3 ms·
Her lawsuit doesn't claim the data is not flawed; it does claim that they have ascribed to her intent where there was none, and that's the "defamation" part. Pu
by shadowgovt 3y ago
Her lawsuit doesn't claim the data is not flawed; it does claim that they have ascribed to her intent where there was none, and that's the "defamation" part. Pushes their statements over the edge from "She made mistakes" to "This pattern of mistakes suggests malfeasance;" one is something that sometimes happens in the pursuit of science, the other is career-ending.
(Even if she were just pushing back on the fact claims: unfortunately, truth is an affirmative defense in a defamation suit. They'll still have to show up to present it, and that'd cost them lawyer time. An insurance pool to keep that lawyer-time money on standby would allow researchers to have less concern over such challenges in the future).
- taeric 3y agoI don't remember the original articles ascribing intent. I grant that if their intent was to defame her, than I can see this being a somewhat expected use of defamation laws. That said, without questioning the truth of their claims, this seems to be an abuse of the system. As you are suing in when you know they have a valid and acceptable defense to the claims. As the article says, this is using the process as punishment.