3 ms·

Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud?

3 points by yurivish 3y ago

lusus_naturae 3y ago
I would posit that it is defamatory by technical description. I think good faith collegiality requires reaching out to the person deemed to be a fraud and trying to resolve the matter as colleagues and peers instead of assuming bad faith and invoking a pitch-forks out call for decrying the fraudster. That said, the evidence laid out by the research group against Gino doesn't leave any doubt that fraud didn't take place. The defendants should prove that Gino would have covered up her tracks had they taken a more reasonable approach. Additionally, I think a stronger case can be made by involving the funding agencies that supported Gino's work as it's their money that was misspent. Lastly, it would make sense to bring evidence of Gino's work impacting downstream research or policies bc of its fraudulent claims. The last two points are essential if the defense is that maintaining the integrity of scientific research was the goal.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the US (somehow some European screw this up). To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove that they spread falsehoods about you, knowingly (or at least, they should have known better). If a bunch of her papers were manipulated (fact) to support a preconceived notion (fact), it would be impossible to successfully argue that someone would be negligently wrong to believe she was an academic fraud. Thus, no, it's not defamatory.
  - lusus_naturae 3y ago
    Ah okay, I guess I misremembered the definition of defamation.
mutant_glofish 3y ago
The legal defense fundraiser for the guys who pointed out the (alleged) research fraud: https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-defense https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
dekhn 3y ago
Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory. Generally, I consider defamation to mean: made in bad faith, not provably true, and with a goal of harming the target. It's pretty clear the definitions and laws have changed. Note that Gino is also suing her employer- Harvard- who conducted a review and put her on leave. She has absolutely zero chances of winning this case or salvaging her career, as she has to prove that she didn't carry out research fraud (by editing raw data before publication), because she published the evidence of her actions. We can expect that her case will be shut down before it reaches trial.
- injb 3y ago
  >>> Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory. IANAL, but legally that's easy: no. Under US law truth is a solid defence against accusations of defamation. If the statements are true then your intentions don't matter.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    OK, fair enough- in which case, I think a reasonable answer to the posted question is "No, it is not defamation to point out scientific research fraud". However, it's not clear to me that they proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt (IIRC the standard for criminal cases) or even preponderance of evidence, so how would the court case determine if what they said was true?
    - injb 3y ago
      AFAIK the plaintiff would have to show that it's not true. That wouldn't be anywhere near enough but would be a start. I think they would also have to show that either the defendant knew that it wasn't true, or was reckless about it. They also have to show that it was likely to be believed as a factual claim, so expressions of opinion or hyperbole are not defamatory. This isn't legal advice, just what I think from years of reading Popehat.
ColoursofOSINT 3y ago
Francesca Gino, a researcher on dishonesty who was placed on administrative leave from Harvard Business School after allegations of systematic data manipulation in four papers is suing Harvard and the researchers accusing her. Here is a discussion about the fraud from 15 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670
Bye_Felicia 3y ago
The real crime is her inability or incompetency in expending even the most trivial of efforts, to cover up her fraud by deleting older versions stored in Excel...
wmf 3y ago
Is it journalistic malpractice to "teach the controversy" about bogus lawsuits?
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> One of the papers at the center of the present controversy — a 2012 paper on dishonesty — had, in fact, already been retracted before this scandal because, in an unrelated scandal, the data in a different one of the three experiments that made up the study had been manipulated or falsified by a different person. So we have a dishonesty paper that is falsified data in two different experiments by two different people.
rdtsc 3y ago
> the researchers failed to consider other explanations for the “anomalies” in the data sets analyzed; that Harvard’s investigation into the allegations was “unfair and biased,” and that Harvard’s punishment was “overly harsh” — harsher than similar punishments when male professors were credibly accused of research misconduct. That’s why they reported it to Harvard privately first. It was allegedly to allow them to investigate as well and to find if there is another plausible explanation. During and after the retraction was there any plausible explanation other than fraud?

3 points by yurivish 3y ago

I would posit that it is defamatory by technical description. I think good faith collegiality requires reaching out to the person deemed to be a fraud and trying to resolve the matter as colleagues and peers instead of assuming bad faith and invoking a pitch-forks out call for decrying the fraudster. That said, the evidence laid out by the research group against Gino doesn't leave any doubt that fraud didn't take place. The defendants should prove that Gino would have covered up her tracks had they taken a more reasonable approach. Additionally, I think a stronger case can be made by involving the funding agencies that supported Gino's work as it's their money that was misspent. Lastly, it would make sense to bring evidence of Gino's work impacting downstream research or policies bc of its fraudulent claims. The last two points are essential if the defense is that maintaining the integrity of scientific research was the goal.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the US (somehow some European screw this up). To successfully sue someone for defamation, you need to prove that they spread falsehoods about you, knowingly (or at least, they should have known better). If a bunch of her papers were manipulated (fact) to support a preconceived notion (fact), it would be impossible to successfully argue that someone would be negligently wrong to believe she was an academic fraud. Thus, no, it's not defamatory.
- lusus_naturae 3y ago
  Ah okay, I guess I misremembered the definition of defamation.

mutant_glofish 3y ago

The legal defense fundraiser for the guys who pointed out the (alleged) research fraud: https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-defense https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...

dekhn 3y ago

Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory. Generally, I consider defamation to mean: made in bad faith, not provably true, and with a goal of harming the target. It's pretty clear the definitions and laws have changed. Note that Gino is also suing her employer- Harvard- who conducted a review and put her on leave. She has absolutely zero chances of winning this case or salvaging her career, as she has to prove that she didn't carry out research fraud (by editing raw data before publication), because she published the evidence of her actions. We can expect that her case will be shut down before it reaches trial.

injb 3y ago
>>> Depends on whether you think true statements made in good faith with the goal of reducing harm can be defamatory. IANAL, but legally that's easy: no. Under US law truth is a solid defence against accusations of defamation. If the statements are true then your intentions don't matter.
- dekhn 3y ago
  OK, fair enough- in which case, I think a reasonable answer to the posted question is "No, it is not defamation to point out scientific research fraud". However, it's not clear to me that they proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt (IIRC the standard for criminal cases) or even preponderance of evidence, so how would the court case determine if what they said was true?
  - injb 3y ago
    AFAIK the plaintiff would have to show that it's not true. That wouldn't be anywhere near enough but would be a start. I think they would also have to show that either the defendant knew that it wasn't true, or was reckless about it. They also have to show that it was likely to be believed as a factual claim, so expressions of opinion or hyperbole are not defamatory. This isn't legal advice, just what I think from years of reading Popehat.

ColoursofOSINT 3y ago

Francesca Gino, a researcher on dishonesty who was placed on administrative leave from Harvard Business School after allegations of systematic data manipulation in four papers is suing Harvard and the researchers accusing her. Here is a discussion about the fraud from 15 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670

Bye_Felicia 3y ago

The real crime is her inability or incompetency in expending even the most trivial of efforts, to cover up her fraud by deleting older versions stored in Excel...

wmf 3y ago

Is it journalistic malpractice to "teach the controversy" about bogus lawsuits?

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

> One of the papers at the center of the present controversy — a 2012 paper on dishonesty — had, in fact, already been retracted before this scandal because, in an unrelated scandal, the data in a different one of the three experiments that made up the study had been manipulated or falsified by a different person. So we have a dishonesty paper that is falsified data in two different experiments by two different people.

rdtsc 3y ago

> the researchers failed to consider other explanations for the “anomalies” in the data sets analyzed; that Harvard’s investigation into the allegations was “unfair and biased,” and that Harvard’s punishment was “overly harsh” — harsher than similar punishments when male professors were credibly accused of research misconduct. That’s why they reported it to Harvard privately first. It was allegedly to allow them to investigate as well and to find if there is another plausible explanation. During and after the retraction was there any plausible explanation other than fraud?