3 ms·
Fraud and fabrication of results are abhorrent, but this is too simplistic a take. These fraudulent results didn't single-handedly spawn 16 years of fruitless r
by axg11 4y ago
Fraud and fabrication of results are abhorrent, but this is too simplistic a take. These fraudulent results didn't single-handedly spawn 16 years of fruitless research. Instead blame the incentives that create a system where nobody validates a result for 16 years.
If academic science were in a healthy state, novel results would be validated 100s of times. The current system is setup such that only novel results are rewarded. There is no reward for validation. During my PhD I was actively discouraged from performing experiments/studies that weren't "new". Everything ultimately comes back to the funding model. Scientists are only funded for groundbreaking work, measured by the number of publications. In turn, journals will only accept previously unpublished work.
- upwardbound 4y agoThe fraudster's refusal to confess for 16 years as they saw the field go astray and elderly people suffer is a crime against the health of so many people. If I were a prosecutor I would try to get them for fraud, criminal negligence, or even manslaughter. If I were a vigilante, I would have some strong "words" with this perpetrator who caused so many elderly people to suffer. I hope they are brought to justice within their lifetime while they are still alive to be punished.
- pawsforthought 4y agoHold on a second. In no way did this person “cause” people to contract Alzheimer’s. Let’s remember that all of medicine is an intervention. There’s nothing to say that research going in a different direction would have lessened the suffering of people with the disease. I’m not saying this person is faultless, but scapegoating is hardly a sound response to what is clearly a systemic issue of misaligned incentives.