5 ms·

It is not quite the same thing. If your boss had sold your code to a customer who paid based on the buggy result then would the customer be unreasonable seeking

It is not quite the same thing. If your boss had sold your code to a customer who paid based on the buggy result then would the customer be unreasonable seeking a refund? Would your boss be ethical offering the customer a refund?

nuclearnice1 6y ago
Most software has some bugs. No one asks for a refund. They apply the same reasonable expectation that the people who funded the study did. Whoops mistakes happen.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  No way in related to the mistake in the article. Mistakes can and do happen. But if you sold me software to solve a problem and I paid you for it. You wouldn't refund me if the software didn't solve my original problem? I feel like that's scam but I could be wrong. I didn't get what I was promised and hence I am entitled to a refund. If you got a laptop with broken keyboard or the privacy friendly app that you paid extra for turned out to be facebook, would you not want your money back? You can't just use mistake as an excuse if you promise "specific" things like written in your implicit/explicit contract.
  - not2b 6y ago
    You sound like someone who never bought software before. You don't get your money back. You might get a bug fix, but the contract probably says it is sold as is.
    - danieltillett 6y ago
      If the software doesn’t do what it is advertised to do you do get your money back.
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      False advertising is a crime. I don't know where you live but that alone will stop the above problem. And you can get refunds regardless on most major platforms of software distribution available to masses. Many countries have pro-consumer laws which protect them from exactly this.
      - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
        Wouldn't intent matter, with false advertising? If the advertiser fully believed in what they were advertising, only to later discover it didn't do what they said it did, is that false advertising?
      - SubiculumCode 6y ago
        Meanwhile, you destroy lives as post-docs, research associates funded by that grant lose their jobs suddenly and have to scramble to find a new one. Again, you appear to want dis-incentivize honesty. That this researcher was honest makes their future research twice as productive in my eyes. Not only are they less likely to make that kind of mistake again, you can probably trust them to not lie about their research.
  - nuclearnice1 6y ago
    If you want to construct a story — which we both agree strays from the article — where I agreed to provide a specific service and if I failed the agreed remedy was to refund the payment, then, yes I agree to refund you with a cherry on top. I think you are correct to want remedy. A big fix, a refund, a workaround, an apology, a million dollars, or a withdrawal of the study. Depending on circumstances. In my world, most of the implicit contracts are. Shit happens and try to fix it. Yours might be refund me.
cycomanic 6y ago
But she did not sell NIH a product with guarantees, that's not how science works. If she you make definite promises about the outcomes of your research I argue you are not doing science. Apart from that many great discoveries were made based on initial mistakes.

nuclearnice1 6y ago

Most software has some bugs. No one asks for a refund. They apply the same reasonable expectation that the people who funded the study did. Whoops mistakes happen.

searchableguy 6y ago
No way in related to the mistake in the article. Mistakes can and do happen. But if you sold me software to solve a problem and I paid you for it. You wouldn't refund me if the software didn't solve my original problem? I feel like that's scam but I could be wrong. I didn't get what I was promised and hence I am entitled to a refund. If you got a laptop with broken keyboard or the privacy friendly app that you paid extra for turned out to be facebook, would you not want your money back? You can't just use mistake as an excuse if you promise "specific" things like written in your implicit/explicit contract.
- not2b 6y ago
  You sound like someone who never bought software before. You don't get your money back. You might get a bug fix, but the contract probably says it is sold as is.
  - danieltillett 6y ago
    If the software doesn’t do what it is advertised to do you do get your money back.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    False advertising is a crime. I don't know where you live but that alone will stop the above problem. And you can get refunds regardless on most major platforms of software distribution available to masses. Many countries have pro-consumer laws which protect them from exactly this.
    - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
      Wouldn't intent matter, with false advertising? If the advertiser fully believed in what they were advertising, only to later discover it didn't do what they said it did, is that false advertising?
    - SubiculumCode 6y ago
      Meanwhile, you destroy lives as post-docs, research associates funded by that grant lose their jobs suddenly and have to scramble to find a new one. Again, you appear to want dis-incentivize honesty. That this researcher was honest makes their future research twice as productive in my eyes. Not only are they less likely to make that kind of mistake again, you can probably trust them to not lie about their research.
- nuclearnice1 6y ago
  If you want to construct a story — which we both agree strays from the article — where I agreed to provide a specific service and if I failed the agreed remedy was to refund the payment, then, yes I agree to refund you with a cherry on top. I think you are correct to want remedy. A big fix, a refund, a workaround, an apology, a million dollars, or a withdrawal of the study. Depending on circumstances. In my world, most of the implicit contracts are. Shit happens and try to fix it. Yours might be refund me.

cycomanic 6y ago

But she did not sell NIH a product with guarantees, that's not how science works. If she you make definite promises about the outcomes of your research I argue you are not doing science. Apart from that many great discoveries were made based on initial mistakes.