Popperian ecology is a delusion

During the last 50 years, a group of ecologists has repeatedly used Popper's falsificationism in normative claims concerning how research in ecology should be conducted and/or how ecology should be corrected. Other ecologists seem to be dissatisfied with these criticisms. Nevertheless, they have not provided systematic analyses of how and why the Popperian criticisms of ecology fail. I have two aims in this article First, I show how so-called Popperian ecologists have not only failed to use but have misused - if not abused - Popper in their criticisms of ecology. That is, the Popperian criticisms of ecology lack the justification the critics claim it has. Second, I claim that Popper's falsificationism is an unsuitable philosophy of science for ecology. In other words, ecology should not be criticized nor evaluated from the Popperian perspective in the first place.

Accelerating scientific progress through Bayesian adversarial collaboration

Adversarial collaboration has been championed as the gold standard for resolving scientific disputes but has gained relatively limited traction in neuroscience and allied fields. In this perspective, we argue that adversarial collaborative research has been stymied by an overly restrictive concern with the falsification of scientific theories. We advocate instead for a more expansive view that frames adversarial collaboration in terms of Bayesian belief updating, model comparison, and evidence accumulation. This framework broadens the scope of adversarial collaboration to accommodate a wide range of informative (but not necessarily definitive) studies while affording the requisite formal tools to guide experimental design and data analysis in the adversarial setting. We provide worked examples that demonstrate how these tools can be deployed to score theoretical models in terms of a common metric of evidence, thereby furnishing a means of tracking the amount of empirical support garnered by competing theories over time.

Quality Assessment of Apple and Grape Juices from Serbian and German Markets by Planar Chromatography-Chemometrics

The high consumption of plant-based foods on a global scale has increased the number of adulterations in the food industry. Along with this, analytical approaches to fraud detection need to be further developed. A nontargeted effect-directed profiling by high-performance thin-layer chromatography hyphenated with five effect-directed assays (free radical scavenging assay, Aliivibrio fischeri bioassay, and acetylcholinesterase, butyrylcholinesterase, and tyrosinase inhibition assays) and multi-imaging provided additional information on the antioxidative, antimicrobial, and enzyme inhibition activities for 18 apple and 18 grape juices from markets in Serbia and Germany. Bioactive zones of interest were eluted using an elution head-based interface and further characterized by electrospray ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry. The different profiles were evaluated chemometrically, and several compounds, which were characteristic of samples from different markets located in Serbia and Germany, were identified in apple juice (such as chlorogenic acid, phloridzin, epicatechin, and caffeic acid) and grape juice (such as chlorogenic acid, epicatechin, and quercetin). The developed rapid and simple method for the quality assessment of fruit juices coming from different (geographic) markets showed clear quality differences. Thus, it could be used to learn more about quality differences, to detect fraud in fruit juice production, and to verify the authenticity of the origin.

Psychology needs to get tired of winning

Psychological science is on an extraordinary winning streak. A review of the published literature shows that nearly all study hypotheses are supported. This means that either all the theories are correct, or the literature is biased towards positive findings. Results from large-scale replication projects and the prevalence of questionable research practices indicate the latter. This is a problem because science progresses from being wrong. For decades, there have been calls for better theories and the adoption of a strong inference approach to science. However, there is little reason to believe that psychological science is ready to change. Although recent developments like the open science movement have improved transparency and replicability, they have not addressed psychological science's method-oriented (rather than problem-oriented) mindset. Psychological science still does not embrace the scientific method of developing theories, conducting critical tests of those theories, detecting contradictory results, and revising (or disposing of) the theories accordingly. In this article, I review why psychologists must embrace being wrong and how the Registered Report format might be one strategy for stopping psychology's winning streak.

Pitfalls of Social Media in the Era of COVID-19 Pandemics

In December 2019, Wuhan, China, reported an outbreak of nSARS-CoV2 that caused viral pneumonia, COVID-19. Li Wenliang, a Chinese ophthalmologist, first communicated on Chinese social media about the existence and spread of the unknown viral pneumonia in Wuhan, China. By the end of March 2020, the virus had spread worldwide. However, non-scientific information related to the viral outbreak, disease, and mortality spread even faster on social media. This study performed literature searches among different databases, i.e., PubMed, PubMed Central, and Web of Science, to understand the pitfall of social media during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of non-scientific information on public health. Social media not only shared information regarding the outbreak of nSARS-CoV2 and COVID-19 disease but also misinformation regarding epidemiology, government policies, prevention, cure, and vaccination. Thus, strict regulation is required to control the spread of misleading information.

Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct?

A predatory journal could be provisionally defined as one masquerading as a genuine academic publication but offer little, if any, rigorous peer review. Predatory journals or publishers place a focus on maximising financial profit, as opposed to regulated dissemination of scientific advancements. As a result, authors can often get their work published in such journals with little scrutiny on quality. Although generally warned against and discouraged, universally practiced sanctions against researchers’ submission to and publication in predatory journals are not common. Predatory publishing thus remains prevalent, particularly in places where academic success is measured by the quantity rather than quality of publication output, which feeds the journal’s business model that thrives upon significant market demand. However, such an undesirable enterprise has the potential to flood the scientific literature with unsound research that could be misleadingly perceived as authoritative. This may result in or add to the confusion of policy makers and the layperson, consequentially bringing disrepute to science and all parties involved. Here, we argue that wilfully submitting one’s manuscript to a predatory journal may constitute an active act of avoidance of rigorous peer review of one’s work. If such is the intention, it would be a questionable research practice and could be considered an, albeit covert, form of scientific misconduct. If labelled as such, and with institutional and funding rules erected to discourage the practice, predatory publishing could be effectively put out of business through diminishing the consumer demand.

Accountability in legal decision-making

Having to explain a decision has often been found to have a positive effect on the quality of a decision. We aimed to determine whether different accountability requirements for judges (i.e., having to justify their decision or having to explicate their decision) affect evidence use. Those requirements were compared to instructions based on the falsification principle and a control condition. Participants (N = 173) decided on the defendant's guilt in a murder case vignette and explained their decision according to the instructions. The explication and falsification (but not the justification) instructions increased the use of exonerating evidence. There was no significant difference between the groups in guilt perception. The use of exonerating evidence was a significant positive predictor of acquittal rates. The implications for the different forms of instructions in practice are positive, but suggest a difference between the evidence considered and the evidence used to account for the decision.

[Comparative evaluation of results of laboratory researches of milk in Kuzbass while carrying out control and surveillance measures for identifying false]

Milk is one of the main products of the consumer basket, a source of nutrients, and has specific characteristics due to its chemical and microbiological composition. Falsification of dairy products against the background of an increase in production cost dictates the need for quality control and sanitary and epidemiological supervision in the framework of protecting consumer rights and human well-being. The aim of the work is a comparative assessment of the results of laboratory studies of milk sold in retail of the Kemerovo Region (Kuzbass) during detection of falsification. Material and methods. In this work, using capillary electrophoresis, chromatography, voltammetry, spectrophotometric and titrimetric methods, the organoleptic parameters, fatty acid composition of cow's milk fat, mass fraction of fatty acid versus total fatty acids, the presence of vegetable fats in the fat phase, the ratio of the mass fractions of methyl fatty acid esters, acidity, mass fraction of dry skim milk residue (DSMR), density, phosphatase presence, mass fraction of fat, protein, purity group, presence of starch, soda, preservatives, the level of pesticides, aflatoxin M1, presence of antibiotics (penicillin, streptomycin and tetracycline group), microbiological indicators (total plate count, colifoms, pathogenic microorganisms, including salmonella, S. aureus, L. monocytogenes). The objects of research were coded samples of drinking pasteurized milk with various fat content, manufactured by enterprises of the Kemerovo Region, Moscow Region, Kazakhstan, Altai Territory. Results and discussion. In total, for 2017-2019, 258 samples of pasteurized drinking milk were studied, of which 11 samples did not meet the requirements of regulatory documents on physical-chemical and organoleptic quality indicators. In 11 rejected samples, the mass fraction of protein was underestimated by 25-50%, the DSMR by 8-13%, the density by 1-2%. In all inappropriate samples, deviations were established in the fatty acid composition of cow's milk fat and the proportion of vegetable fats in the fat phase (the proportion of phytosterols in the total sterol content). Increased acidity was detected in 1 sample. For one sample, the excess of the permissible negative deviation of the net content from the nominal quantity was determined. Thus, over three years, the share of products that do not meet the requirements of regulatory documents in terms of quality indicators, identified during laboratory tests, amounted to 4.3%. There were no inconsistencies with the regulatory requirements regarding the presence of phosphatase, purity group, the presence of starch, soda and preservatives. According to safety indicators (content of toxic elements, pesticides; aflatoxin M1 mycotoxin; absence of antibiotics, microbiological indicators) it was found that all samples met the requirements of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union 021/2011 "On food safety". Violation of the requirements for information on labeling was established for 15% of tested samples of dairy products. Conclusion. According to the results of the control and supervision measures in 2017-2019, 11 milk samples were rejected. At the same time, inconsistencies regarding mandatory labeling requirements were detected in 15% of samples, exceeding permissible negative deviations from the nominal volume was found in 0.3% of samples. Non-compliance for a number of indicators (density, acidity, etc.) was found in 4.3% of samples. There were no inconsistencies with the requirements of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union 021/2011 "On food safety".

Effect-Directed Profiling of Powdered Tea Extracts for Catechins, Theaflavins, Flavonols and Caffeine

The antioxidative activity of Camelia sinensis tea and especially powdered tea extracts on the market, among others used as added value in functional foods, can considerably vary due to not only natural variance, but also adulteration and falsification. Thus, an effect-directed profiling was developed to prove the functional effects or health-promoting claims. It took 3-12 min per sample, depending on the assay incubation time, for 21 separations in parallel. Used as a fast product quality control, it can detect known and unknown bioactive compounds. Twenty tea extracts and a reference mixture of 11-bioactive compounds were investigated in parallel under the same chromatographic conditions by a newly developed reversed phase high-performance thin-layer chromatographic method. In eight planar on-surface assays, effect-directed tea profiles were revealed. Catechins and theaflavins turned out to be not only highly active, but also multi-potent compounds, able to act in a broad range of metabolic pathways. The flavan-3-ols acted as radical scavengers (DPPH^∙ assay), antibacterials against Gram-positive Bacillus subtilis bacteria, and inhibitors of tyrosinase, α-glucosidase, β-glucosidase, and acetylcholinesterase. Further effects against Gram-negative Aliivibrio fischeri bacteria and β-glucuronidase were assigned to other components in the powdered tea extracts. According to their specifications, the activity responses of the powdered tea extracts were higher than in mere leaf extracts of green, white and black tea. The multi-imaging and effect-directed profiling was not only able to identify known functional food ingredients, but also to detect unknown bioactive compounds (including bioactive contaminants, residues or adulterations).

Statistical Significance Filtering Overestimates Effects and Impedes Falsification: A Critique of

Whether in meta-analysis or single experiments, selecting results based on statistical significance leads to overestimated effect sizes, impeding falsification. We critique a quantitative synthesis that used significance to score and select previously published effects for situation awareness-performance associations (Endsley, 2019). How much does selection using statistical significance quantitatively impact results in a meta-analytic context? We evaluate and compare results using significance-filtered effects versus analyses with all effects as-reported. Endsley reported high predictiveness scores and large positive mean correlations but used atypical methods: the hypothesis was used to select papers and effects. Papers were assigned the maximum predictiveness scores if they contained at-least-one significant effect, yet most papers reported multiple effects, and the number of non-significant effects did not impact the score. Thus, the predictiveness score was rarely less than the maximum. In addition, only significant effects were included in Endsley's quantitative synthesis. Filtering excluded half of all reported effects, with guaranteed minimum effect sizes based on sample size. Results for filtered compared to as-reported effects clearly diverged. Compared to the mean of as-reported effects, the filtered mean was overestimated by 56%. Furthermore, 92% (or 222 out of 241) of the as-reported effects were below the mean of filtered effects. We conclude that outcome-dependent selection of effects is circular, predetermining results and running contrary to the purpose of meta-analysis. Instead of using significance to score and filter effects, meta-analyses should follow established research practices.

[Authentication study of the preparation 'Avastin' by means of chemical-toxicological analysis]

Falsification and use of low-quality drugs of biological origin creates a threat to public health. To a greater extent, costly drugs, including bevacizumab, are exposed to similar abuses. Timely determination of cases of forgery or the improper clinical use of monoclonal antibody preparations is one of the necessary measures that can be taken to limit the risks and preserve the health of patients. This paper presents the results of the investigation of the bevacizumab preparation 'Avastin', which was withdrawn from ophthalmic clinical practice in the course of the investigation. We compared the qualitative and quantitative composition of the drug samples, which were determined using commonly available methods of chemical and toxicological analysis.

Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be. Since these other organizations play an important role in promoting integrity in science and deterring unethical behavior, they may consider adopting definitions of misconduct that extend beyond FFP. Debates about the definition of research misconduct are a normal and healthy part of broader discussions about integrity in science and how best to promote it. These debates should continue even if the federal definition of misconduct remains unchanged.

Is the Deductive Falsification Approach a Better Basis for Clinical Trial Appraisal?

BACKGROUND

Inductive reasoning relies on an infinite regress without sufficient factual basis and verification is at any time vulnerable to single contrary observation. Thus, appraisal based on inductive verification, as applied in current clinical trial appraisal scales, checklists or grading systems, cannot prove or justify trial validity.

DISCUSSION

Trial appraisal based on deductive falsification can identify invalid trials and give evidence for the recommendation to exclude these from clinical decision-making. Such appraisal remains agnostic towards corroborated trials that pass all appraisal criteria. The results of corroborated trials cannot be considered more robust than falsified trials since nothing within a particular set of complied trial criteria can give certainty for trial compliance with any other appraisal criterion in future. A corroborated trial may or may not reflect therapeutic truth and may thus be the basis for clinical guidance, pending results of any future trial re-appraisal.

CONCLUSION

Trial grading following appraisal based on deductive falsification should be binary (0 = Invalid or 1 = Unclear) and single component scores should be multiplied. Appraisal criteria for the judgment of trial characteristics require a clear rationale, quantification of such rationale and empirical evidence concerning the effect of trial characteristics on trial results.

Flawed statistics and science confirming existing paradigms

BACKGROUND

Part of the scientific community states that implausible methods cannot have a true effect and that epidemiological proof can only lead to false positives.

DISCUSSION

Homeopathy is regarded as an example of an implausible method with false positive evidence. However, epidemiological proof is necessary to falsify the placebo hypothesis. Implausibility is now supposed to rectify selection of a part of all trials, but the applied selection criteria are diverse and not common in conventional medicine. Applying Bayes' theorem only once to demonstrate that a low prior chance does not lead to reasonable probability is flawed application of this theorem.

CONCLUSION

Demanding scientific evidence and then rejecting the same with post-hoc selection of trials and flawed statistics shows unwillingness to falsify the completeness of existing paradigms.

Estimating statistical power, posterior probability and publication bias of psychological research using the observed replication rate

In this paper, we show how Bayes' theorem can be used to better understand the implications of the 36% reproducibility rate of published psychological findings reported by the Open Science Collaboration. We demonstrate a method to assess publication bias and show that the observed reproducibility rate was not consistent with an unbiased literature. We estimate a plausible range for the prior probability of this body of research, suggesting expected statistical power in the original studies of 48-75%, producing (positive) findings that were expected to be true 41-62% of the time. Publication bias was large, assuming a literature with 90% positive findings, indicating that negative evidence was expected to have been observed 55-98 times before one negative result was published. These findings imply that even when studied associations are truly NULL, we expect the literature to be dominated by statistically significant findings.

Associations between attitudes towards scientific misconduct and self-reported behavior

We investigate the relationship between doctoral students' attitudes towards scientific misconduct and their self-reported behavior. 203 questionnaires were distributed to doctoral candidates at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo 2016/2017. The response rate was 74%. The results show a correlation between attitudes towards misconduct and self-reported problematic behaviors among doctoral students in biomedicine. The four most common reported misbehaviors are adding author(s) who did not qualify for authorship (17.9%), collecting more data after seeing that the results were almost statistically significant (11.8%), turning a blind eye to colleagues' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data (11.2%), and reporting an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start (10.5%). We find correlations between scientific misbehavior and the location of undergraduate studies and whether the respondents have had science ethics lectures previously. The study provides evidence for the concurrent validity of the two instruments used to measure attitudes and behavior, i.e. the Kalichman scale and the Research Misbehavior Severity Score (RMSS). Although the direction of causality between attitudes and misbehavior cannot be determined in this study the correlation between the two indicates that it can be important to engender the right attitudes in early career researchers.

Estimation versus falsification approaches in sport and exercise science

There has been a recent resurgence in debate about methods for statistical inference in science. The debate addresses statistical concepts and their impact on the value and meaning of analyses' outcomes. In contrast, philosophical underpinnings of approaches and the extent to which analytical tools match philosophical goals of the scientific method have received less attention. This short piece considers application of the scientific method to "what-is-the-influence-of x-on-y" type questions characteristic of sport and exercise science. We consider applications and interpretations of estimation versus falsification based statistical approaches and their value in addressing how much x influences y, and in measurement error and method agreement settings. We compare estimation using magnitude based inference (MBI) with falsification using null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), and highlight the limited value both of falsification and NHST to address problems in sport and exercise science. We recommend adopting an estimation approach, expressing the uncertainty of effects of x on y, and their practical/clinical value against pre-determined effect magnitudes using MBI.

[Research Misconduct in Japan and How It Is Covered by the Media]

　Cases of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have been increasing worldwide, including in Japan. In particular, since 2006, many cases of research misconduct have been reported in Japan, and these cases have also been covered by the media. The 2014 case of the withdrawal of articles on STAP cells followed a rare course in which research misconduct became a full-blown social phenomenon. In recent years, even the University of Tokyo has experienced reported cases of research misconduct. In this report, I would like to introduce some representative cases of research misconduct in the field of life sciences over the past decade. These examples include studies conducted at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine (2006), Osaka University Graduate School of Frontier Bioscience (2006), Ryukyu University School of Medicine (2010), Toho University School of Medicine (2012), The University of Tokyo Institute of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (2013), and several cases outside of Japan. I will discuss what researchers should do to reduce the incidence of research misconduct. In addition, I will discuss how these cases were covered by the media, because the public's impression of research misconduct is formed by media coverage.

Truths, lies, and statistics

Distribution of valuable research discoveries are needed for the continual advancement of patient care. Publication and subsequent reliance of false study results would be detrimental for patient care. Unfortunately, research misconduct may originate from many sources. While there is evidence of ongoing research misconduct in all it's forms, it is challenging to identify the actual occurrence of research misconduct, which is especially true for misconduct in clinical trials. Research misconduct is challenging to measure and there are few studies reporting the prevalence or underlying causes of research misconduct among biomedical researchers. Reported prevalence estimates of misconduct are probably underestimates, and range from 0.3% to 4.9%. There have been efforts to measure the prevalence of research misconduct; however, the relatively few published studies are not freely comparable because of varying characterizations of research misconduct and the methods used for data collection. There are some signs which may point to an increased possibility of research misconduct, however there is a need for continued self-policing by biomedical researchers. There are existing resources to assist in ensuring appropriate statistical methods and preventing other types of research fraud. These included the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature", also known as the SAMPL guidelines, which help scientists determine the appropriate method of reporting various statistical methods; the "Strengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies", or the STRATOS, which emphases on execution and interpretation of results; and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which was created in 1997 to deliver guidance about publication ethics. COPE has a sequence of views and strategies grounded in the values of honesty and accuracy.

Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct has been defined as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Scientific misconduct has occurred throughout the history of science. The US government began to take systematic interest in such misconduct in the 1980s. Since then, a number of studies have examined how frequently individual scientists have observed scientific misconduct or were involved in it. Although the studies vary considerably in their methodology and in the nature and size of their samples, in most studies at least 10% of the scientists sampled reported having observed scientific misconduct. In addition to studies of the incidence of scientific misconduct, this review considers the recent increase in paper retractions, the role of social media in scientific ethics, several instructional examples of egregious scientific misconduct, and potential methods to reduce research misconduct.

Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology

The (latest) crisis in confidence in social psychology has generated much heated discussion about the importance of replication, including how it should be carried out as well as interpreted by scholars in the field. For example, what does it mean if a replication attempt “fails”—does it mean that the original results, or the theory that predicted them, have been falsified? And how should “failed” replications affect our belief in the validity of the original research? In this paper, we consider the replication debate from a historical and philosophical perspective, and provide a conceptual analysis of both replication and falsification as they pertain to this important discussion. Along the way, we highlight the importance of auxiliary assumptions (for both testing theories and attempting replications), and introduce a Bayesian framework for assessing “failed” replications in terms of how they should affect our confidence in original findings.

Social Media, Peer Review, and Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Chemistry: Trends, Pitfalls, and Promises

Over the last two decades, various themes inherent in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) in chemistry have been brought to light through prominent cases of research misconduct. This article will describe a few of these cases especially through the lens of social media such as blogs and Twitter. A case will be made that these wholly novel modalities of online discussion are now complementing, and in some cases even circumventing some of the limitations of traditional peer review in chemistry. We present in detail our evaluation of three recent cases of RCR along with several other social media illustrations. These cases have been selected to be representative and showcase several of the most prominent issues at the intersection of traditional and social-media based peer review. In each case, basic details are presented along with a brief discussion of the underlying issues-readers interested in deeper analysis of each subject are referred to a collection of relevant articles and websites. This perspective focuses on the most important RCR issues that have arisen in the past decade, a time which we believe coincides with the serious participation of the scientific community in general, and the chemistry community in particular, in social media-based, citizen-enabled peer-review. A discussion of important trends in RCR in the age of social media, outstanding developments in this area, and questions of enduring interest for the near future concludes the article.

Substandard drugs: a potential crisis for public health

Poor-quality medicines present a serious public health problem, particularly in emerging economies and developing countries, and may have a significant impact on the national clinical and economic burden. Attention has largely focused on the increasing availability of deliberately falsified drugs, but substandard medicines are also reaching patients because of poor manufacturing and quality-control practices in the production of genuine drugs (either branded or generic). Substandard medicines are widespread and represent a threat to health because they can inadvertently lead to healthcare failures, such as antibiotic resistance and the spread of disease within a community, as well as death or additional illness in individuals. This article reviews the different aspects of substandard drug formulation that can occur (for example, pharmacological variability between drug batches or between generic and originator drugs, incorrect drug quantity and presence of impurities). The possible means of addressing substandard manufacturing practices are also discussed. A concerted effort is required on the part of governments, drug manufacturers, charities and healthcare providers to ensure that only drugs of acceptable quality reach the patient.

Peril in the market-classification and dosage of species used as anti-diabetics in Lima, Peru

BACKGROUND

Peru is what Peruvian anthropologist Lupe Camino calls the “health axis” of the old Central Andean culture area stretching from Ecuador to Bolivia. In particular in the North of the country the traditional use of medicinal dates back as far as the first millennium B.C. Both healers, and the wider population, often buy their medicinal plants in local markets, but there is very little comparative information available about which plants are sold under which vernacular name at any given time, for which indication, and which dosage information and information about side effects is given by vendors. For this study we used two traditionally used species groups “Hercampuri” Gentianella spec. (Gentianaceae) and “Pasuchaca” Geranium spec. (Geraniaceae.), found in the Mercado Aviación in Lima, as small, clearly circumscribed plant group frequently used to treat symptoms of diabetes as a test case to study the taxonomy, indications, dosage, indicated side effects, and additional species used as admixtures and hypothesized that: 1. A wide variety of different species is sold under the same common name, and often several common names exist for one species. 2. There is no consistency in the dosage, or a relationship between dosage and species marketed under one name. 3. However, there is consistency in the knowledge about usage and side effects.

METHODS

Surveys focusing on medicinal plants sold and their properties were conducted at the Mercado Aviaciónin Lima in December 2012. Vouchers of all specimens were deposited at the National Herbarium of Peru.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Our surveys in Mercado Aviación in Lima yielded four species of Gentianella, two of Geranium, and three additional species from three genera used as common additives that were sold as anti-diabetic. These results indicate that even in case of only a few plant species, used for a very clearly circumscribed application, patients run a considerable risk when purchasing their remedies in the market. The possible side effects in this case are the more serious because diabetes has to be treated long term, and as such the patients are ingesting possible toxic remedies over a long period of time. Much more control, and a much more stringent identification of the material sold in public markets, and entering the global supply chain via internet sales, would be needed.

The inference from a single case: moral versus scientific inferences in implementing new biotechnologies

Are there similarities between scientific and moral inference? This is the key question in this article. It takes as its point of departure an instance of one person's story in the media changing both Norwegian public opinion and a brand-new Norwegian law prohibiting the use of saviour siblings. The case appears to falsify existing norms and to establish new ones. The analysis of this case reveals similarities in the modes of inference in science and morals, inasmuch as (a) a single case functions as a counter-example to an existing rule; (b) there is a common presupposition of stability, similarity and order, which makes it possible to reason from a few cases to a general rule; and (c) this makes it possible to hold things together and retain order. In science, these modes of inference are referred to as falsification, induction and consistency. In morals, they have a variety of other names. Hence, even without abandoning the fact-value divide, there appear to be similarities between inference in science and inference in morals, which may encourage communication across the boundaries between "the two cultures" and which are relevant to medical humanities.