Skip to Main Content

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After a study on the effectiveness of its Daysy thermometer was retracted, Valley sued Chelsea Polis, a researcher who had publicly lambasted its findings, for defamation.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.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!


Create a display name to comment

This name will appear with your comment

There was an error saving your display name. Please check and try again.