3 ms·

> We want to emphasize that all the student authors in this paper worked really hard on what could have been a very interesting and valuable paper had the data

> We want to emphasize that all the student authors in this paper worked really hard on what could have been a very interesting and valuable paper had the data been collected with consent. The many problems with the published work were not the fault of the students. This is the conclusion of the memo. The problems with methodology are clearly a secondary concern. They also seem to imply that issues with consent are solely or mainly the cause of the methodology problems. This could be true, but idk. This is my opinion as an MIT grad who still views OCW content and similar content from other universities from time-to-time. (Complete speculation: I almost feel as if certain professors or lecturers are “embarrassed” about their content.)

dkqmduems 3y ago
Working hard does not necessarily mean getting it right. (Also an mit grad).
- bluepod4 3y ago
  No one said it did. Did you mean to reply to someone else? This thread was about whether the response focused on the consent or methodology problems and it’s my opinion that they are focusing on the consent issues more. I only copied a quote from the memo.
  - quadrifoliate 3y ago
    > He did so without the consent of many of his co-authors and despite having been told of problems that should be corrected before publication. I think they are point out consent issues in multiple cases, but also talk about "problems that should be corrected before publication". I can't really see how there would problems to be corrected before publication. If it's only a consent issue but the rest of the methodology is sound, they should just say "Drori should have waited for the consent to go ahead with publication, but the paper is fine"?
    - bluepod4 3y ago
      To clarify, when I said this was the _conclusion_ of the memo, I meant that it was the literal closing statement (besides the one-liner/quip about GPT-4 not being able to earn an MIT degree). I didn’t mean that it was the be-all and end-all of those CSAIL profs’ perspective(s). The wording is still very suspect to me and seems like the Writing Center would have some constructive feedback for them (unless the meaning of words doesn’t matter).
  - dkqmduems 3y ago
    I take the stance that getting it right is implicitly understood to be primary, as it should be in science
    - bluepod4 3y ago
      I agree but not everyone thinks like this even at MIT, as you should know since you said that you’re an alum.

dkqmduems 3y ago

Working hard does not necessarily mean getting it right. (Also an mit grad).

bluepod4 3y ago
No one said it did. Did you mean to reply to someone else? This thread was about whether the response focused on the consent or methodology problems and it’s my opinion that they are focusing on the consent issues more. I only copied a quote from the memo.
- quadrifoliate 3y ago
  > He did so without the consent of many of his co-authors and despite having been told of problems that should be corrected before publication. I think they are point out consent issues in multiple cases, but also talk about "problems that should be corrected before publication". I can't really see how there would problems to be corrected before publication. If it's only a consent issue but the rest of the methodology is sound, they should just say "Drori should have waited for the consent to go ahead with publication, but the paper is fine"?
  - bluepod4 3y ago
    To clarify, when I said this was the _conclusion_ of the memo, I meant that it was the literal closing statement (besides the one-liner/quip about GPT-4 not being able to earn an MIT degree). I didn’t mean that it was the be-all and end-all of those CSAIL profs’ perspective(s). The wording is still very suspect to me and seems like the Writing Center would have some constructive feedback for them (unless the meaning of words doesn’t matter).
- dkqmduems 3y ago
  I take the stance that getting it right is implicitly understood to be primary, as it should be in science
  - bluepod4 3y ago
    I agree but not everyone thinks like this even at MIT, as you should know since you said that you’re an alum.