It’s been quite a year in stem cell research. Here at the stem cell agency eight projects that we are funding have been approved for clinical trials and several more hope to get approval in early 2015. And Dr. Don Kohn and his team at UCLA announced that they have effectively cured Severe Combined Immunodeficiency or SCID  a fatal disease that leaves infants with no immune system.

But the news hasn’t been all good. A number of high profile retractions of studies published in prestigious journals have drawn attention to some of the less lovely aspects of science. There are many reasons why a researcher or scientific journal decides to retract a study – falsified data, inability of others to reproduce the findings etc. – but the end result is always the same, a stain on the reputation of science in general.

Of course the only thing worse than a retraction is bad science that is not retracted. That’s why websites such as Retraction Watch are so important. They keep an eye on the field and help draw attention to questionable papers (in all areas of science, not just stem cell research).

Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch

The two founders of the site, Evan Marcus and Ivan Oransky, do a remarkable job of highlighting work that doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny. This year they worked with the magazine Science to highlight The Top 10 Retractions of 2014.  Sadly, two of the top 10 – including the number one story of the year – concern stem cell research.

The list is a reminder, as we look forward to 2015 for more progress in the field, that we need to always check the credibility of studies or sources we are using. Sometimes something that seems too good to be true, is too good to be true.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at the flip side of this discussion, the “Biggest Scientific Breakthroughs of 2014”. It’s always good to end the year on a positive note.