A retraction often marks the end of a dispute over published scientific research. But in the case of a $300 digital fertility tracker marketed by Valley Electronics, it was only the beginning.
After a study on the effectiveness of its Daysy thermometer was retracted, Valley sued Chelsea Polis, a researcher who had publicly lambasted its findings, for defamation. When a federal judge threw out the case, Valley appealed, arguing that Polis went too far by calling the company “unethical” and labeling its study “junk science.” The appeal — set for March 22 — underscores the growing tensions between new, loosely regulated technologies and watchdogs insisting that published claims be supported by rigorous science.
To the critics, poking holes in studies is an inherent part of the scientific process — it’s baked into peer reviews and reproducibility research. But to companies raising millions of dollars or trying to rake in new customers, each round of debate can also look like a threat to the bottom line.
This article is exclusive to STAT+ subscribers
Unlock this article — and get additional analysis of the technologies disrupting health care — by subscribing to STAT+.
Already have an account? Log in
To submit a correction request, please visit our Contact Us page.
