Martin Nowak
Martin's Snakes
Venomous Snake Research Paper Retracted
I have previously noted in FC several instances of fraudulent scientific papers related to reptiles. The issue is that scientific papers are difficult to get corrected and more difficult to get retracted. “How could a scientist be wrong?” More to the point, “why would a scientist publish fraudulent research?”. The answer is of course, “publish or perish”, “name in lights”, “15 seconds of fame”, “speaking invitations and applause”, and the Holy Grail “tenure”. Universities will do everything and anything possible to avoid a professor’s paper from being corrected or retracted. Universities value loyalty over honesty.
Why is this topic pertinent to reptile keepers? As previously noted, universities and professors publish studies which are used by state game and fish commissions and by USFW to create regulations and laws. Retracted or corrected research is never used to retract or correct regulations. And retracted research papers continue to be cited by other researchers. Corrections are usually not indicated in cited papers. Furthermore, game and fish and USFW obtain tax money to pay university biologists to perform research to advance their restriction agendas. This line could go on and on; but readers clearly understand.
Here is a specific example of a retracted paper concerning research at the famed Butantan Institute in São Paulo, Brazil, makers of many anti-venoms. The retraction is noted March 10, 2025 in the U.S. watchdog organization Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/
So, what was the research? In short, the scientists researched if stepping on the head and body of vipers would make them bite. Clever and a topic no one knows about. First the researchers used a typical snake hook to pin the snakes but in doing so they injured the snakes. They then decided to step on the vipers to see if they would bite in response. Oh, and in a flash of brilliance, the scientist then wondered if baby vipers would bite like the adults if stepped upon.
Don’t tread on me: Snake paper retracted for ‘soft-stepping’ technique
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/03/07/snakes-soft-stepping-retraction-butantan-institute/
“Agitating snakes isn’t something most of us would do on purpose, but for a group of researchers, it was central to their research. The authors of a May 2024 paper in Scientific Reports achieved that by “softly” stepping on the head, tail and mid-body of newborn, juvenile and adult pit vipers to see how often they would bite.”
“Lead author João Miguel Alves-Nunes blamed the retraction on a “communication error” by the ethics committee.”
“The researchers “noticed that the metal hook could injure the snakes’ mouths,” so rather than using the hook to press down on the snake, they lightly stepped on the animals instead, Alves-Nunes said. The boot had a foam reinforcement to protect the snakes, he told us.”
“As reported in a Q&A with Alves-Nunes in Science, he stepped on 116 snakes 30 times each, totaling over 40,000 steps. In tests with a different type of snake, the bite pierced his boot. That’s when he learned he is allergic to snake venom and antivenom.”
Recall I said the universities and employers will take every possible action to avoid complicity or acknowledgement of an issue in research by their scientists. Such is true worldwide. In Brazil – in this case – “The Butantan Institute told us the animal ethics committee was unavailable for comment because of a national holiday.”
And the scientists disagreed: “All authors disagreed with the retraction, the notice states. Alves-Nunes called the decision to retract “disproportionate. The mistake made was bureaucratic, not scientific fraud, plagiarism, or experimental error.”
And the research “patients” – the snakes – “the Butantan Institute, noted the researchers “emphasize that ethical conduct regarding live animal experimentation—avoiding excessive suffering and minimizing discomfort and the number of specimens used—was upheld.”
I have previously noted in FC several instances of fraudulent scientific papers related to reptiles. The issue is that scientific papers are difficult to get corrected and more difficult to get retracted. “How could a scientist be wrong?” More to the point, “why would a scientist publish fraudulent research?”. The answer is of course, “publish or perish”, “name in lights”, “15 seconds of fame”, “speaking invitations and applause”, and the Holy Grail “tenure”. Universities will do everything and anything possible to avoid a professor’s paper from being corrected or retracted. Universities value loyalty over honesty.
Why is this topic pertinent to reptile keepers? As previously noted, universities and professors publish studies which are used by state game and fish commissions and by USFW to create regulations and laws. Retracted or corrected research is never used to retract or correct regulations. And retracted research papers continue to be cited by other researchers. Corrections are usually not indicated in cited papers. Furthermore, game and fish and USFW obtain tax money to pay university biologists to perform research to advance their restriction agendas. This line could go on and on; but readers clearly understand.
Here is a specific example of a retracted paper concerning research at the famed Butantan Institute in São Paulo, Brazil, makers of many anti-venoms. The retraction is noted March 10, 2025 in the U.S. watchdog organization Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/
So, what was the research? In short, the scientists researched if stepping on the head and body of vipers would make them bite. Clever and a topic no one knows about. First the researchers used a typical snake hook to pin the snakes but in doing so they injured the snakes. They then decided to step on the vipers to see if they would bite in response. Oh, and in a flash of brilliance, the scientist then wondered if baby vipers would bite like the adults if stepped upon.
Don’t tread on me: Snake paper retracted for ‘soft-stepping’ technique
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/03/07/snakes-soft-stepping-retraction-butantan-institute/
“Agitating snakes isn’t something most of us would do on purpose, but for a group of researchers, it was central to their research. The authors of a May 2024 paper in Scientific Reports achieved that by “softly” stepping on the head, tail and mid-body of newborn, juvenile and adult pit vipers to see how often they would bite.”
“Lead author João Miguel Alves-Nunes blamed the retraction on a “communication error” by the ethics committee.”
“The researchers “noticed that the metal hook could injure the snakes’ mouths,” so rather than using the hook to press down on the snake, they lightly stepped on the animals instead, Alves-Nunes said. The boot had a foam reinforcement to protect the snakes, he told us.”
“As reported in a Q&A with Alves-Nunes in Science, he stepped on 116 snakes 30 times each, totaling over 40,000 steps. In tests with a different type of snake, the bite pierced his boot. That’s when he learned he is allergic to snake venom and antivenom.”
Recall I said the universities and employers will take every possible action to avoid complicity or acknowledgement of an issue in research by their scientists. Such is true worldwide. In Brazil – in this case – “The Butantan Institute told us the animal ethics committee was unavailable for comment because of a national holiday.”
And the scientists disagreed: “All authors disagreed with the retraction, the notice states. Alves-Nunes called the decision to retract “disproportionate. The mistake made was bureaucratic, not scientific fraud, plagiarism, or experimental error.”
And the research “patients” – the snakes – “the Butantan Institute, noted the researchers “emphasize that ethical conduct regarding live animal experimentation—avoiding excessive suffering and minimizing discomfort and the number of specimens used—was upheld.”