Tweety...yeah the second link is very interesting.
I have done some reading on retractions in the last day or two, and it does seem the most common reason for retraction is fraud of some sort (falsifying data, plagiarism, etc) followed by honest errors. The guideline for retraction are here:
Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:
• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri- cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical research
Note: "we don't like the conclusions you came to or how you got there" is not listed.
That being said, there does seem to be an emerging trend of retracting work to "correct" science. The second link in post 11 speaks to that.
"One of the issues that comes up again and again on Retraction Watch is when it’s appropriate to retract a paper. There are varying opinions. Some commenters have suggested, given the stigma attached, retraction should be reserved for fraud, while many more say error — even unintentional — is enough to merit withdrawal. Some others, however, say retraction is appropriate when a paper is later proven wrong, even in the absence of misconduct or mistakes."
The comments underneath are great. Almost all oppose using retractions to "correct" science.
Here are a few:
"What happens when a new paradigm replaces an old one? Newton retracted by Einstein?
Retractions have a useful, if partially fuzzy function. Let’s not blow them out of proportion." Bob
"I think you are in danger of making a fundamental mistake here. The guidelines call for retraction in the case of fraud/misconduct or honest error that has lead to an unreliable result ....
But there is a huge leap to stating that papers should be retracted “if a paper’s major conclusions are shown to be wrong”. Should the first estimates of the mass of the electron be retracted because later estimates converged on a different number? Should papers that showed potentially significant relationships in small samples that didn’t hold up in larger trials be retracted – even if potentially that data was used as part of the meta-study? This cannot be justified.
The literature is a record of the progress of science – and that progress is not linear. By erasing by-ways and diversions that end up not contributing directly to the ‘final’ answer (whatever that is), you are imposing a view of science that is not true to itself and is perhaps sanitised beyond the point of usefulness.
If you erase from scientific history the merely mistaken (as opposed to the fraudulent or compromised) you are doing a disservice to the notion of science itself."
I suspect this is what is going on with the HPV paper. There is no evidence of misconduct (which even Orac admits) or errors (such as calculation errors) - the retraction seems to fall under the murky, controversial area of using retraction as a tool to "correct" science.