I guess it's not just Andrew Wakefield who doesn't do controls when running PCR

Remember a couple of months ago, when I discussed testimony at the Autism Omnibus trial that showed how Andrew Wakefield had failed to do the controls when running PCR that would have revealed that the results that he interpreted as the presence of the measles virus from a vaccine strain in the guts of autistic children was nothing more than a bunch of false positives due to widespread contamination of the laboratory with plasmid containing measles sequences?

It turns out that it's not just autism pseudoscientists who forget to do the right controls when running PCR. Mike the Mad Biologist describes an example of a very similar sloppiness of experimental technique in the microbiology world that also lead to what is almost certainly a false positive result.

I just can't understand how such obvious, first year graduate student mistakes manage to get published in the peer-reviewed literature. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen at a rate that is high enough to be distressing. In the case of Andrew Wakefield, the results of his sloppy science were catastrophic, namely an antivaccination scare about the MMR that nine years later still hasn't fully run its course.

More like this

A study incorporating over 12,000 prior peer reviewed publications, addressing the question of vaccine safety, is due for release by the National Academies of Science. The study attempts to understand adverse effects of vaccines and to assign causality to supposed negative outcomes. The 667 page…
Oh, let's go back to the start... --Coldplay, "The Scientist" A decade ago, a paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was published in The Lancet, detailing the cases of 12 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Anecdotal reports from parents of several of these children suggested that…
If Ive said it once, Ive said it a thousand times here on ERV-- Scientists are wrong all the time. ALLLLLLLL the time. Its what we *do*. We make a hypothesis, design an experiment, collect data, and refine the hypothesis, because the original hypothesis was wrong. Over and over and over and…
Just when you think XMRV-->anything could get none more dead, it manages to get deader. When the possibility arose that there was a new pathogen circulating in humans, especially in the human blood supply, lots of labs from all over the world started looking for it. Unfortunately, no one could…

A negative control is a must in PCR, I routinely run primers on the male specific SRY gene on intersex horses and last year every thing started turning up positive including my negative controls, the graduate student on the next bench had been cloning the SRY gene into a plasmid and had contaminated all my reagents. Without negative controls I would have been none the wiser.

Catastrophic seems almost an understatement-----it's the sloppy science that launched a thousand quack autism treatments, and more false hope than the Trojan Horse.

It also needs to be pointed out that there exists the possibility that the controls were run... and decidedly ignored. Yep, it's either incompetence, dishonesty, or a combination of the two. A healthy income from the results you like probably makes the decision to toss the "bad" results "easier".
/Quotation marks by Bennett Brauer