5 ms·

About this: "As far as I can tell, the BICEP2 scientists haven’t suffered much professionally from the fiasco. When David Spergel talked here at Columbia about

About this: "As far as I can tell, the BICEP2 scientists haven’t suffered much professionally from the fiasco. When David Spergel talked here at Columbia about the subject, he noted that this hadn’t stopped the PI, John Kovac, from getting tenure at Harvard. In the book, Keating mentions some “embarrassment and guilt”, but no negative professional consequences" In the long run, it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers. In the long run, it is good for society if journalists are sometimes embarrassed by reporting on a story when they don't have access to the data behind the story. So in the long run, it is probably for the best that these researchers suffered no adverse effects. If anyone changes their behavior, I'd rather it be the journalists. They should not give too much publicity to teams making big announcements while hiding their data.

jackfrodo 9y ago
Is this a reasonable thing to ask of journalists? I can't imagine a reporter telling their editor, "Yes, this team tells us with confidence that their findings have confirmed a huge story, but I disagree with their interpretation of the data, so I don't think we should run it." A reporter shouldn't be embarrassed that a team of scientists lied to them. Obviously the publications should retract/update these stories, but journalists, even ones with science backgrounds just aren't equipped and trained to be able to independently verify every claim they report on.
- GCA10 9y ago
  The best science reporters earn their keep by balancing "wow!" and "really?" at moments like this. Sometimes it's a matter of spotting an outright hoax (i.e. Piltdown Man fossils in the 1920s.) Other times, what's at stake is an overly decisive attempt to interpret exciting data that might not be so exciting after all. The cold-fusion "discoveries" of 1989 fall into that camp, along with this gravitational-wave claim. It's hard for journalists to referee everything in the first few hours. But by talking to other experts in the field, and by being willing to comb through the methodology underlying the claims, it's possible to get a sense within a few days (weeks?) of what's holding together very, very well, and what's starting to seem a little shaky. There's nothing wrong -- and a lot right -- with writing post-announcement articles that acknowledge such uncertainties.
- oldgradstudent 9y ago
  A journalist should always be embarrassed when they publish some bullshit because a source lied to them. Why should science reporting be any different? Science reporting should more than spell checking university press releases.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    It depends on the level of deceit, and who the source was. And we all have good reason to be annoyed if the deceitful source was the team performing the investigation. > Science reporting should more than spell checking university press releases. This implies a false dichotomy. Many journalists know a lot about the matters they cover, but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field.
    - oldgradstudent 9y ago
      Science reporters should be just as skeptical of their sources as any other reporters. Especially where money, power or honors are involved. The fact that most reporting on BICEP2 didn't even mention the politics behind it and the competition with the Planck experiment tells you a lot about the quality of coverage. I think it is quite clear that the original reporting of BICEP2 was over the top, and that talking with some of the group's competitors would have pointed to problems in the experiment and analysis. The original reporting sounded to me more like PR than journalism. Even pointing out the old joke that 5 sigma discoveries tend to be wrong half the time would have been helpful. > but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field. And they should learn their lesson, and do better the next time. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen (with a few notable exceptions).
- Ma8ee 9y ago
  It’s not hard for a journalist to pick up their phone and get some independent scientist with knowledge in the field say what they think about the findings. And then not hide the quote about inconclusive data and looking forward to further confirmation in the last paragraph of the article.
forapurpose 9y ago
Wow. I don't see how one can exonerate the researchers and condemn the messengers. > If anyone changes their behavior, I'd rather it be the journalists > it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers According to the article, it was fraud, not "some mistakes". How is it good for society that frauds remain unpunished? Why would we want the behavior of frauds to continue unchanged? Even if it isn't fraud, should there be no consequences for our actions? If my software fails miserably, would it be best that I suffer "no adverse effects", or perhaps should the market and investors allocate resources to people who can do a better job?
danso 9y ago
Researchers frequently seek publicity just as much as journalists look for stories. I don't think too many journalists would complain if researchers were required to deliver to them all the data they used in their research. Don't think that's a sustainable model though.
tombone12 9y ago
It's not really mistakes that is the issue though, its more the fact that they got reeeeelly close to outright fabrication. They had a very shaky estimate of an important background (the foreground) and instead of being cautious they put out a video like this as part of the announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA
- PopePompous 9y ago
  Perhaps the video should start at 01:59 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA&t=1m59s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA&t=1m59s
sytelus 9y ago
It wasn’t a mistake. These guys made conscious decision to not disclose critical facts to hype up their findings and get on the NYT front page. This is extremely unfortunate because it’s almost becoming a pattern in many scientific fields. Researchers want fame and funding (or even worse get rich quick scheme). They put out claims of revolutionary results while sneaking away tiny little caveats that unsuspecting public might not even notice. They do this with full knowledge that all these doesn’t measure up to acceptable scientific ethics. Just getting on NYT front page means they will have immediate line up of less technical folks with funding and/or offers of higher up jobs. Even if at later date their claims gets busted, it’s mere little embarrassment that don’t get same level of publicity and everyone moves on saying “more work needed” while they have already cashed out from the hype they had created. Lots of people are playing this game and new people are encouraged to play it when they look at how other incompetent and ethically loose people quickly climbed the ladder. It’s truely a cancer in science.
- PopePompous 9y ago
  Yes. If you report a spectacular result, and it is not proven wrong within ~5 years, its effect on your career is almost the same as if the result had been correct. The unfortunate thing for these folks is that their claim was shot down quickly.
- Radim 9y ago
  Not just in science! The arms race between bullshit artists, finding shortcuts to extract resources "for free" using the right spin, and the rest of the society, is as old as world. This is even more pronounced in business: selling dreams has always been the surest way to profit. Who wouldn't want to believe the solution has been found and is easy and cheap? Note that there's no "fixing" this optimization arms race. Not even in principle—it's a core feature of Nature. Shortening the path between resource generation and resource consumption helps, the gradients are simpler and quicker to adapt. Keeping the rights and responsibilities closely tied, essentially. Science is certainly out of whack, with its reliance on a super complicated system of wealth redistribution and taxation (people who pay have no say).
- pvaldes 9y ago
whack 9y ago
> In the long run, it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers. I'm all for people making honest mistakes, without career-ending repercussions. But this wasn't an honest mistake, this was outright deception. They knew that there was a good chance of their experimental-results being faulty (due to dust), and they also knew that a different team had the ability to confirm/deny this uncertainty. But instead of owning up to this, they decided to wilfully mislead the world about the quality of their findings. Stuff like this is exactly why people lose trust in science - why climate-change-deniers and anti-vaxxers gain more credibility than they deserve. The sad part of this whole story is that the next time such an opportunity presents itself, people have no reason to do what's best for society/integrity. Heads I win, tails you lose.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
matt4077 9y ago
Why does everything have to involve some rant against journalists? This was an extremely well credentialed collaboration claiming to have made a major discovery. It took the physics community itself months to unravel it. And the articles did actually mention that verification was still required.

jackfrodo 9y ago

Is this a reasonable thing to ask of journalists? I can't imagine a reporter telling their editor, "Yes, this team tells us with confidence that their findings have confirmed a huge story, but I disagree with their interpretation of the data, so I don't think we should run it." A reporter shouldn't be embarrassed that a team of scientists lied to them. Obviously the publications should retract/update these stories, but journalists, even ones with science backgrounds just aren't equipped and trained to be able to independently verify every claim they report on.

GCA10 9y ago
The best science reporters earn their keep by balancing "wow!" and "really?" at moments like this. Sometimes it's a matter of spotting an outright hoax (i.e. Piltdown Man fossils in the 1920s.) Other times, what's at stake is an overly decisive attempt to interpret exciting data that might not be so exciting after all. The cold-fusion "discoveries" of 1989 fall into that camp, along with this gravitational-wave claim. It's hard for journalists to referee everything in the first few hours. But by talking to other experts in the field, and by being willing to comb through the methodology underlying the claims, it's possible to get a sense within a few days (weeks?) of what's holding together very, very well, and what's starting to seem a little shaky. There's nothing wrong -- and a lot right -- with writing post-announcement articles that acknowledge such uncertainties.
oldgradstudent 9y ago
A journalist should always be embarrassed when they publish some bullshit because a source lied to them. Why should science reporting be any different? Science reporting should more than spell checking university press releases.
- mannykannot 9y ago
  It depends on the level of deceit, and who the source was. And we all have good reason to be annoyed if the deceitful source was the team performing the investigation. > Science reporting should more than spell checking university press releases. This implies a false dichotomy. Many journalists know a lot about the matters they cover, but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field.
  - oldgradstudent 9y ago
    Science reporters should be just as skeptical of their sources as any other reporters. Especially where money, power or honors are involved. The fact that most reporting on BICEP2 didn't even mention the politics behind it and the competition with the Planck experiment tells you a lot about the quality of coverage. I think it is quite clear that the original reporting of BICEP2 was over the top, and that talking with some of the group's competitors would have pointed to problems in the experiment and analysis. The original reporting sounded to me more like PR than journalism. Even pointing out the old joke that 5 sigma discoveries tend to be wrong half the time would have been helpful. > but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field. And they should learn their lesson, and do better the next time. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen (with a few notable exceptions).
Ma8ee 9y ago
It’s not hard for a journalist to pick up their phone and get some independent scientist with knowledge in the field say what they think about the findings. And then not hide the quote about inconclusive data and looking forward to further confirmation in the last paragraph of the article.

forapurpose 9y ago

Wow. I don't see how one can exonerate the researchers and condemn the messengers. > If anyone changes their behavior, I'd rather it be the journalists > it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers According to the article, it was fraud, not "some mistakes". How is it good for society that frauds remain unpunished? Why would we want the behavior of frauds to continue unchanged? Even if it isn't fraud, should there be no consequences for our actions? If my software fails miserably, would it be best that I suffer "no adverse effects", or perhaps should the market and investors allocate resources to people who can do a better job?

danso 9y ago

Researchers frequently seek publicity just as much as journalists look for stories. I don't think too many journalists would complain if researchers were required to deliver to them all the data they used in their research. Don't think that's a sustainable model though.

tombone12 9y ago

It's not really mistakes that is the issue though, its more the fact that they got reeeeelly close to outright fabrication. They had a very shaky estimate of an important background (the foreground) and instead of being cautious they put out a video like this as part of the announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA

PopePompous 9y ago
Perhaps the video should start at 01:59 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA&t=1m59s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA&t=1m59s

sytelus 9y ago

It wasn’t a mistake. These guys made conscious decision to not disclose critical facts to hype up their findings and get on the NYT front page. This is extremely unfortunate because it’s almost becoming a pattern in many scientific fields. Researchers want fame and funding (or even worse get rich quick scheme). They put out claims of revolutionary results while sneaking away tiny little caveats that unsuspecting public might not even notice. They do this with full knowledge that all these doesn’t measure up to acceptable scientific ethics. Just getting on NYT front page means they will have immediate line up of less technical folks with funding and/or offers of higher up jobs. Even if at later date their claims gets busted, it’s mere little embarrassment that don’t get same level of publicity and everyone moves on saying “more work needed” while they have already cashed out from the hype they had created. Lots of people are playing this game and new people are encouraged to play it when they look at how other incompetent and ethically loose people quickly climbed the ladder. It’s truely a cancer in science.

PopePompous 9y ago
Yes. If you report a spectacular result, and it is not proven wrong within ~5 years, its effect on your career is almost the same as if the result had been correct. The unfortunate thing for these folks is that their claim was shot down quickly.
Radim 9y ago
Not just in science! The arms race between bullshit artists, finding shortcuts to extract resources "for free" using the right spin, and the rest of the society, is as old as world. This is even more pronounced in business: selling dreams has always been the surest way to profit. Who wouldn't want to believe the solution has been found and is easy and cheap? Note that there's no "fixing" this optimization arms race. Not even in principle—it's a core feature of Nature. Shortening the path between resource generation and resource consumption helps, the gradients are simpler and quicker to adapt. Keeping the rights and responsibilities closely tied, essentially. Science is certainly out of whack, with its reliance on a super complicated system of wealth redistribution and taxation (people who pay have no say).
pvaldes 9y ago

whack 9y ago

> In the long run, it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers. I'm all for people making honest mistakes, without career-ending repercussions. But this wasn't an honest mistake, this was outright deception. They knew that there was a good chance of their experimental-results being faulty (due to dust), and they also knew that a different team had the ability to confirm/deny this uncertainty. But instead of owning up to this, they decided to wilfully mislead the world about the quality of their findings. Stuff like this is exactly why people lose trust in science - why climate-change-deniers and anti-vaxxers gain more credibility than they deserve. The sad part of this whole story is that the next time such an opportunity presents itself, people have no reason to do what's best for society/integrity. Heads I win, tails you lose.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

matt4077 9y ago

Why does everything have to involve some rant against journalists? This was an extremely well credentialed collaboration claiming to have made a major discovery. It took the physics community itself months to unravel it. And the articles did actually mention that verification was still required.