To me this is one of the most damning things about this: all the people citing these papers and probably burying negative results. Yes, fraud is unacceptable, b

To me this is one of the most damning things about this: all the people citing these papers and probably burying negative results. Yes, fraud is unacceptable, but what about all the people using it to further their careers? These types of cases tend to focus on the fraud, but then everyone eventually walks away and then there's no larger discussion of how this was enabled by the field to have such a hold. I don't buy the idea that it's all so quixotic and involves so many variables to get right that who knows what's causing a lack of replication. I've heard whispers like this about other big effects in other fields. People know what's going on, and often it's right there in published results but ignored.