↓ Skip to main content

The Acid Test for Biological Science: STAP Cells, Trust, and Replication

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
The Acid Test for Biological Science: STAP Cells, Trust, and Replication
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9628-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheryl Lancaster

Abstract

In January 2014, a letter and original research article were published in Nature describing a process whereby somatic mouse cells could be converted into stem cells by subjecting them to stress. These "stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency" (STAP) cells were shown to be capable of contributing to all cell types of a developing embryo, and extra-embryonic tissues. The lead author of the publications, Haruko Obokata, became an overnight celebrity in Japan, where she was dubbed the new face of Japanese science. However, in the weeks that followed publication of the research, issues arose. Other laboratories and researchers (including authors on the original papers) found that they were unable to replicate Obokata et al.'s work. Closer scrutiny of the papers by the scientific community also suggested that there was manipulation of images that had been published, and Obokata was accused of misconduct. Those who should have been supervising her work (also her co-authors on the publications) were also heavily criticised. The STAP cell saga of 2014 is used as an example to highlight the importance of trust and replication in twenty-first century biological science. The role of trust in the scientific community is highlighted, and the effects on interactions between science and the public examined. Similarly, this essay aims to highlight the importance of replication, and how this is understood by researchers, the media, and the public. The expected behaviour of scientists in the twenty-first century is now more closely scrutinised.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 41%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,427,115
of 25,359,594 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#97
of 962 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,564
of 364,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,359,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 962 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.