed. Please send more funds! But send them to some other lab. Only INDEPENDENT corroboration is going to persuade anyone and advance the science.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Days Off
Shuffling the Departments
Funding Undergraduate Summer Research
J. Appl. Drivel or Gibberish Lett.? Choices, Choices.
Molecular Printing of Drug Molecules. Say What?
Pfizer Walks Again By Night
Gitcher SF5 Groups Right Here
Changing A Broken Science System