4 ms·

What (if any) recourse is there against those who have falsified scientific data? It almost feels like fraud on the {scientific research} market. Billions of do

What (if any) recourse is there against those who have falsified scientific data? It almost feels like fraud on the {scientific research} market. Billions of dollars and, perhaps even worse, countless human hours, have been wasted in reliance ob completely fabricated information. For what? An ego boost? Citations? I don’t work in science so I truly don’t understand the motive(s) on the other side of the equation.

dormento 4y ago
And people who might've benefited from an actual, more reliable treatment who might have been developed, had the scientist refocused to other hypotheses. This is infuriating.
MattGaiser 4y ago
Presumably the same incentives as everywhere else. Money.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Personal gain, whether that's money or status, at the expense of other people.
derbOac 4y ago
This is so typical of contemporary academics, at least in biomedicine, I don't know where to start. For me, this is exemplary of a lot of what I see in the field, that happens every day, to larger or smaller degrees. It's not the exception. There's so many elements to this story that echo things I've encountered, and read about in studies of trends. For every case of outright fraud like this might be, there's dozens of "soft fraud" (read: "questionable research practices") that get the benefit of the doubt or are never brought to light. No one has discussed this here yet, but part of the story is that the program officer on one of the accused' recent grants was a coauthor with him on this very research -- consistent with trends discussed in the literature (of the largest predictor of grant receipt being coauthoring papers with grant review panel members or officers). So there's this fraud, potentially involving someone who then goes on to help decide who gets research dollars. Your reaction is something I've wrestled with a lot. Many times there are no consequences really. People talk about lost reputation or something, but in cases of soft fraud nothing really happens. It just all kind of evaporates into a fog of scientific dispute between parties. In cases of blatant, legal fraud, someone can be fired or lose a position, but that requires significant evidence. For what? Yes, ego, citations, money, titles, accolades as a "rising star" or a "genius" or whatever it is. The saddest thing to me really, aside from all those harmed by bogus treatments, or forgoing real treatments, is all the researchers with legitimate ideas, who go against trend, who are pushed out because doing the hard work isn't glitzy and has lots of dead ends. You end up in this system where the buzz is what matters, and riding waves of self-perpetuating hype is what gets you to the top. Appropriate skepticism and careful thought, meanwhile, costs you because that takes time and risk.

dormento 4y ago

And people who might've benefited from an actual, more reliable treatment who might have been developed, had the scientist refocused to other hypotheses. This is infuriating.

MattGaiser 4y ago

Presumably the same incentives as everywhere else. Money.

hackerlight 4y ago
Personal gain, whether that's money or status, at the expense of other people.

derbOac 4y ago

This is so typical of contemporary academics, at least in biomedicine, I don't know where to start. For me, this is exemplary of a lot of what I see in the field, that happens every day, to larger or smaller degrees. It's not the exception. There's so many elements to this story that echo things I've encountered, and read about in studies of trends. For every case of outright fraud like this might be, there's dozens of "soft fraud" (read: "questionable research practices") that get the benefit of the doubt or are never brought to light. No one has discussed this here yet, but part of the story is that the program officer on one of the accused' recent grants was a coauthor with him on this very research -- consistent with trends discussed in the literature (of the largest predictor of grant receipt being coauthoring papers with grant review panel members or officers). So there's this fraud, potentially involving someone who then goes on to help decide who gets research dollars. Your reaction is something I've wrestled with a lot. Many times there are no consequences really. People talk about lost reputation or something, but in cases of soft fraud nothing really happens. It just all kind of evaporates into a fog of scientific dispute between parties. In cases of blatant, legal fraud, someone can be fired or lose a position, but that requires significant evidence. For what? Yes, ego, citations, money, titles, accolades as a "rising star" or a "genius" or whatever it is. The saddest thing to me really, aside from all those harmed by bogus treatments, or forgoing real treatments, is all the researchers with legitimate ideas, who go against trend, who are pushed out because doing the hard work isn't glitzy and has lots of dead ends. You end up in this system where the buzz is what matters, and riding waves of self-perpetuating hype is what gets you to the top. Appropriate skepticism and careful thought, meanwhile, costs you because that takes time and risk.