ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
In the world of science, 2011 may go down as the year of the retraction. Lots of highly publicized discoveries got debunked this year. NPR's Jon Hamilton reports that many of those discoveries involved findings that both scientists and the public really wanted to believe.
JON HAMILTON, BYLINE: We'd all like to know how to live to 100, so people got pretty excited when a 2010 study in the journal Science offered a genetic explanation. David Goldstein, a professor of genetics at Duke, says the study identified clusters of genes apparently linked to a very long life.
DAVID GOLDSTEIN: That was one of the reasons that it generated so much interest - that the genetic control was very, very strong and allowed some prediction of who would live a long time.
HAMILTON: But Goldstein says as appealing as that idea was, he had major doubts.
GOLDSTEIN: Everybody that does a lot of genome-wide association studies not only knew that there was an issue but worked out what the issue was, more or less immediately.
HAMILTON: The issue had to do with the specific device used to identify and sequence the genomes of these centenarians. Goldstein says that for certain gene variants, the device is known to produce misleading results.
GOLDSTEIN: At least some of the conclusions in the paper were due to this source of artifact - eventually leading, of course, to a retraction.
HAMILTON: Another appealing study described a bacterium that appeared to defy the rules of nature. This bug, from a lake in California, seemed to use the poison arsenic in place of an element thought essential for life. NASA held a big press conference late last year to announce the finding, which provoked a lot of talk about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
But scientists like Simon Silver, of the University of Illinois, Chicago, were unimpressed by NASA's event.
SIMON SILVER: It took five minutes to decide it really shouldn't have happened.
HAMILTON: They said the paper failed to show that this organism was incorporating arsenic into its DNA. Eventually, the journal Science published some of their criticisms online. And just a few weeks ago, Silver's lab published a sequence of the organism's genome.
SILVER: It's not a bizarre bug at all. And it has the normal range of genes, and there's just nothing surprising in its genome at all.
HAMILTON: Even so, the authors stand by their study. And so far, the journal Science hasn't retracted it.
Parents of children with autism have long hoped for a better explanation of the disorder. So many of them embraced a 2005 article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that suggested a government cover-up of a link between autism and the vaccine preservative thimerosal. The piece was published in the online magazine Salon, and in Rolling Stone. Scientists soon pointed out major errors, and Salon published a number of corrections.
Then this year, the writer Seth Mnookin published a book called "The Panic Virus," which included a thorough dissection of the Kennedy piece.
SETH MNOOKIN: When my book came out, Salon used that as an occasion to sort of revisit the entire controversy, and said publicly that it had been a mistake to publish it, and retracted the piece - and actually pulled it off of their website.
HAMILTON: Rolling Stone, though, hasn't followed suit.
One of the most prominent retractions this year involved chronic fatigue syndrome, a mysterious problem that patients and scientists have been trying to understand for many years. The mystery seemed solved in 2009, when a study in the journal Science linked chronic fatigue to a retrovirus called XMRV.
Ivan Oransky is the co-founder of a blog called Retraction Watch, and the executive editor of Reuters Health. He says the finding was a very big deal to those with chronic fatigue.
IVAN ORANSKY: This is a group of people that initially, were basically told by a lot of doctors: You're not sick; get over it.
HAMILTON: At first, the study seemed to confirm that their illness was caused by a virus. But Oransky says the results haven't held up.
ORANSKY: And now, it's become clear that that was a house of cards; that there was something wrong with those results and therefore, there was something wrong with the conclusions.
HAMILTON: Oransky says this house of cards seems to have been built on contaminated samples, poorly designed experiments, and scientists who badly wanted to believe their results.
Jon Hamilton, NPR News.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
SIEGEL: This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News.