While it is dramatic, these kinds of issues are often used by people who want to deny any scientific subject. They can claim that all research is worthless.
Doesn't that make it even more important that research journals should be transparent and follow their own policies? If top journals were willing to admit mistakes promptly it would be much harder to claim that valid alternative views are being suppressed for political (or other) reasons.
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying that we shouldn't be discussing problems of scientific methodology, since it strengthens the people who claim there are problems with scientific methodology?
No, I did not mean that. But blowing it all out of proportion is not good either. It was just a reminder that such uses happen. People don't have a balanced exposure to science.
Yes, there is a tendency to believe that the most recent thing published represents "the last word" on the subject. A balanced exposure to science would include an historical view of the contingency of scientific knowledge. But this could only be acquired by reviewing all the published literature.
Deniers like that publish in publications with a lot less integrity and peer review than the journal Nature, so they shouldn't use incidents like this as a basis for their delusional beliefs.
I don't "deny any scientific subject", nor do I think any research is worthless, but over the last few years as these sorts of stories have come to light more, I have become convinced that publication and peer review as currently manifested are worthless.
