5 ms·
Incentives for fraud aren't much smaller this side of the pond. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietl
by soperj 5y ago
Incentives for fraud aren't much smaller this side of the pond.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
- ncmncm 5y agoAgreed, but consequences are more likely. Not enough, mind. Fraudulently confirming fraudulent work seems less likely than original fraud, though, unless the parties are in cahoots.
- d110af5ccf 5y agoSuch incentives are somewhat more isolated in the west. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but ~10 years ago the Chinese government offered bounties to researchers for publishing in various western journals. The bounties varied in size based on perceived prestige. The result (rampant fraud) was entirely predictable.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoWhy is predictable that offering a reward to get published in prestigious journals would result in fraud? Why would any scientist who wants to further one's career, not want to publish in prestigious journals? Why would adding an extra incentive on top, result in more fraud than otherwise already would have happened?
- generalizations 5y agoThe greater reward incentivizes greater risk. Kinda obvious.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoThat is not obvious at all. That's like saying giving salespeople high bonuses means they're more inclined to break the law (e.g. blackmailing people to sign contracts) as opposed to working harder through legal means.
- SantalBlush 5y agoIf the risk of penalty is low enough and breaking the law is easier than working harder through legal means, then I think we could assume they would be more inclined to break the law.
- FooBarWidget 5y agoAnd is the penalty low? China is not known for low penalties. This article from 2018 said they were upping checks and penalties for academic fraud: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-science-idUSKCN1IW01O https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-science-idUSKCN1IW0... This article says that a researcher was punished. The investigation found no plagiarism but did find ethics violations, so even ethic boards are a thing in Chinese academia nowadays. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006745/top-chinese-scientists-cleared-of-academic-fraud%2C-still-punished https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1006745/top-chinese-scientist...
- SantalBlush 5y agoI was more responding to your analogy. I couldn't say whether the penalty is too low in this case, and you may be right.
- peytn 5y agoI think it was like $100k US.
- andy_ppp 5y agoDamn I sell a year’s worth of my time for that in the UK… definitely might be worth ruining my reputation for in China if I was immoral.
- retrac 5y agoAnd it's more like ten years salary for a typical Chinese university professor.
- roenxi 5y agoIt is a bit different - this is $100k on top of what is presumably already a fair market rate. It is a lot more like a massive bonus than a salary. More than enough to have someone unscrupulous start lying, especially if they think their research is marginal quality.
- danuker 5y agoJust 3 days ago this was on Hacker News: "Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27884233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27884233
- Bancakes 5y agoLike clockwork. No, showing faults in others does not mitigate yours. Nothing productive came towards verifying this study by showing alleged faults in others.
- trasz 5y agoIt does show that it’s not specific to China, contrary to what the previous person alleged.
- Bancakes 5y agoHe alleged only that China produces unreliable scientific results, and he expects peer reviews form non-chinese countries. Some of the most technologically advanced non-chinese peers happen to be the USA and EU. Nobody alleged they are more reliable.
- trasz 5y agoWhich is still a baseless accusation, as demonstrated in the comment above.
- Bancakes 5y agoWhich is not disproven by pointing out flaws in others.
- trasz 5y agoWhich is proven to be not specific to China by pointing out the same flaws in others. Nobody claims that this publication doesn't need to be verified; of course it does. The problem is claiming that it needs to be verified because it came from China, which is what's been done above.