4 ms·

It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You

It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You have to realize that preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions. Unfortunately this includes when they are wrong. Even if the employees are "good" their lawyers will advise them against providing any details like that and most are afraid of retaliation. Anyone asking questions like that is the enemy to them. This type of behavior is bad for society but fully expected giving the incentives and consequnces of telling the truth.

nixpulvis 5y ago
So what should be done? Hire your own lawyers to go after them pro bono? Write an article and send it to the papers? This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Monies paid for students education should be conditioned on not being skeevy and unethical. Basically just arrange the penalties such that outright fraud is effectively the death penalty for the institution and lesser malfeasance is still financially disastrous. Wait for one really good case and let the papers instead discuss how a century old institution collapsed.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  We just need a 'Yelp for research institutions'. Perhaps there already exists a global register tracking reputation like this? If so it needs to be visible (particularly to the press) and be properly vetted to have real consequence
  - zentiggr 5y ago
    Wow... pick an already known to be basically unethical organization as a possible solution to unethical behavior. Not that there's any way in our current culture to assemble a truly impartial reputation tracker, but surely we can do better than Yelp.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      I was being a bit facetious, but it didn't translate :)
- prawn 5y ago
  Tip off a newspaper. If they don't take it, try another. Generally, the journalists will have training in how to approach it without legal exposure and/or have it vetted by their publication's lawyers.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  > While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass Should we have that expectation? If a person does it we call it concealing evidence, intimidation, and perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, if they confess right away, we treat them leniently. Why should institutions differ?
  - krige 5y ago
    Because institutions are not individuals. They do not possess a conscience, morality, or any other humane emotion that makes leniency possible and produce favourable outcomes.
    - OtomotO 5y ago
      is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions? If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda. Really curious, not trying to construct a strawman!
      - Quekid5 5y ago
        > is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions? Yes, but the point being made is that in the case of organizations the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts. > If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda. Not sure what you mean by this. Difference from what to any other organization and why that relevant? You find immoral, illegal, etc. activity in institutions/organizations across a broad spectrum of areas.
        xvector 5y ago
        > the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts. This is because the "constituent parts" - members of the organization - are often just terrible human beings that hide behind the concept of an institution to shield themselves from the cognitive dissonance caused by their own unethical actions. If an institution does something unethical it can always be traced to its employees. As an example, all the researchers involved in promoting this fake health product ought to be fired and academically blackballed. It really is that simple. That's how we can deal with institutional rot.
parksy 5y ago
I think this is one of the hurdles human civilisation has to iterate over en masse and long-term. Game theory is distorted by a mixture of power dynamics and the abstract nature of "society" - i.e. determining risk v reward (professional, personal, financial, etc) comes down to the individual person or organisation, whereas "society" as a concept doesn't get a say in each transaction as it occurs, so a lot of discussion gets side-tracked there. Without a gestalt consciousness such instances of suboptimal outcomes will continue to occur, and since gestalt consciousness is technologically a remote prospect, present-day social hierarchies are at best a gross approximation of the ideal "average path" or "surfing on the bell curve of understanding", balancing individual freedom and satisfaction against fear of repercussion and ridicule with accuracy and efficiency (at a social scale). I do think that modern technology can revamp antiquated systems of peer review and appeals to authority with more robust and deterministic / objective measures of quality - an evolving consensus repository of the sum of human knowledge where each pull request is a debate, each experiment a commit to a branch that may become a new foundation or a footnote. Yet we still see fit to define knowledge as property, ownership as power, power as success. Fear of the impression of weakness, or the threat of starvation and poverty seems to override all other priorities and for the most part, we toe the line. It is what it is I guess.
- mLuby 5y ago
  Eh, we do have a basic "gestalt consciousness" (I prefer "hive mind") in the form of a legislature, which has the power to modify "the rules" so the market and individuals react. Recently though it's the mind of a child who often throws tantrums.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    I'm not so sure that a legislature is an appropriate equivalent. There are far too few people making laws who understand the things they make laws about.
abeppu 5y ago
> most are afraid of retaliation Why does _this_ not pose a legal liability?
theteapot 5y ago
> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. Um what? It's basic ethical behavior. What has the world come to that someone can defend unethical, unprincipled behavior of a educational institution because "preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions ...", with the implication that therefore unethical behavior should be expected?
- MikeSchurman 5y ago
  menzoic did not come across (to me) as condoning the behaviour. They were describing the current state of things.
theteapot 5y ago
> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. Institution should have nothing to fear if they've followed due process and shouldn't be in a position of being implicated in dodgy science to begin with!
Fnoord 5y ago
> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. Admitting your mistakes is a strength, not a weakness. We should not expect other's to self-censor their shortcomings because if we do, we live in a fake world already. I mean, it happens, but whatever happened to honesty, the greater good, long term goals? Your take short sighted, short term benefits which will bite them in the ass eventually in the long run (like a can of worms).
- ms4720 5y ago
  Not when defending a law suit
  - Fnoord 5y ago
    That's a good point, unfortunately. Though it feels like something which especially applies in Common Law. Going into hoops about some kind of alternative theory, which is tried to make sound plausible (but often seems like a bad joke, insulting to the victim as well) should be less honored than admitting to a crime, showing remorse, and demonstrating you learned from making your mistake. Showing you admit your deed, showing remorse, and demonstrating you learned from your mistake is important for the victim (and/or their peers), as well as for society in general. We as society should reward such behavior, but indeed more often than not our legal systems fail here. However, at some point the evidence is so overwhelming that the theater as described is only harmful. How can we lower the incentive for such theater?
- xvector 5y ago
  Exactly, if a university can't admit its mistakes it shouldn't exist. Such an attitude is antithetical to learning.
CRConrad 5y ago
> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. A) Why not? B) If not, then you can and should expect the people within the institution to implicate it: Everything is a decision, even the decision not to make a decision. For them to not make the decision to become a whistleblower, is for them to make the decision not to become a whistleblower -- i.e, to condone research fraud. If you really, really want to insist that institutions can't be black-balled, then we'll just have to start black-balling the people within them. (If the world starts to do this diligently and systematically, I think you'll rather quickly see a lot of people denouncing this kind of shit at their institutions, probably just as swiftly followed by a developing consensus that maybe you should expect institutions to police themselves.)
chalst 5y ago
It's pretty easy to set things up to overcome this hurdle: say either the institute handles your enquiry in a scientifically honourable manner or you will contact one of the high profile muckrakers. The most entertainingly written such blog to my taste is Leonid Schneider's: https://forbetterscience.com/author/leonidschneider/ https://forbetterscience.com/author/leonidschneider/ Most university administrators can see avoiding coverage like this is a good thing: https://forbetterscience.com/2020/06/04/michael-hottiger-of-zurich-patron-of-biomedical-ethics/ https://forbetterscience.com/2020/06/04/michael-hottiger-of-...

nixpulvis 5y ago

So what should be done? Hire your own lawyers to go after them pro bono? Write an article and send it to the papers? This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Monies paid for students education should be conditioned on not being skeevy and unethical. Basically just arrange the penalties such that outright fraud is effectively the death penalty for the institution and lesser malfeasance is still financially disastrous. Wait for one really good case and let the papers instead discuss how a century old institution collapsed.
h0l0cube 5y ago
We just need a 'Yelp for research institutions'. Perhaps there already exists a global register tracking reputation like this? If so it needs to be visible (particularly to the press) and be properly vetted to have real consequence
- zentiggr 5y ago
  Wow... pick an already known to be basically unethical organization as a possible solution to unethical behavior. Not that there's any way in our current culture to assemble a truly impartial reputation tracker, but surely we can do better than Yelp.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    I was being a bit facetious, but it didn't translate :)
prawn 5y ago
Tip off a newspaper. If they don't take it, try another. Generally, the journalists will have training in how to approach it without legal exposure and/or have it vetted by their publication's lawyers.
mr_toad 5y ago
> While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass Should we have that expectation? If a person does it we call it concealing evidence, intimidation, and perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, if they confess right away, we treat them leniently. Why should institutions differ?
- krige 5y ago
  Because institutions are not individuals. They do not possess a conscience, morality, or any other humane emotion that makes leniency possible and produce favourable outcomes.
  - OtomotO 5y ago
    is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions? If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda. Really curious, not trying to construct a strawman!
    - Quekid5 5y ago
      > is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions? Yes, but the point being made is that in the case of organizations the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts. > If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda. Not sure what you mean by this. Difference from what to any other organization and why that relevant? You find immoral, illegal, etc. activity in institutions/organizations across a broad spectrum of areas.
      - xvector 5y ago
        > the whole doesn't necessarily have the properties of its constituent parts. This is because the "constituent parts" - members of the organization - are often just terrible human beings that hide behind the concept of an institution to shield themselves from the cognitive dissonance caused by their own unethical actions. If an institution does something unethical it can always be traced to its employees. As an example, all the researchers involved in promoting this fake health product ought to be fired and academically blackballed. It really is that simple. That's how we can deal with institutional rot.

parksy 5y ago

I think this is one of the hurdles human civilisation has to iterate over en masse and long-term. Game theory is distorted by a mixture of power dynamics and the abstract nature of "society" - i.e. determining risk v reward (professional, personal, financial, etc) comes down to the individual person or organisation, whereas "society" as a concept doesn't get a say in each transaction as it occurs, so a lot of discussion gets side-tracked there. Without a gestalt consciousness such instances of suboptimal outcomes will continue to occur, and since gestalt consciousness is technologically a remote prospect, present-day social hierarchies are at best a gross approximation of the ideal "average path" or "surfing on the bell curve of understanding", balancing individual freedom and satisfaction against fear of repercussion and ridicule with accuracy and efficiency (at a social scale). I do think that modern technology can revamp antiquated systems of peer review and appeals to authority with more robust and deterministic / objective measures of quality - an evolving consensus repository of the sum of human knowledge where each pull request is a debate, each experiment a commit to a branch that may become a new foundation or a footnote. Yet we still see fit to define knowledge as property, ownership as power, power as success. Fear of the impression of weakness, or the threat of starvation and poverty seems to override all other priorities and for the most part, we toe the line. It is what it is I guess.

mLuby 5y ago
Eh, we do have a basic "gestalt consciousness" (I prefer "hive mind") in the form of a legislature, which has the power to modify "the rules" so the market and individuals react. Recently though it's the mind of a child who often throws tantrums.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  I'm not so sure that a legislature is an appropriate equivalent. There are far too few people making laws who understand the things they make laws about.

abeppu 5y ago

> most are afraid of retaliation Why does _this_ not pose a legal liability?

theteapot 5y ago

> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. Um what? It's basic ethical behavior. What has the world come to that someone can defend unethical, unprincipled behavior of a educational institution because "preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions ...", with the implication that therefore unethical behavior should be expected?

MikeSchurman 5y ago
menzoic did not come across (to me) as condoning the behaviour. They were describing the current state of things.

theteapot 5y ago

> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. Institution should have nothing to fear if they've followed due process and shouldn't be in a position of being implicated in dodgy science to begin with!

Fnoord 5y ago

> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. Admitting your mistakes is a strength, not a weakness. We should not expect other's to self-censor their shortcomings because if we do, we live in a fake world already. I mean, it happens, but whatever happened to honesty, the greater good, long term goals? Your take short sighted, short term benefits which will bite them in the ass eventually in the long run (like a can of worms).

ms4720 5y ago
Not when defending a law suit
- Fnoord 5y ago
  That's a good point, unfortunately. Though it feels like something which especially applies in Common Law. Going into hoops about some kind of alternative theory, which is tried to make sound plausible (but often seems like a bad joke, insulting to the victim as well) should be less honored than admitting to a crime, showing remorse, and demonstrating you learned from making your mistake. Showing you admit your deed, showing remorse, and demonstrating you learned from your mistake is important for the victim (and/or their peers), as well as for society in general. We as society should reward such behavior, but indeed more often than not our legal systems fail here. However, at some point the evidence is so overwhelming that the theater as described is only harmful. How can we lower the incentive for such theater?
xvector 5y ago
Exactly, if a university can't admit its mistakes it shouldn't exist. Such an attitude is antithetical to learning.

CRConrad 5y ago

> I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. A) Why not? B) If not, then you can and should expect the people within the institution to implicate it: Everything is a decision, even the decision not to make a decision. For them to not make the decision to become a whistleblower, is for them to make the decision not to become a whistleblower -- i.e, to condone research fraud. If you really, really want to insist that institutions can't be black-balled, then we'll just have to start black-balling the people within them. (If the world starts to do this diligently and systematically, I think you'll rather quickly see a lot of people denouncing this kind of shit at their institutions, probably just as swiftly followed by a developing consensus that maybe you should expect institutions to police themselves.)

chalst 5y ago

It's pretty easy to set things up to overcome this hurdle: say either the institute handles your enquiry in a scientifically honourable manner or you will contact one of the high profile muckrakers. The most entertainingly written such blog to my taste is Leonid Schneider's: https://forbetterscience.com/author/leonidschneider/ https://forbetterscience.com/author/leonidschneider/ Most university administrators can see avoiding coverage like this is a good thing: https://forbetterscience.com/2020/06/04/michael-hottiger-of-zurich-patron-of-biomedical-ethics/ https://forbetterscience.com/2020/06/04/michael-hottiger-of-...