Talk:Scientists create schizophrenic brain cells

 
Retraction — April 20, 2011
 
This article has been retracted because it failed to comply with our neutral point of view policy, and contained misleading information.
The last version of the article text can be found here.
 

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Retracted, April 20, 2011, Deletion discussion

{{dr}}

• Article has since been corrected/retracted. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 02:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1214285 [Passed]

Revision 1214285 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1214285 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Use of Press release promotes the antipsychotic drug Loxapine

It should be noted that the information on Loxapine comes from a Press release and therefore the study was probably funded by the makers of Loxapine. The reader wonders why Loxapine, out of all the antipsychotic medications is mentioned. This is promoting Loxapine in my opinion. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Biased article

This article relies primarily on information from a press release and is a primary source that is not peer reviewed by any publisher or editors. It describes a laboratory study that used the skin cells of four human subjects and was carried out in a petri dish and not on living animals. The findings are very, very preliminary and should not be reported, as they are in the article, with such certainty. And mixing the findings with so many generalities about schizophrenia that have nothing to do with this particular study, have the effect of puffing up the findings to seem more meaningful that they are.

It was funded by several private sources. one of them a pharmaceutical company. It singles out loxapine, a specific antipsychotic medication when there are hundreds. The article never should have been written without access to the peer-reviewed version published in Nature. To use so much information derived from a press release is promotional and results in a biased article. No sources are used that can give a more balanced view to the press release statements.

I removed this sentence from the article: Postdoctoral researcher of the Salk Institute Kristen Brennand said Loxapine can achieve a lot more than they previously realised.

This is what the source actually says: "These drugs are doing a lot more than we thought they were doing," explains Brennand.

Also, the name loxapine should not be capitalized, as it is the generic name.

I have made many other changes to try to reduce the bias, but in my opinion this is a promotional and misleading article. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BarkingFish (Thor Malmjursson) Why did you remove these edits?

User:BarkingFish (Thor Malmjursson) Why did you remove these edits? 99.181.133.240 (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to have any significant changes done once they are published. I classified your edit as a significant change, thus not permitted. If you consider my actions are wrong, you are welcome to speak to an uninvolved administrator to have them overturned. BarkingFish (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A w:Glial cell is a "brain cell", as is a w:neuron (gray matter). This article is confusing at best. To add detail I also added some more sources ... http://neurosciencenews.com/scientists-recreate-schizophrenia-brain-cells-skin-cells-neurons-stem-cells/ http://www.voanews.com/english/news/health/Stem-Cells-of-Schizophrenics-Could-Shed-Light-on-Causes-of-Mental-Illness-119811204.html 99.181.133.240 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, Wikinews has a strict archiving policy, and articles should not be substantially edited after 24 hours since its publication. This article was published more than a day ago, and per policy, it shouldn't be edited. See WN:ARCHIVE. Those reasons don't matter much. The only thing we could do is {{Correction|The article has been discovered to have used very poorly neuroscience terms.}} or something like that. Cheers. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article as written is very confusing and misleading. It is also biased as it relies largely on a press release from the authors of the study that was partly funded by a pharmaceutical company and promotes a particular drug. The sources the IP added show starkly how a more neutral and informative rendition of the information can be presented. They put the information in context of what the major importance of the experiment was and do not give a sensational twist to the story to give the impression that a "personalized" drug treatment for schizophrenia is at hand. And they don't promote a particular anti-psychotic drug. In fact, the do not even mention loxapine, which the original article as published mentioned twice, once even capitalized.[1] The wikinews article was based largely on statements from a press release on a study partly funded by a pharmaceutical company. The original version as published did not identify the press release as such.
The article also demonstrates a muddled understanding of the neurology involved. I don't know what wikinews policy is in a case like this, but there should be, in my opinion, some way of suppressing, or correctly rewriting a sensationalized and misleading article and not present it to the public as it stands.
I edited this article considerably after is was published to try to reduce the bias, but I did not think I was supposed to find superior sources and completely rewrite an article already published.
I have rewritten articles already published in the past, but always using the sources already provided. What are the policies here? Can a published article be withdrawn? Mattisse (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Untrue statements

This article contains many inaccuracies:

Example:

• "For many years, mental illness has been thought of as a social or environmental disease, and many thought that if affected people just worked through their problems, they could overcome them," says Gage. "What we are showing are real biological dysfunctions in neurons that are independent of the environment." (quoted from the press release).

“Nobody knows how much the environment contributes to the disease,” said Brennand. from Neuroscience News The wikinews article says Brennand is a Postdoctoral researcher of the Salk Institute who worked on the study.

It is still not clear how much of schizophrenia is biological and how much is environmentally triggered. To make a flat statement that it is a "real biological dysfunctions in neurons that are independent of the environment" is flatly untrue. Remember, he used the skin cells from four schizophrenics with "hereditary" schizophrenia. In most people with schizophrenia, there is no history of schizophrenia in the family. Mattisse (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Replace with a retraction notice?

* Support I think the article's issues can't be fixed. I vote for its replacement with a retraction notice and archival. %Gryllida^talk 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

at Wikinews:Deletion_requests#Scientists_create_schizophrenic_brain_cells %Gryllida^talk 22:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)