5 ms·

I think that it is easier to spot warning signs in hindsight. Simply based on this article, it seems possible and even likely that the lab head was deceitful. A

I think that it is easier to spot warning signs in hindsight. Simply based on this article, it seems possible and even likely that the lab head was deceitful. And the article suggests that the company management was either naive to the point of negligence or possibly they were actively defrauding investors. No matter what is the case, legitimate mistakes made by egotistical scientists compounded by negligent management or outright deceit and fraud, it is amazing that hundreds of millions of dollars were invested before it was discovered. Sometimes I lament the fact that I feel nervous asking for a raise even though I have demonstrably provided value and delivered massive projects. One the other side of the spectrum is the gall to ask for 100 million with nothing to show. It sometimes feels like there is a missing middle.

anonymousiam 3y ago
I wish we had more details, but something stinks. There's always a conflict with "science" when somebody tries to monetize it. A possible explanation here is a desire to keep some elements of the process proprietary, but I don't see how that could apply to sharing within the same organization.
- mrandish 3y ago
  > There's always a conflict with "science" when somebody tries to monetize it. Sadly, the replication crisis in science shows that the causes are equally present in purely academic settings as well. Status, power, job security or ego can be as powerful as money and the effects can corrupt someone subtlety and even entirely unconsciously. It's good to remember that no human is immune from confirmation bias or self-deception.
  - getoffmycase 3y ago
    In that case I think the “monetization” is in the form of misaligned incentives with scientific endeavors. The incentives are having a job, getting grants funded, and obtaining prestige.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > Status, power, job security or ego can be as powerful as money and the effects can corrupt someone subtlety and even entirely unconsciously. Yeah. How many times have any of us had what seemed like a good idea, tried it, and found it didn't work? It just takes a little more effort to try it a few more times thinking that something was wrong. Eventually you might get a result due to random chance. And at that point you've convinced yourself that your idea was a good one all along.
HelloNurse 3y ago
Witholding data, explanations and assistance from those who want to evaluate and reproduce an experiment is obvious and immediate hostile and antiscientific behaviour, not a flaw that is only recognized in hindsight.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  It is easy to believe that is what happened based on the details in the article but what we are seeing is a filtered view in hindsight. It's like when you watch a movie with a twist that you didn't see coming. But then you go back and re-watch it knowing the ending and you gleefully point out all of the places the film makers put subtle clues which you didn't catch. Imagine telling the ending to a friend. He then watches the film and says: "how could anyone not see the twist? it was so obvious the entire time!" What seems in hindsight as "withholding data" might have been seen at the time in a completely different light. It reminds me of situations I heard stories about at two workplaces. Both were cases where a new hire was given a task to complete. They were giving excuses, showing partial progress, dodging inquiries. In both cases the new hire lasted over 3 months before it was realized they were doing absolutely no work at all. In all cases it was obvious in hindsight but during the course of the deception all of the excuses added up.
  - HelloNurse 3y ago
    Sometimes excuses are true, but plausible excuses for not making progress (like those of your interns) are different from the extraordinary excuses needed for persistent and objective actively harmful behaviour. These patterns of bad research tend to go on for a while because the involved people might be powerful and in any case calling them out requires effort and exposure, not because discovering that unreasonably defensive behaviour hides bad research is a surprising "twist".

anonymousiam 3y ago

I wish we had more details, but something stinks. There's always a conflict with "science" when somebody tries to monetize it. A possible explanation here is a desire to keep some elements of the process proprietary, but I don't see how that could apply to sharing within the same organization.

mrandish 3y ago
> There's always a conflict with "science" when somebody tries to monetize it. Sadly, the replication crisis in science shows that the causes are equally present in purely academic settings as well. Status, power, job security or ego can be as powerful as money and the effects can corrupt someone subtlety and even entirely unconsciously. It's good to remember that no human is immune from confirmation bias or self-deception.
- getoffmycase 3y ago
  In that case I think the “monetization” is in the form of misaligned incentives with scientific endeavors. The incentives are having a job, getting grants funded, and obtaining prestige.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > Status, power, job security or ego can be as powerful as money and the effects can corrupt someone subtlety and even entirely unconsciously. Yeah. How many times have any of us had what seemed like a good idea, tried it, and found it didn't work? It just takes a little more effort to try it a few more times thinking that something was wrong. Eventually you might get a result due to random chance. And at that point you've convinced yourself that your idea was a good one all along.

HelloNurse 3y ago

Witholding data, explanations and assistance from those who want to evaluate and reproduce an experiment is obvious and immediate hostile and antiscientific behaviour, not a flaw that is only recognized in hindsight.

zoogeny 3y ago
It is easy to believe that is what happened based on the details in the article but what we are seeing is a filtered view in hindsight. It's like when you watch a movie with a twist that you didn't see coming. But then you go back and re-watch it knowing the ending and you gleefully point out all of the places the film makers put subtle clues which you didn't catch. Imagine telling the ending to a friend. He then watches the film and says: "how could anyone not see the twist? it was so obvious the entire time!" What seems in hindsight as "withholding data" might have been seen at the time in a completely different light. It reminds me of situations I heard stories about at two workplaces. Both were cases where a new hire was given a task to complete. They were giving excuses, showing partial progress, dodging inquiries. In both cases the new hire lasted over 3 months before it was realized they were doing absolutely no work at all. In all cases it was obvious in hindsight but during the course of the deception all of the excuses added up.
- HelloNurse 3y ago
  Sometimes excuses are true, but plausible excuses for not making progress (like those of your interns) are different from the extraordinary excuses needed for persistent and objective actively harmful behaviour. These patterns of bad research tend to go on for a while because the involved people might be powerful and in any case calling them out requires effort and exposure, not because discovering that unreasonably defensive behaviour hides bad research is a surprising "twist".