Scientists Develop Artificial Skin That May Help Treat Burn Victims

q

The artificial skin can be stored at room temperature for a long period of time, which means hospitals lacking facilities to treat patients with severe burns can hold stocks to apply as first aid.

Magdalena Osumi reports: Researchers said Thursday they have developed an easy-to-use artificial skin that acts like a bandage and could be used as a temporary treatment for patients with severe burns until their undamaged skin can be harvested for grafting.

“In tests conducted on mice we managed to speed up the healing.”

— Shigehisa Aoki, associate professor at Saga University

The new technology — which some say could revolutionize the treatment of burns — uses a collagen membrane scaffold to help heal wounds faster, researchers from Saga University and the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences told The Japan Times. Their findings were published in the June 4 edition of online medical journal Wound Repair and Regeneration.

skin-artificial

“In tests conducted on mice we managed to speed up the healing,” said project co-leader Shigehisa Aoki, associate professor at Saga University’s Department of Pathology and Microbiology.

The artificial skin can be stored at room temperature for a long period of time, which means hospitals lacking facilities to treat patients with severe burns can hold stocks to apply as first aid. Read the rest of this entry »


How Computer-Generated Fake Papers are Flooding Academia

'I've written five PhDs on Heidegger just this afternoon. What next?' Photograph: Blutgruppe

‘I’ve written five PhDs on Heidegger just this afternoon. What next?’ Photograph: Blutgruppe

More and more academic papers that are essentially gobbledegook are being written by computer programs – and accepted at conferences

 writes:  Like all the best hoaxes, there was a serious point to be made. Three MIT graduate students wanted to expose how dodgy scientific conferences pestered researchers for papers, and accepted any old rubbish sent in, knowing that academics would stump up the hefty, till-ringing registration fees.

It took only a handful of days. The students wrote a simple computer program that churned out gobbledegook and presented it as an academic paper. They put their names on one of the papers, sent it to a conference, and promptly had it accepted. The sting, in 2005, revealed a farce that lay at the heart of science.

But this is the hoax that keeps on giving. The creators of the automatic nonsense generator, Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, have made theSCIgen program free to download. And scientists have been using it in their droves. This week, Nature reported, French researcher Cyril Labbé revealed that 16 gobbledegook papers created by SCIgen had been used by German academic publisher Springer. More than 100 more fake SCIgen papers were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE). Both organisations have now taken steps to remove the papers.

Read the rest of this entry »


Is the Scientific Process Broken?

20131019_LDP010_3

Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself

A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.

Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

Read the rest of this entry »