Do people list their retractions in their CVs? If so, is it career suicide? If not, would hiring committees or other panels that review CVs (like for grants or awards) go looking to see if the scientist under consideration has ever retracted a paper?
In a very large number of situations in which an academic CV is used, there is no obligation for it to constitute an exhaustive list of everything the scientist has ever done that might be considered pertinent to various sections. Inclusion of things that the person has not done is clearly fraud, however omission of things that the person has accomplished is not an issue.
Speaking to the grant review query (within the NIH in particular), note that the grant version of the CV (the NIH Biosketch) is page-limited and therefore the publications are frequently a selected subset. The purpose of the Biosketch is much as with the rest of the application-to make the best case for the application to receive a glowing review. Things to be included are those that the PI thinks are going to help with a positive review. There is no obligation to include things that might hurt the review.
One place this comes up quite frequently is the issue of prior research support. I have, at times past, looked into this quite closely and there is no obligation to list every source of research support on the application-only that which the PI feels will support his or her talents and track record of directing projects of similar scope as that proposed. This, I will note, is why the whole "Other Support" documentation (which does have to be comprehensive with respect to current fundings) exchange occurs only with the Program staff immediately prior to award. It is not an issue for review.
If the PI must select a subset of her publications because of the font and page limits, she will generally do so by prioritizing recent work that is specific to the proposal at hand. Also, by prioritizing by impact factor (yeah, I've seen more than one GlamourMag paper from grad school or a long-distant postdoc stint included for no apparent purpose other than to brandish GlamourMagBling). No doubt for other reasons as well.
Have a paper that is a little weak? One that you subsequently disproved? One that the field ran straight over? One that just stuck out as an avenue-not-taken? Great candidates with which to save some Biosketch space.
I would argue that a retracted paper falls into the same ethical decision tree. I know it seems to violate that pulsing need for revenge expressed by those who don't fake and feel that there are some significant number of competitors getting away with faking data.I understand the sentiment, I just don't see how it applies here. My understanding of the NIH application gives an emphatic no to the question- no it is not necessary to include a retracted paper.
Should it be necessary? That is the interesting question. And if so, how can we possibly outline an rationale for doing so that does not essentially require the Fullest of Monty CV be included instead of a minimalist biosketch?