7 ms·

There was an interesting two-part series on the Freakonomics podcast about academic fraud, and it covered this case. It's all incredibly depressing. I really f

There was an interesting two-part series on the Freakonomics podcast about academic fraud, and it covered this case. It's all incredibly depressing. I really feel for all the junior researchers who end up wasting their time, and often derailing their careers because they followed a path based on other people's academic fraud. https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/academic-fraud/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/academic-fraud/

11101010001100 3y ago
No one should be putting all their eggs in one scientific basket even if the basis ISN'T fraudulent. I see this mistake over and over.
- noneeeed 3y ago
  I understand where you are coming from, but if you are starting out on a PhD and decide to do research that is branching off from work done by someone like Gino you could spend a long time chasing ghosts and it will be hard for you to turn round and say "I think this is actually BS". Even once you are over that hump you will have quite a few years going from one short-term grant to another, with your ability to get funding being dependent on your previous work. If that has been stymied because you were basing it off dodgy research of other people it could take a long time to build up the kind of record where you get to diversify and some any kind of academic security of freedom.
  - mcv 3y ago
    A friend of mine proved (for his PhD I think) that the thing his entire department was working on was based on bullshit. They weren't happy. That said, putting all your eggs in one basket is often necessary to get anywhere with that basket of research.
    - andoando 3y ago
      What did they disprove? Or at least, what field of study?
      - mcv 3y ago
        I forgot the details, but he studied both mathematics and AI, so something in either of those fields.
  - 11101010001100 3y ago
    Having done a PhD and said 'I think this is BS', it's not easy but possible.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Academic research (especially a PhD) is about going deep into one particular topic. You are fully dependent upon the giants on which you stand.
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    Yep. "Just stand on the shoulders of TWO giants" is muuuuch easier said than done, lol.
dbsmith83 3y ago
It seems like dishonesty in academia is not punished severely enough. Someone who is caught may face professional embarrassment, and lose some privileges, but I think there should be tougher consequences. Hell, Ranga Dias still seems to be employed. These people are wasting government (our) money which could have been used by honest scientists to further our scientific knowledge of the world. It also further wastes the time of other scientists who may try to build off of the fraudulent research. To me, they are essentially committing fraud in a field where truth-seeking is paramount. I think a trial and prison time needs to be a part of the consequence for flagrant fraud.
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  A hardline approach is not going to win support from the people on the front lines in the best position to spot and police this. Even the most honest researcher has a published result or three that they suspect is incorrect and they will not trust you to accurately litigate against only the worst players because they are smart cookies and fully understand that honesty is a severe liability when there is an authority out for blood. No, the better approach here is to just shift the incentives. Start funding replication. Once we see labs and career paths that specialize in replication / knowledge consolidation, the whole system will shift for the better. Bibliometrics and hiring committees will start to pay attention and then exploratory researchers will start to pay attention and the system will start to work a little bit better.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    Why can we charge other professions with fraud but not researchers? I'm sure people in other professions might worry about being wrongfully prosecuted too, but that doesn't stop us. Even doctors get criminal charges when they deliberately do something wrong. You can be pretty sure that virtually every doctor has made honest mistakes, but they don't all prevent dishonest doctors from being brought to justice.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      There are objective standards in other professions. The thing about research is, by definition, whatever you're doing is not part of an established profession yet. Obviously that doesn't apply in setting like drug development where standards do exist, as defined by the best currently available treatments. But if someone is working on something like psychological studies where replicability is the exception rather than the rule, or on exotic tech where only one experimental facility might exist, or on substances or effects that exist only under weird conditions, it's not always that easy (or that safe) to accuse them of lying. Even when you're pretty sure they are.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
Or derailing their careers because only the very successful grad students and postdocs get grants and tenure, and evidently a good chunk of those elite spots get taken by people who publish dishonest research.

11101010001100 3y ago

No one should be putting all their eggs in one scientific basket even if the basis ISN'T fraudulent. I see this mistake over and over.

noneeeed 3y ago
I understand where you are coming from, but if you are starting out on a PhD and decide to do research that is branching off from work done by someone like Gino you could spend a long time chasing ghosts and it will be hard for you to turn round and say "I think this is actually BS". Even once you are over that hump you will have quite a few years going from one short-term grant to another, with your ability to get funding being dependent on your previous work. If that has been stymied because you were basing it off dodgy research of other people it could take a long time to build up the kind of record where you get to diversify and some any kind of academic security of freedom.
- mcv 3y ago
  A friend of mine proved (for his PhD I think) that the thing his entire department was working on was based on bullshit. They weren't happy. That said, putting all your eggs in one basket is often necessary to get anywhere with that basket of research.
  - andoando 3y ago
    What did they disprove? Or at least, what field of study?
    - mcv 3y ago
      I forgot the details, but he studied both mathematics and AI, so something in either of those fields.
- 11101010001100 3y ago
  Having done a PhD and said 'I think this is BS', it's not easy but possible.
0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Academic research (especially a PhD) is about going deep into one particular topic. You are fully dependent upon the giants on which you stand.
- smallmancontrov 3y ago
  Yep. "Just stand on the shoulders of TWO giants" is muuuuch easier said than done, lol.

dbsmith83 3y ago

It seems like dishonesty in academia is not punished severely enough. Someone who is caught may face professional embarrassment, and lose some privileges, but I think there should be tougher consequences. Hell, Ranga Dias still seems to be employed. These people are wasting government (our) money which could have been used by honest scientists to further our scientific knowledge of the world. It also further wastes the time of other scientists who may try to build off of the fraudulent research. To me, they are essentially committing fraud in a field where truth-seeking is paramount. I think a trial and prison time needs to be a part of the consequence for flagrant fraud.

smallmancontrov 3y ago
A hardline approach is not going to win support from the people on the front lines in the best position to spot and police this. Even the most honest researcher has a published result or three that they suspect is incorrect and they will not trust you to accurately litigate against only the worst players because they are smart cookies and fully understand that honesty is a severe liability when there is an authority out for blood. No, the better approach here is to just shift the incentives. Start funding replication. Once we see labs and career paths that specialize in replication / knowledge consolidation, the whole system will shift for the better. Bibliometrics and hiring committees will start to pay attention and then exploratory researchers will start to pay attention and the system will start to work a little bit better.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Why can we charge other professions with fraud but not researchers? I'm sure people in other professions might worry about being wrongfully prosecuted too, but that doesn't stop us. Even doctors get criminal charges when they deliberately do something wrong. You can be pretty sure that virtually every doctor has made honest mistakes, but they don't all prevent dishonest doctors from being brought to justice.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    There are objective standards in other professions. The thing about research is, by definition, whatever you're doing is not part of an established profession yet. Obviously that doesn't apply in setting like drug development where standards do exist, as defined by the best currently available treatments. But if someone is working on something like psychological studies where replicability is the exception rather than the rule, or on exotic tech where only one experimental facility might exist, or on substances or effects that exist only under weird conditions, it's not always that easy (or that safe) to accuse them of lying. Even when you're pretty sure they are.

ProjectArcturis 3y ago

Or derailing their careers because only the very successful grad students and postdocs get grants and tenure, and evidently a good chunk of those elite spots get taken by people who publish dishonest research.