4 ms·

Totally unsurprising. Bet Stanford's not the only one with a president like that. Something that became really clear during COVID is the sheer extent to which

Totally unsurprising. Bet Stanford's not the only one with a president like that. Something that became really clear during COVID is the sheer extent to which universities seem to lack basic research ethics. The ivermectin debate could be summed up as "once we exclude obviously fraudulent papers, what do we have left" which is why it was so rancorous. Disease prediction as a field is pure fraud: they cannot predict epidemics, never could, aren't on track to be able to, don't use the scientific method and yet routinely make predictions with absolute confidence whilst claiming to be scientists. Microbiology is flooded with papers that are quite obviously being manufactured by professional fraudsters, logical fallacies and false statements are easy to find across many fields, every other paper falls apart the moment you poke it yet nobody cares about any of this. Universities don't care, journals don't care, peers don't care, nobody within the academic system cares. Why don't they care? Why don't universities actually fire professors who are found to have been writing BS papers? The only viable explanation is that the people at the top know full well that this behavior is at saturation levels and trying to clean it up would destroy their institutions. How could they know that? If they got to the top by doing it themselves, that would definitely be one explanation.

m348e912 4y ago
I assume the fraudulent papers were the ones that claimed ivermectin was effective against covid?
- gutitout 4y ago
  You’re kidding, right?
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  Why would you assume that? You'd have to read a scientific paper to reach that conclusion (or do the experiment yourself) and the trustworthiness of that is what is at issue!
- yyyk 4y ago
  That was most of them. But I recall at least one deceptive Lancet paper arguing against ivermectin which was also fraudulent. Lancet has a long long problem with controversial papers with the 'right' opinion which get far less scrutiny than required.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    I think you're thinking of hydroxychloroquine, but your point stands. Surgisphere: mass audit of papers linked to firm behind hydroxychloroquine Lancet study scandal https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sapan-desai-lancet-study-hydroxychloroquine-mass-audit-scientific-papers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sa...
  - refuse 4y ago
    lol, the same journal that referred to women as "bodies with vaginas."
    - accuratitis 4y ago
      Not sure why you are downvoted. They have bodies which sometimes have vaginas. The clorox society police is out in full force on HN.
mandmandam 4y ago
That would go some way to explain why the entirety of academia let Daszak's obviously bullshit paper "disproving" lab origin pass muster. The reasoning Daszak and his co-authors (who failed to declare conflict of interest related to GoF work) employed wouldn't pass a first-year exam. ... But no one spoke up. What use are any of them.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > ... But no one spoke up. What use are any of them. I agree. Fire them all and replace them with scientists that signed the Great Barrington Declaration, with priority to those that signed earliest.
_hypx 4y ago
And the real concern is what other fields of research have this level of fraud or dishonesty? What other foundational research papers are yet to be outed as fake? We need to look at all fields of science where a decade or more have past since anyone has made meaningful progress on central problems, or have a pattern of non-replication. Those are strong signs that key papers are made-up and scientists are basically forced to build on unworkable conclusions.
- icelancer 4y ago
  >> And the real concern is what other fields of research have this level of fraud or dishonesty? Almost all of them, but the prime ones to target are the ones whose leading journals do not require open data to be published along with their paper. Drug trials with pre-registered hypotheses are actually among the more rigorous approaches to research.
phonebucket 4y ago
While I agree that academic fraud is a blight upon academia, this comment generalises over many thousands of academics. > _nobody_ cares about any of this. Universities don't care, journals don't care, peers don't care, nobody within the academic system cares. Please be mindful about generalising over such a large number of people. Maybe those who care have little power to do anything about it.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  Academia is far from a democracy, but it's far from being a totalitarian hellscape, either. Nobody gets that far without the significant consent of those around him. Maybe somebody cares, but an awful lot don't.
- fidgewidge 4y ago
  Yes, there are people who care. But they tend to get disgusted and leave, so I think it's fair to say that ~nobody in academia cares. We know they'll write open letters and organize outrage mobs at the drop of a hat if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, where is the similar behavior over scientific misconduct?
  - getoffmycase 4y ago
    People care. A lot people care very deeply. The problem is that those whose care powerless and there is no incentive to fighting the system. If we try, we risk our careers.
    - fidgewidge 4y ago
      I mean, yes at some level I totally agree, universities will not back you up if you complain about misconduct or poor work. Absolutely. At the same time, we (outsiders) see academics set up massive political and pressure campaigns against the public, politicians and each other - that aren't directly sanctioned by the management - and this seems to happen all the time. Academics are some of the most powerful members of society. They are one of the few groups whose collective beliefs are actively dangerous to criticize in public. So the idea that they're all powerless victims in this regard is just so hard to take seriously. If the academy really wanted to, it could hold its own staff to account just like it does over the ideology of the day.

m348e912 4y ago

I assume the fraudulent papers were the ones that claimed ivermectin was effective against covid?

gutitout 4y ago
You’re kidding, right?
sbaiddn 4y ago
Why would you assume that? You'd have to read a scientific paper to reach that conclusion (or do the experiment yourself) and the trustworthiness of that is what is at issue!
yyyk 4y ago
That was most of them. But I recall at least one deceptive Lancet paper arguing against ivermectin which was also fraudulent. Lancet has a long long problem with controversial papers with the 'right' opinion which get far less scrutiny than required.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I think you're thinking of hydroxychloroquine, but your point stands. Surgisphere: mass audit of papers linked to firm behind hydroxychloroquine Lancet study scandal https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sapan-desai-lancet-study-hydroxychloroquine-mass-audit-scientific-papers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/10/surgisphere-sa...
- refuse 4y ago
  lol, the same journal that referred to women as "bodies with vaginas."
  - accuratitis 4y ago
    Not sure why you are downvoted. They have bodies which sometimes have vaginas. The clorox society police is out in full force on HN.

mandmandam 4y ago

That would go some way to explain why the entirety of academia let Daszak's obviously bullshit paper "disproving" lab origin pass muster. The reasoning Daszak and his co-authors (who failed to declare conflict of interest related to GoF work) employed wouldn't pass a first-year exam. ... But no one spoke up. What use are any of them.

epicureanideal 4y ago
> ... But no one spoke up. What use are any of them. I agree. Fire them all and replace them with scientists that signed the Great Barrington Declaration, with priority to those that signed earliest.

_hypx 4y ago

And the real concern is what other fields of research have this level of fraud or dishonesty? What other foundational research papers are yet to be outed as fake? We need to look at all fields of science where a decade or more have past since anyone has made meaningful progress on central problems, or have a pattern of non-replication. Those are strong signs that key papers are made-up and scientists are basically forced to build on unworkable conclusions.

icelancer 4y ago
>> And the real concern is what other fields of research have this level of fraud or dishonesty? Almost all of them, but the prime ones to target are the ones whose leading journals do not require open data to be published along with their paper. Drug trials with pre-registered hypotheses are actually among the more rigorous approaches to research.

phonebucket 4y ago

While I agree that academic fraud is a blight upon academia, this comment generalises over many thousands of academics. > _nobody_ cares about any of this. Universities don't care, journals don't care, peers don't care, nobody within the academic system cares. Please be mindful about generalising over such a large number of people. Maybe those who care have little power to do anything about it.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
Academia is far from a democracy, but it's far from being a totalitarian hellscape, either. Nobody gets that far without the significant consent of those around him. Maybe somebody cares, but an awful lot don't.
fidgewidge 4y ago
Yes, there are people who care. But they tend to get disgusted and leave, so I think it's fair to say that ~nobody in academia cares. We know they'll write open letters and organize outrage mobs at the drop of a hat if a conservative speaker is invited to campus, where is the similar behavior over scientific misconduct?
- getoffmycase 4y ago
  People care. A lot people care very deeply. The problem is that those whose care powerless and there is no incentive to fighting the system. If we try, we risk our careers.
  - fidgewidge 4y ago
    I mean, yes at some level I totally agree, universities will not back you up if you complain about misconduct or poor work. Absolutely. At the same time, we (outsiders) see academics set up massive political and pressure campaigns against the public, politicians and each other - that aren't directly sanctioned by the management - and this seems to happen all the time. Academics are some of the most powerful members of society. They are one of the few groups whose collective beliefs are actively dangerous to criticize in public. So the idea that they're all powerless victims in this regard is just so hard to take seriously. If the academy really wanted to, it could hold its own staff to account just like it does over the ideology of the day.