4 ms·

Starting to get mixed feelings about these cases. Impostors and fraudsters certainly need to be exposed. But publicly ripping apart few individuals who, togethe

Starting to get mixed feelings about these cases. Impostors and fraudsters certainly need to be exposed. But publicly ripping apart few individuals who, together with their peer reviewers, in some cases may simply not know better (e.g. because their whole field has low standards – nutrition science seems to be one of these fields –; or because they are inexperienced and their co-authors and supervisors don't care about details and correct science and just want to have their names on the paper) can not be the solution for an overall malfunctioning scientific communication and incentive system, or for bad methods that are used by entire fields. The current situation also invites all sorts of abuse. Need to say that certain parts of the open science movement appear to be a bit angry, not to say sadistic. Wansinks case was one that was ripped apart on Twitter. Wansinks research has received lots of media attention before - would his statistical methods have been investigated and debunked without that? How many Wansinks are out there, still having their job, continuing to apply bad methods (while not committing active fraud), never to be called out for their mistakes? I've been in Japan during the Obokata stem cell case. Her public apology was broadcasted on national TV. In konbinis you could see various tabloid newspapers with her name and her crying face on the cover for weeks. There seemed to be different mechanisms at play than a genuine interest in correct science. One of Obokata's supervisors, Yoshiki Sasai, committed suicide as a consequence of the case.

nonbel 8y ago
These people ostracize and hassle those who try to do a honest job and point out the issues with their methods. They also drive the people trying to do a good job out of the field because they can't compete with the fake productivity people like Wansink enjoyed. Also, the unnecessary suffering caused by this behavior is basically unimaginable. Who knows what advances we would have made if 90+% of resources dedicated to science during this golden era of cheap energy hadn't been wasted? We can't even estimate that. But yea, Wansink is just the tip of the iceberg. I've been saying for awhile that future generations will need to double check everything since about 1940, because the professional researchers have not been checking each others work, and have been using known incorrect methods to draw conclusions (NHST).
jrumbut 8y ago
I think in situations like this an idea worth considering is a truth and reconciliation process. The idea is everyone is given a year or so to go back, identify anything that they may have p-hacked or otherwise been unethical, and if they are radically transparent and work to correct the record then they can continue on reputation and position intact. It requires some serious compromise, it's imperfect, but it may be the best way to get the truth and prevent an ugly process from dragging on indefinitely.

nonbel 8y ago

These people ostracize and hassle those who try to do a honest job and point out the issues with their methods. They also drive the people trying to do a good job out of the field because they can't compete with the fake productivity people like Wansink enjoyed. Also, the unnecessary suffering caused by this behavior is basically unimaginable. Who knows what advances we would have made if 90+% of resources dedicated to science during this golden era of cheap energy hadn't been wasted? We can't even estimate that. But yea, Wansink is just the tip of the iceberg. I've been saying for awhile that future generations will need to double check everything since about 1940, because the professional researchers have not been checking each others work, and have been using known incorrect methods to draw conclusions (NHST).

jrumbut 8y ago

I think in situations like this an idea worth considering is a truth and reconciliation process. The idea is everyone is given a year or so to go back, identify anything that they may have p-hacked or otherwise been unethical, and if they are radically transparent and work to correct the record then they can continue on reputation and position intact. It requires some serious compromise, it's imperfect, but it may be the best way to get the truth and prevent an ugly process from dragging on indefinitely.