←back to thread

159 points picture | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
owlninja ◴[] No.42728486[source]
I guess I'll bite - what am I looking at here?
replies(3): >>42728535 #>>42728569 #>>42728865 #
the__alchemist ◴[] No.42728569[source]
An (agarose?) gel.

There are partial holes in at at one end. You insert a small amount of dyed DNA (etc) containing solution each. Apply an electrical potential across the gel. DNA gradually moves along. Smaller DNA fragments move faster. So, at a given time, you can coarsely measure fragment size of a given sample. Your absolute scale is given by "standards", aka "ladders" that have samples of multiple, known sizes.

The paper authors cheated (allegedly) by copy + pasting images of the gel. This is what was caught, so it implies they may have made up some or all results in this and other papers.

replies(4): >>42728657 #>>42728684 #>>42728689 #>>42731691 #
1. NotAnOtter ◴[] No.42731691[source]
Additional context to be speculative of OP's intentions. Within the academic world there was a major scandal where a semi-famous researcher was exposed for faking decades of data (Google: Pruitt). Every since, people have been hungry for more drama of the same shape.