26 ms·

Fraud, so much fraud

• aussiegreenie 2y ago
  I did not know Madoff did Science....
• hprotagonist 2y ago
  > It seems like a strange thing to take someone with a long and respected career and subject them to what would essentially be a Western blot and photomicrograph audit before offering them a big position. This is absolutely something that we should routinely be doing, though.
  • majormajor 2y ago
    It's pretty similar to the level of distrust in the software engineering job interview process. Pick your poison, to some extent. Better would be to not have to do it after-the-fact, but to vet better at every intermediate step, but it's hard. Just a very difficult people problem.
    • cdaringe 2y ago
      Agreed. There!s uproar over coding interviews, which makes no sense to me. We give easy peasy code reviews to smoke check claimed skills. 4 of 5 candidates do absolutely terribly on very easy stuff, relative to their claimed skillset. No, our bar isn’t high—fraud (resume fraud) is sadly very real.
  • BigGreenJorts 2y ago
    yeah it sounds a little bit absurd to me. It's just basic due diligence. You don't not run a background check on a potential employee just bc their resume looks good and they got a reference. In those cases you still go, "Annoying we have to wait because we want this person on board NOW and it's a fairly shallow investigation that 99% of the time doesn't reveal anything even if there is something, but it's the standard procedure."
  • dr_kiszonka 2y ago
    I agree. To their defense, he had a few hundred papers published before joining, according to PubMed, and was a leader in his field: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Masliah%20E&filter=dates.1000%2F1%2F1-2015%2F12%2F30 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Masliah%20E&filter=dat... My concern is that with AI getting better and easier to use (e.g., in Photoshop) fraud will be extremely hard to detect. We might need to re-think how research is done and results verified.
    • fluidcruft 2y ago
      Maybe we need instruments that sign results cryptographically and use a blockchain mechanism to establish provenance. We should have cameras that can establish that published images have not been modified (or at least provide raw and adjusted pairs--digital radiology has the concept of a "presentation state" that I think could work). In theory at least research should be auditable to a lab notebook. The problem with photos and such is you can't tell if it was modified before it was pasted to the page and large datasets just can't be put in to paper. And electronic notebooks I've used tend to be even more annoying than paper (too rigidly formatted and not adaptive to workflow optimization but it's difficult to explain). Anyway those sorts of things that establish provenance should also protect against deep learning. You may be able to create fake data, but can you deep fake data that was signed by Nikon device #XYZ with cryptographicly confirmed hashes published to a blockchain 3 years ago at the time the data was generated?
• sabrizo 2y ago
  [flagged]
• tux3 2y ago
  There are unfortunately very rarely consequences for academic fraud. It's not just that we only catch a small fraction — mostly the most brazen image manipulation — but these cases of blatant fraud happen again and again, to resounding silence. Ever so rarely, there may be an opaque, internal investigation. Mostly, it seems that academia has a desire to not make any waves, keep up appearances, and let the problem quiet down on its own.
  • IshKebab 2y ago
    The people doing the investigation have a vested interest in keeping it quiet. It's like the old quote... "If you commit fraud as an RA that's your problem. If you commit fraud as the head of department that's the university's problem."
  • neilv 2y ago
    And occasionally a grad student who discovers academic dishonesty, and complains internally (naively trusting administrators to have humility and integrity), has their career ended. I suppose a silver lining to all the academic fraud exposés of the last few years is that more grad students and faculty now know that this is a thing, and one that many will try to cover up, so trust no one. Another silver lining might be that fellow faculty are more likely to believe an accusation, and (if they are one of the awful people) less likely to think they can save funding/embarrassment/friend by neutralizing the witness. (ProTip: If the success of your dishonesty-reporting approach is predicated on an internal administrator having humility and integrity, realize that those qualities are the opposite of what has advanced a lot of academic careers.)
• idunnoman1222 2y ago
  The amazing part about this to me is that the only reason the authors were caught is image manipulation. The fraud in numbers and text? Not so easy to uncover. Prediction: papers stop using pictures entirely
  • slashdave 2y ago
    GenAI will make faking western blots fantastically easy
    • mbreese 2y ago
      Many journals now require all versions of a gel image that is used in a figure. So, you’d have to fake the full image that is cropped down to the lanes used in the figure. I think there aren’t as many of those raw images around to train AI on… yet.
      • ChainOfFools 2y ago
        I predict it will get even worse than that, in the next couple of decades I expect any document or work that has a substantial reward associated with it, either financially or in terms of career advancement or a grade for critical course work in one's major, or penalty such as indictment or conviction, to be backed by a time stamped stack of developing documentation, drafts, revisions, with these time stamp validated against a trusted custodial clock and a seed random string marking the start of work, recorded in some immutable public form. Accompanying to finish document will be a hash of all of these works along with their associated timestamps, originals of can be verified if necessary to prove a custodial chain of development over a plausible period of time and across multiple iterations of the development of the work - a kind of signed time-lapse slideshow of its genesis from blank page to finished product as if it had a mandatory and global "track changes" flag enabled from the very beginning - by which the entire process can be proved an original human-collaborated work and not an insta-generated AI fiction.
        • mbreese 2y ago
• hello_computer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • AlbertCory 2y ago
    Unfortunately, sometimes someone becomes a bad example. That doesn't make them a "scapegoat", the favored defense of people like that. A scapegoat is something that takes on all the sins of a lot of others who skate free. If Masliah is the only one who ever suffers, then he IS a scapegoat, but if this article serves to uncover a lot of other bad actors, then he's not. And if his example serves to warn a lot of other scientists to clean up their acts, then his suffering is a benefit.
    • hello_computer 2y ago
      The language of the article is as low as it is loaded. This is just Derek Lowe covering for the fact that “Science” magazine and the like have let this scoundrel (and many more like him) carry on, without hindrance, for an entire career; pointing the finger anywhere and everywhere but at the journals themselves. None of this is an isolated incident. It is widespread! There is a new scapegoat every month.
      • AlbertCory 2y ago
        > there is a new scapegoat every month. Correction: there is a new scoundrel every month. It would be nice to expose them all instantaneously, but unfortunately that's not possible.
  • red013 2y ago
    [flagged]
• dimgl 2y ago
  > But if the NIH had done that in 2016, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now, would they? How many people do we need to check? How many figures do we have to scrutinize? All of them
• chasum 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • georgeecollins 2y ago
    It's wrong to think that because there is reports of fraud or systematic error in science you shouldn't trust it. I'm sure all those things exist. But they also exist in every other institution with a lot less self-reflection and self-correction. Nassim Taleb said that people think weathermen are terrible predictors of the future. He says meteorology is among the most accurate sources of predictions in our lives. But we can easily validate it and we see the mistakes. If we had as much first hand experience with other types of predictions we'd appreciate the accuracy of weatherman. My point is: just because you know the flaws in a system don't assume it isn't better than another.
    • chasum 2y ago
      blablabla - tldr, you're very very smart.
• ubj 2y ago
  The Retraction Watch website does a good job of reporting on various cases of retractions and scientific misconduct [1]. Like many others, I hope that a greater focus on reproducibility in academic journals and conferences will help reduce the spread of scientific misconduct and inaccuracy. [1]: https://retractionwatch.com/ https://retractionwatch.com/
• neom 2y ago
  I'm the furthest thing from a scientist unless you count 3,000 hours of PBS spacetime, but I love science and so science/academia fraud to me, feels kinda like the worst kinda fraud you can commit. Financial fraud can cause suicides and ruin in lives, sure, but I feel like academic fraud just sets the whole of humanity back? I also feel that through my life I've (maybe wrongly) placed a great deal of respect and trust in scientists, mostly that they understand that their work is of the upmost importance and so the downstream consequences of mucking around are just too grave. Stuff like this seems to bother me more than it rationally should. Are people who commit this type of science fraud just really evil humans? Am I over thinking this? Do scientists go to jail for academic fraud?
  • mhh__ 2y ago
    Scientific fraud can also compound really badly because people will try to replicate it, and the easiest results to fake are usually the most expensive...
  • wredue 2y ago
    Can you go to jail for knowingly defrauding another entity out of money (such as grants). Yes. Absolutely. Are you going to go to jail for fudging some numbers on your paper, not likely.
    • pclmulqdq 2y ago
      IMO faking a paper and then sticking that in your CV on a grant application is fraud enough to be worthy of jail.
  • dghlsakjg 2y ago
    It is the same flavor of fraud as financial fraud. It is about personal gain, and avoiding loss. This kind of fraud happens because scientists are rewarded greatly for coming up with new, publishable, interesting results. They are punished severely for failing to do that. You could be the department's best professor in terms of teaching, but if you aren't publishing, your job is at risk at many universities. Scientists in Academia are incentivized to publish papers. If they can take shortcuts, and get away with it, they will. That's the whole problem, that's human nature. This is why you don't nearly as many industry scientists coming out with fraudulent papers. If Shell's scientists publish a paper, they aren't rewarded for that, if they come up with some efficient new way to refine oil they are rewarded, and they also might publish a paper if they feel like it.
• nabla9 2y ago
  In the future those who commit fraud are not likely leave trace in Western blot and photomicrograph audit. When the experiments are significant, double blind is not enough. You need external auditors when conducting experiments. Preferably separate team making experiments from those who design them.
• themanmaran 2y ago
  For all the complaints about AI generated content showing up in scientific journals, I'm exited for the flip side, where an LLM can review massive quantities of scientific publications for inaccuracies/fraud. Ex: Finding when the exact same image appears in multiple publications, but with different captions/conclusions. The evidence in this case came from one individual willing to volunteer hundreds of hours producing a side by side of all the reports. But clearly that doesn't scale.
  • lkrubner 2y ago
    How would that be possible? Novelty is a known weakness of the LLMs and ideally the only things published in peer-reviewed journals are novel.
    • IshKebab 2y ago
      Detecting images and data that's reused in different places has nothing to do with novelty.
    • withinboredom 2y ago
      Wouldn’t it be cool if people got credit for reproducing other people’s work instead of only novel things. It’s like having someone on your team that loves maintaining but not feature building.
  • brink 2y ago
    > For all the complaints about AI generated content showing up in scientific journals, I'm exited for the flip side, where an LLM can review massive quantities of scientific publications for inaccuracies/fraud. How would this work? AI can't even detect AI generated content reliably.
    • themanmaran 2y ago
      Not in a zero shot approach. But LLMs are more than capable of solving a similar scenario to the one presented: - Parse all papers you want to audit - Extract images (non AI) - Diff images (non AI) - Pull captions / related text near each image (LLM) - For each image > 99% similarity, use LLM to classify if conclusions are different (i.e. highly_similar, similar, highly_dissimilar). Then aggregate the results. It wouldn't prove fraud, but could definitely highlight areas for review. i.e. "This chart was used in 5 different papers with dissimilar conclusions"
• huitzitziltzin 2y ago
  Interestingly this and other cases like it suggest that one of the most valuable skill some scientists have is photoshop.
• woliveirajr 2y ago
  Why worry about fraud, deception and misleadings using AI when we have the old kind of fraud? Or, in the other hand, now you don't have to manipulate images, you can just generate the ones you need.
• CarpaDorada 2y ago
  If you are familiar with academia you'll realize the academic dishonesty policy is essentially the playbook by which academics behave. The author is surprised that Eliezer Masliah purportedly had instances of fraud spanning 25 years. I bet the author would be even more surprised to find out that most academics are like that for the entire duration of their career. My favorite instance is Shing-Tung Yau, who is still a Harvard professor, who attempted to steal Grigori Perelman's proof of Poincare's conjecture (a millenium prize problem <https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/ https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/> that comes with a $1MM prize and $10k/mo for the rest of one's life; Perelman rejected all of it.) I mean, get this: an extremely gifted Mathematician living on a measly salary in Russia had had his millenium prize almost stolen by a Harvard professor. What more evidence do you need?
  • slashdave 2y ago
    You've given two examples. Please explain why you can extrapolate to all of academia.
    • mistercheph 2y ago
      Sounds like someone should write a paper that makes fraudulent claims about the extent of fraud in all of academia!
    • CarpaDorada 2y ago
      From personal experience, it is all I've seen. Could anyone be in a position to extrapolate to all of academia without speaking from personal experience? I'm not speaking of all academics (hence 'most'). It's a statement similar to "Hollywood has a drug problem" or something of that sort. My advice to anyone going into Hollywood would be to stay away from drugs; my advice to anyone going into academia is to treat every interaction as if you've just sat at a poker table in Las Vegas.
      • georgeecollins 2y ago
        I work in Hollywood. I am not sure it has more of a drug problem more than say tech or finance. Maybe it does-- I don't know. The point is when a celebrity is a drug addict you hear about it. When a banker or a lawyer is you don't. Our experience of things has a lot of bias toward what we want to hear. Generalization plays into sterotypes and ideology.
• DigitalPaladin 2y ago
  I'm a recovering academic, and have not published since not long after defending my dissertation. I blame this behavior entirely on "publish or perish". The demands for novel, thoughtful and statistically-significant findings is tremendous in academe, and this is the result: cheating. I left professional academia because I resented the grind, and the push to publish ANYTHING (even reframing and recombining the same data umpteen times in different publications) in an effort to earn grants or attain tenure. The academia system is broken, and it cannot be repaired with minor edits, in my opinion. This is a tear out and do over scenario for the academic culture, I'm afraid.
• joelignaatius 2y ago
  [flagged]
• mistercheph 2y ago
  If there's this much overt, deliberate fraud and dishonesty in all of our research institutions, the quantities of soft lying and fudging are inconceivable. We need to seriously rethink our approaching to stewarding these institutions and ideas, public trust is rightfully plummeting.
• daedrdev 2y ago
  Is there no liability for the author? There are billions of dollars wasted in drug trials and research that can be tied to this fraud. Surely they can face some legal issues due to this?
  • hansonkd 2y ago
    Like all things in life that have risks of fraud, negligence or potential failure, insurance could be the answer. Want to publish in a peer reviewed paper? Well then your institution or you should take out a bond or insurance policy that guarantees your work is accurate. The insurance amount would fluctuate based on how big of impact this study could have. Is it a drug that will be consumed by millions? Big insurance policy. Is it a behavioral study without much risk... small insurance policy. Is a a person in an institution found caught committing fraud, well now then all papers from that institution now have higher premiums. Did you sign off on a peer reviewed paper that was fraud? Well now your premiums are going up also. Insurance costs too high to publish? Well then keep doing research until the underwriters are satisfied that your work isn't fraud and adjust the premiums down. It adds a direct near-term economic incentive to publish honestly and punishes those that abuse the system.
    • jltsiren 2y ago
      In other words, you are suggesting more stringent peer review conducted by insurance companies. And because insurance companies are too small to have sufficient in-house expertise on every topic, the reviews will be usually done by external consultants. The costs might be from $10k for simple papers to hundreds of thousands for large complex papers. The insurance model does not really work when the cost of evaluating the risks far outweighs the expected risks.
      • jeremyjh 2y ago
        That is like saying my insurance company has to follow me around for a week while I drive before they can underwrite a policy. If there is money to be made, and money to be lost, the actuaries will find a way. The problem could be, that it may become impossible to publish certain kinds of papers that are very well supported and valuable because no institution can afford the insurance.
• AlbertCory 2y ago
  Once, at 3Com, Bob Metcalfe introduced a talk by one of his MIT professors with the little joke, "The reason academic politics is so vicious is that nothing's at stake." The guy said, "That depends on whether you consider reputation 'nothing.' " I guess what that shows is, you can always negotiate and compromise over money, but reputation is more of a binary. An academic can fake some work, and as long as he's never called on it, his reputation is set. So yeah, a little more fear of having one's reputation ruined would go a long way towards fixing science.
  • abnry 2y ago
    I have always said that while professors get paid less money than in industry, they are compensated in reputation to make up for it. Status and reputation are the currency of academia.
  • masswerk 2y ago
    But this is really a societal/political issue: since we decided that economic capital is king and symbolic capital not that much… (This is really the story of the last four decades or so.)
    • AlbertCory 2y ago
      There are some people who think everything is "a societal/political issue." But that one-dimensional view is boring. Life is more than politics.
      • masswerk 2y ago
        Well, this is about Pierre Bourdieu, and he had a few things to say about academia, as in Homo Academicus. And I'm not sure what example could illustrate the problem with the lopsided valuation of economic capital and the general devaluation of symbolic capital (as compared to pre-1980s, we have since undergone a social revolution of considerable dimensions, which is also why there isn't an easy fix) better than this one.
      • consteval 2y ago
• devwastaken 2y ago
  Universities became tax funded and the consequences is warm bodies filling chairs. I have experience with a number of big name unis in the U.S. they are all about office and national politics. It's not about the work and hasn't been for a while now. Defund universities. No more student loans, make them have to earn their place in the market or we will continue to suffer under the manipulated system that is actually killing students.
  • lordfrito 2y ago
    > Defund universities. No more student loans, make them have to earn their place in the market or we will continue to suffer under the manipulated system that is actually killing students. This... it's no longer about value its about optics... Problem exists in most industries now. The pendulum needs to swing back the other way before it's too late to stop the decay...
• SpaceManNabs 2y ago
  I had a feeling academia was just run a ran by people letting blatant fraud, exploitation and abuse of phd students, stealing during peer-review, and just other forms of plagiarism, fraud, and exploitation slide by. They let it slide by because correcting these things would lead to massive changes in academia that might put them out of jobs. Every year that feeling becomes more certain. Glad I quit the track in grad school. I feel terribly for all the incredibly smart and hard working academics that remain honest and try to make it work. They do what they love, otherwise they wouldn't do such intensive work with so much sacrifice. It is really disheartening too because academia only turns on the "honesty filter" when it comes to minor grad students that pissed off the wrong people. But you can do all this fraud constantly and become president of harvard if you know the right politics. Dishonest lot. I hope karma is real so they get what is coming to them for taking advantage of people that just love to increase humanity's knowledge.
  • SpaceManNabs 2y ago
    alright, am i being downvoted because of my perniciousness to those leading academia, or because I was too sympathetic to the people being exploited?
    • infamouscow 2y ago
      They would be out of jobs. You're being downvoted because you're correct—HN is an eco chamber for zealous regurgitation of opinions of the academy and media—institutions that have decayed. It's been happening slowly for awhile, but now things are starting to come apart at the seams.
      • SpaceManNabs 2y ago
        It is really annoying because a common response is "We know academia is bad. But this is the best we have and it is hard to improve" when that is false on two counts. 1. If you had said the same thing before 2016 or covid, people would not agree that academia is rife with fraud or worthy of skepticism. 2. The same people saying the system dismiss how can it be improved are the same ones that would suffer from disruption as you say. They have the power to dismiss these arguments to begin with.
• photochemsyn 2y ago
  Anecdotally, during my (fairly short-lived) academic career, in which I did research with three different groups, 2/3 of them were engaging in fraudulent research practices. Unfortunately the one solid researcher I worked for was in a field I wasn't all that interested in continuing in, and as a naive young person who believed in the myth of academic freedom and didn't really understand the funding issue, I jumped ship to another field, and found myself in a cesspool of data manipulation, inflated claims, and all manner of dishonest skullduggery. It all comes down to lab notebooks and data policies. If there is no system for archiving detailed records of experimental work, if data is recorded with pencils so it can later be erased and changed, if the PI isn't in the habit of regularly auditing the world of grad students and postdocs with an eye on rigor and reproduciblity, then you should turn around and walk out the door immediately. As to why this situation has arisen, I think the corporatization of American academics is at fault. If a biomedical researcher can float a false claim for a few years, they can spin their research off to a startup and then sell that startup to a big pharmaceutical conglomerate. If it fails to pan out in further clinical trials, well, that's life. Cooking the data to make it look attractive to an investor - in the almost completely unregulated academic environment - is a game that many bright-eyed eager beavers are currently playing. As supporting evidence, look at mathematical and astronomical research, the most fraud-free areas of academics. There's no money to be made in studying things like galactic collisions or exoplanets, the data is all in the public domain (eventually), and with mathematics, you can't really cook up fraudulent proofs that will stand the test of time.
  • mmooss 2y ago
    > As supporting evidence, look at mathematical and astronomical research Is there evidence of the fraud levels in those fields?
  • mncharity 2y ago
    > mathematical and astronomical research, the most fraud-free areas of academics. There's no money to be made So we're systemically safeguarding the quality of astronomy research, by setting up a gradient (at MIT: restaurant catering for business talks, pizza for CS, stale cookies for astronomy) to draw off some flavors of participants and thus concentrate others?
• BenFranklin100 2y ago
  As a scientist who has published in the neuroscience space, I don’t what to say other than the incentives in academia are all messed up. Back in the late 90s, NIH made a big push on ‘translational research”, that is, researchers were strongly encouraged to demonstrate their research had immediate, real world benefits or applications. Basic research and the careful, plodding research needed to nail down and really answer a narrow question was discouraged as academic navel-gazing. On one hand, it seems the push for immediate real world relevance is a good thing. We fund research in order that society will benefit, correct? On the other hand, since publications and ultimately funding decisions are based on demonstrating real world relevance, it’s little surprise scientists are now highly incentivized to hype their research, p-hack their results, or in rare cases, commit outright fraud in an attempt to demonstrate this relevance. Doing research that has immediate translational benefits is a tall order. As a scientist you might accomplish this feat a few times in your career if you’re lucky. The rest of the corpus of your work should consist of the careful, mundane research the actual translational research will be based upon. Unfortunately it’s hard to get that foundational, basic, research published and funded nowadays, hence the messed-up incentives.
  • derbOac 2y ago
    There's evidence that the turning point was in the 90s but I suspect the real underlying problem is indirect funds as a revenue stream for universities, combined with the imposition of a for-profit business model expectation from politicians at the state and other levels. The expectation changed from "we fund universities to teach and do research" to "universities should generate their own income", which isn't really possible with research, so federal funding filled the gap. This lead to the indirect fund firehose of cash, pyramid scheme labs, and so forth and so on. It sort of became a feedback loop, and now we are where we are today. Translational research is probably part of it but I think it's part of a broader hype and fad machine tied to medicine, which has its own problems related to rent-seeking, regulatory capture, and monopolies, among other things. It's one giant behemoth of corruption fed by systemic malstructurings, like a biomedical-academic complex of problematic intertwined feedback loops. I say this as someone whose entire career has very much been part of all of it at some level.
• dang 2y ago
  Here's the article: https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-...
• zombiwoof 2y ago
  Humans being humans
• eig 2y ago
  This sort of behavior is only going to worsen in the coming decades as academics become more desperate. It's a prisoner's dilemma: if everyone is exaggerating their results you have to as well or you will be fired. It's even more dire for the thousands of visa students. The situation is similar to the "Market for lemons" in cars: if the market is polluted with lemons (fake papers), you are disincentivized to publish a plum (real results), since no one can tell it's not faked. You are instead incentivized to take a plum straight to industry and not disseminate it at all. Pharma companies are already known to closely guard their most promising data/results. Similar to the lemon market in cars, I think the only solution is government regulation. In fact, it would be a lot easier than passing lemon laws since most labs already get their funding from the government! Prior retractions should have significant negative impact on grant scores. This would not only incentivize labs, but would also incentivize institutions to hire clean scientists since they have higher grant earning potential.
  • jimbokun 2y ago
    My recommendation is for journals to place at least equal importance to publishing replications as for the original studies. Studies that have not been replicated should be published clearly marked as preliminary results. And then other scientists can pick those up and try to replicate them. And institutions need to give near equal weight to replications as to original research when deciding on promotions. Should be considered every researchers responsibility to contribute to the overall field.
    • eig 2y ago
      The problem with putting the onus on the journals is there is no incentive for them to reward replications. Journals don't make money on replicated results. Customers don't buy the replication paper they just read the abstract to see if it worked or not. I do like the idea of institutions giving tenure to people with results that have stood the test of time, but again, there is no incentive to do so. Institutions want superstar faculty, they care less about whether the results are true. The only real incentive that I think can be targeted is still grant money, but I would love to be proved wrong.
• wk0 2y ago
  Seems to be censored from the NIH staff directory now https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/staff/masliah-eliezer https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/staff/masliah-eliezer
  • Lionga 2y ago
    woopsies
  • abrichr 2y ago
    Most recent working archive.org snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20240303093209/https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/staff/masliah-eliezer https://web.archive.org/web/20240303093209/https://www.nia.n...
• stevenseb 2y ago
  [flagged]
• dekhn 2y ago
  These sorts of articles raise so many thoughts and emotions in me. I was trained as a computational biologist with a little lab work and ran gels from time to time. Personally, I hated gels- they're finicky, messy, ugly, and don't really tell you very much. But molecular biology as a field runs on gels- it's the priimary source of results for almost everything in molbio. I have seen more talks and papers that rested entirely a single image of a gel which is really just some dark bands. At the same time, I was a failed scientist: my gels weren't as interesting, or convincing compared to the ones done by the folks who went on to be more successful. At the time (20+ years ago) it didn't occur to me that anybody would intentionally modify images of gels to promote the results they claimed, although I did assume that folks didn't do a good job of organizing their data, and occasionally published papers that were wrong simply because they confused two images. Would I have been more successful if fewer people (and I now believe this is a common occurrence) published fraudulent images of gels? Maybe, maybe not. But the more important thing is that everybody just went along with this. I participated in many journal clubs where folks would just flip to Figure 3, assume the gel was what the authors claimed, and proceed to agree with (or disagree with) the results and conclusions uncritically. Whereas I would spend a lot of time trying to understand what experiment was actually run, and what th e data showed.
  • Lionga 2y ago
    Don't hate the player hate the game. Governments made scientist only survive if they show results and specifically the results they want to see. Otherwise no anymore grants and you are done. Whether the results are fake or true does not matter "Science" nowadays is mostly BS, while the scientific method (hardly ever used in "science" nowadays) is still gold.
    • MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
      Do hate the player. People are taught ethics for a reason: no set of rules and laws are sufficient to ensure integrity of the system. We rely on personal integrity. This is why we teach it to our children.
      • 2y ago
• ta8645 2y ago
  Everyone seems to acknowledge this is a problem, but refuse to believe it actually affects anything when it comes time to "trust the science". Yes, science is corrupted, but all the results can be trusted, and the correct answer is always reached in the end. So, is it really a problem? Or not?
  • eig 2y ago
    A key skill for any scientist is to differentiate quality work and science that can be easily faked. The Alzheimer's and Parkinson's fields are too easy to fake, and too difficult to replicate. The new ideas are only ~20 years old. Big pharma companies are understandably wary of published papers. When people say "trust the science", they often refer to things like masks, and antibiotics, and vaccines. That science is hundreds of years old and have been replicated thousands of times. TL;DR: Some science should absolutely be trusted, some shouldn't. It's not surprising that you can't make blanket statements on a superfield ranging from germ theory to cold fusion.
    • yunwal 2y ago
      > When people say "trust the science", they often refer to things like masks, and antibiotics, and vaccines. That science is hundreds of years old and have been replicated thousands of times. When people say "trust the science" they're usually referring to fairly recent developments. Covid vaccines were in development and testing for just over 18 months before being mandated and were certainly not replicated on a large scale by disinterested 3rd parties before being mandated. The idea that we can have effective scientific policy without trust in scientific institutions is just... not accurate.
      • 8f2ab37a-ed6c 2y ago
        Exactly. Nobody needs to be told to "trust the science" on gravity and electricity, nobody asks to consult scientific consensus. The argument only arises for the more suspicious niches.
    • inglor_cz 2y ago
• tempodox 2y ago
  I can't manage to be really surprised. We already know many people will cheat when the incentives are right. And when the law of the land is “publish or perish”, then some will publish by any means necessary. Thinking “this subsegment of society is so honorable, they won't cheat” would be incredibly naive.
• hilux 2y ago
  This stuff just ENRAGES me. With that off my moobs ... for those interested in the broader topic, I highly recommend Science Fictions, by Stuart Ritchie. The audiobook is also excellent. I'm not a working scientist, and I found it completely engaging. Worth it just for the explanation of p-hacking.
• breck 2y ago
  If you're an academic and want to use the fastest publishing stack ever created that also helps guide you to building the most honest, true thing you could create, I have built Scroll and ScrollHub specifically for you. https://hub.scroll.pub/?template=paper https://hub.scroll.pub/?template=paper Happy to provide personal help onboarding those who want to use this to publish their scientific work. breck7@gmail.com
  • breck 2y ago
    Youtube of porting a paper to Scroll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNJBBAR-F2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNJBBAR-F2s
• ljsprague 2y ago
  Where is Eliezer Masliah from?
  • trallnag 2y ago
    What kind of "from"? For example, ethnically, due to his Hebrew name, he's seems to be from Israel or at least the Levant.
  • teddyh 2y ago
    “MASLIAH, 65, TRAINED in medicine and neuropathology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), earning his medical degree in 1982 and completing a residency in pathology in 1986. He married a U.S. resident who also studied medicine at UNAM. They relocated to San Diego after Masliah’s training.” — <https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-...>
• coding123 2y ago
  > and others appear to be running for cover. In every industry right now there appear to be a lot of people running cover. I have a personal belief, with the exception of a few industries, 50% of managers are simply running cover. This is easy to explain: 1/ Nothing follows people 2/ Jobs were easy to get in the last 3 years (this is changing FAST) 3/ Rinse and repeat and stay low until you're caught.
• ceroxylon 2y ago
  NIH page for Eliezer Masliah is returning access denied: https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/staff/masliah-eliezer https://www.nia.nih.gov/about/staff/masliah-eliezer
• yawnxyz 2y ago
  Reminder that these people are only caught because they photoshopped Western blots. Even more widespread is when PIs just throw out data that don't agree with their hypothesis, and make you do it again until the numbers start making sense. It's atrocious, but so common that if you're not doing this, you're considered dumb or weak and not going to make it. Many PIs end up mentally justify this kind of behavior (need to publish / grant deadline / whatever) — even at the protest of most of the lab members. Those who refuse to re-roll their results — those who want to be on the right side of science — get fired and black balled from the field. And this is at the big famous universities you've all heard of
• GeekyBear 2y ago
  I've said so many times, but we need to go back to a system where it is possible to make a career in science and get funding for replicating other people's work to verify the results.
  • mchannon 2y ago
    This leads to a tragedy of the commons. Say a random nation, say, Sweden, devotes 100% of their governmental and university research budgets toward replication. 70% of the studies they attempt are successfully replicated. 20% are inconclusive or equivocal. 10% are clearly debunked. Now the world is richer, but Sweden? No return on investment for the Swedes, other than perhaps a little advanced notice on what hot new technologies their sovereign funds and investors ought not to invest in. A bloc of nations, say NAFTA/CAFTA-DR, or the European Union, might be more practical. That's the carrot. As for the stick, bad lawyers can get disbarred, bad doctors can get "unboarded". Some similar sort of international funding ban/blacklist for bad researchers would be useful.
    • mmooss 2y ago
      Could it be part of the training for young researchers - replicate existing experiments?
      • mchannon 2y ago
        I applaud that approach. The first year of a Ph.D. program could be reformulated to become 75% replicating the research of others, preferably that of unaffiliated research organizations. A lot of this research is very involved and esoteric, requiring specialized equipment found only in one place, so some would be very hard to replicate. If what Theranos was doing (or claiming to do) was easy to replicate, it would've imploded years prior to when it did. So not all fraud could be detected, but a lot of the low-hanging fraud, especially in the psychological and pharmacological fields, could be quickly identified. Such a system would be a substantial upgrade and I applaud your suggestion. A smaller country could blaze the trail, because "big boys", like the U.S., are too set in their ways.
• SubiculumCode 2y ago
  This is terribly terribly frustrating. For every one of these cheats there are hundreds of honest, extremely hard-working ETHICAL scientists who toil 60 hours a week doing the thing they love. It is also terribly frustrating that, being human after all, smooth talkers with a confident stride, an easy smile, eager to shake hands can and do quickly climb the academic ladder, especially the administrative latter. This makes me terribly sad.
  • chrisjj 2y ago
    > For every one of these cheats there are hundreds of honest, extremely hard-working ETHICAL scientists Every one of these /discovered/ cheats. Remember this particular cheat was one of your ethicals until a few moments ago.
• hilux 2y ago
  I shared this article with an MD/PhD friend who has done research at two of the three most famous science universities in America ... and she said "this [not this guy, this phenomenon] is why I left science." Maybe it's like elite running - everyone who stays competitive above a certain level is cheating, and if you want to enjoy watching the sport, you just learn to look the other way. Except that the stakes for humanity are much higher in science than in sport.
  • hovden 2y ago
    Blatant fraud is rare in physics, engineering, chemistry. Lying is rare. Quality is high at the highest institutions of physics and chemistry. Exaggerated claims occur, but much less than in day to day life. Top visibility work is quickly reproduced. Reproduction is the essence of science.
    • hilux 2y ago
      Did you google "fraud in physics" or "fraud in chemistry"? (I just did.) > Exaggerated claims occur, but much less than in day to day life. "Day-to-day life" does not lay the foundation for millions of dollars in followup research, or set the direction of a grad student's research, i.e. their career. > Reproduction is the essence of science. Did you read OP's link to the Science article?
• NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  This shit should be a crime. Imagine how many person-hours and how much money has been wasted.
• Centigonal 2y ago
  I hate the thought that researchers and drug developers may have wasted their effort and dollars developing drugs based on one extremely selfish person's bogus results.
  • mistercheph 2y ago
    Don't worry, a lot of them are fudging their numbers too, it's no biggie
    • fourfun 2y ago
      You can’t fake human clinical trials.
• jboggan 2y ago
  When I was in my doctoral program I had some pretty promising early results applying network analysis to metabolic networks. My lab boss/PI was happy to advertise my work and scheduled a cross-departmental talk to present my research in front of ~100 professors or so. While I was making a last-minute slide for my presentation I realized one chart looked a little off and I started looking into the raw data. I soon realized that I had a bug in my code that invalidated the last 12 months of calculations run on our HPC cluster. My conclusions were flat out wrong and there was nothing to salvage from the data. I went to my lab boss the night before the talk and told him to cancel it and he just told me to lie and present it anyways. I didn't think that was moral or scientifically sound and I refused. It permanently damaged my professional relationship with him. No one else I talked to seemed particularly concerned about this, and I realized that a lot of people around me were bowing to pressure to fudge results here and there to keep up the cycle of publicity, results, and funding that the entire academic enterprise relied upon. It broke a lot of the faith I had been carrying in science as an institution, at least as far as it is practiced in major American research universities.
  • mike_hearn 2y ago
    Coding errors are a really common source of fraud unfortunately. You did the right thing but the vast majority don't. Given a choice between admitting the grant money was wasted, the exciting finding isn't real, everyone who cited your work should retract their papers or just covering it up, the pressure to do the latter is enormous. During COVID I talked to a guy who used to do computational epidemiology. He came to me because I'd written about the fraud that's endemic in that field and wanted to get stuff off his chest. He was a research programmer, assisting scientists. One of the stories he told involved checking the code for a model written in FORTRAN. He discovered it was mis-using an FFI and using pointer values in equations instead of the dereferenced values. Everything the program had ever calculated was garbage. He checked and it had been used in hundreds of papers. After emailing the authors with a bug report, he got a reply half an hour later saying the papers had been checked and the results didn't change so nothing needed to be done. Little known fact: the COVID model that drove lockdowns in the UK and USA was nothing but bugs. None of the numbers it produced can be replicated. When people pointed out that this was a problem academics went on the attack, claimed none of the criticism was legitimate because it didn't come from experts, and of course simp journalists went along with all of it. They got away with it completely and will probably do it again in future. Even in this thread you can see people defending COVID science as the good stuff! It was all riddled with fraud. Part of the issue is that scientists are mostly self taught coders who aren't interested in coding. They frequently use a standard of: if it looks right, it is right. The whole thing becomes a circular exercise in reinforcing their priors.
• qudat 2y ago
  While I agree this is a big problem, science should never be defined by a single article. I was always taught that science is a tree of knowledge where you build off previous positive results, all of which collapse when an ancestor turns out to be false.
  • a1445c8b 2y ago
    In this particular case, the person of interest published 800 widely cited papers. That seems like a considerable collapse.
    • qudat 2y ago
      I see this as a pruning process and an inevitable part of science. But I would further argue against what others were saying about personal ethics. Science must remove the human as much as possible from the process.
• sharpshadow 2y ago
  Duplication of the same image with different captions about armed conflicts is a technique mainstream news likes too.
• clpm4j 2y ago
  I'm not a researcher or academic, but when I think of roughly how long it takes me to do meaningful deep work and produce a project of any significance, I'm struck by the fact that his 800 papers isn't a red flag? Even if you allocate ~3 months per paper, that's over 200 years of work. Is it common for academics to produce research papers in a matter of days? From the article: Masliah appeared an ideal selection. The physician and neuropathologist conducted research at the University of California San Diego (UCSD) for decades, and his drive, curiosity, and productivity propelled him into the top ranks of scholars on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. His roughly 800 research papers, many on how those conditions damage synapses, the junctions between neurons, have made him one of the most cited scientists in his field.
  • stephenbez 2y ago
    People are listed as authors if they advised or contributed to the papers of their grad students or other people in their lab.
    • benrapscallion 2y ago
      They still need to read the science and agree with it.
    • strbean 2y ago
      This also seems like a problematic practice. Perhaps we should start expecting a shorter author list, and have separate credit for advisers, small contributions, overseeing, etc.
  • DevX101 2y ago
    It's kind of like, when reporters say a CEO built [insert ridiculously complex product here], ex: ascribing the success of OpenAI to Sam Altman, or Apple to Steve Jobs. Sure there were important in setting the direction, and allocating resources but they didn't actually do the work. Similarly, the heads of famous science labs have lots of talented scientists who want to work with them. The involvement of a lab director varies wildly, but for the hyper productive, famous ones, it's largely the director curating great people, providing scientific advice, and setting a general research direction. The lab director gets named on all these papers that get generated from this process. So 800 papers isn't necessarily a red flag if the director is great at fundraising and has lots of graduate students/post docs doing the heavy lifting.
• Molitor5901 2y ago
  But if the NIH had done that in 2016, they wouldn't be in the position they're in now, would they? How many people do we need to check? How many figures do we have to scrutinize? What a mess. This is the core problem with science today. Everyone is trying desperately to publish as much, and as fast, as they can. Quantity over quality. That quantity dictates jobs, fellowships, grants, and careers. Dare I saw we have a "doping" problem in science and not enough controls. Especially when it comes to "some" countries feverish output of papers that have little to no scientific value, cannot be replicated, full of errors, but at least it's published and they can get a job. For a long time the numbers have been manipulated and continue to be so, seemingly due to national pride. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_scientific_and_technical_journal_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of... https://www.science.org/content/article/china-rises-first-place-most-cited-papers https://www.science.org/content/article/china-rises-first-pl... Scholars disagree about the best methodology for measuring publications’ impact, however, and other metrics suggest the United States is still ahead—but barely.
• datavirtue 2y ago
  Doctored neuroscience papers. I'm shocked.
• owenpalmer 2y ago
  > But at the same time I have a lot of sympathy for the honest scientists who have worked with Masliah over the years and who now have to deal with this explosion of mud over parts of their records. This really is quite unfortunate.
  • mmooss 2y ago
    Is it? Is it possible that none of them knew? Should they have responsibilities to go with the benefits of putting their names on major discoveries?
    • hilux 2y ago
      It's definitely possible that some of them didn't know.
    • owenpalmer 2y ago
      Ah, I see how you could misunderstand. In context, this sentence was contrasting between those who knew, and those who didn't know about the fraud. To make my point more clear: It's impossible that none of them knew. It's possible that some of them didn't know.
• bradley13 2y ago
  Perhaps the root of all evil is "publish or perish". I am long out of research, working at a teaching college, and yet I am still expected to publish. Idiocy. Academic fraud is also enabled by lack of replication. No one gets published by replicating someone else's work. If one could incentivize quality replication, that could help.
• moralestapia 2y ago
  I've been saying this for years and have been punished for that. Even here. I've done Biology and CS for almost 20 years now, I've worked at four of the top ten research institutions in the world. The ratio of honest to bullshit academics is alarmingly low. Most of these people should be in jail. Not only do they commit academic fraud, many of them commit other types of crimes as well. When I was a PhD student, my 4 year old daughter was kidnapped by staff at KAUST. Mental and physical abuse is quite common and somewhat "accepted" in these institutions. Sexual harassment and sexual abuse is through the roof. I am very glad that, slowly, these things are starting to vent out. This is one real swamp that needs to be drained. Some smartass could come up and say "where is your evidence for this?". This is what allows this abhorrent behavior to thrive. Do you think these people are not smart enough to commit these crimes in covert ways? The reason why they do it is because they know no one will find out and they will get away with it. What's the solution? I've thought about this a lot, a lot. I think a combination of policies and transparency could go a long way. Because of what they did to me, I am fully committed to completely destroy and expunge people who do these things from academia. If you, for whatever reason, would like to help me on this mission, shoot me an email, there's a few ideas already taking shape towards that goal.
  • mmooss 2y ago
    I hope your daughter is ok?!
    • moralestapia 2y ago
      We are fine now. That was four years ago. Our embassy intervened and eventually she was released and we were able to fly back home. I'm not 100% satisfied with how they handled the situation (they took a while to react to the issue) but in the end we were able to leave that place and I'm happy with that.
  • bartathe 2y ago
    "Four of the top ten" research institutions is probably part of the reason for your experiences. I went to an elite private undergrad as a scholarship student and was sexually abused by the son of high powered lawyers, probably awful people themselves, who targeted scholarship students, international students, etc. because we were vulnerable with no recourse. I then went to a highly ranked but not super sexy public school for my PhD and my experience has been significantly better. Bad actors are attracted to glamor and prestige because they're part of the cloaks and levers they use to escape consequences. Bad actors are far less attracted to, just as an example, living in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Indiana and telling people at conferences that they work at UW rather than Cambridge. UCs are also vastly more welcoming and supportive of working and middle class students than HYPSM even at the graduate level. That doesn't mean that you won't find any assholes at these places, and go too low in the rankings and you'll see ugly competition over scarce resources, but there's a sweet spot where more honorable people who aren't chasing prestige cluster and you'll find more support and recourse. Public schools ranked 5-15 are best for students without significant, significant social savvy and other forms of protection, IMO.
• Ekaros 2y ago
  I am thinking if some type bounty program which would take sufficient proof on fraud would work. Sadly I don't think anyone will fund it. And those participating likely won't be taken well in the circles...
• pdfernhout 2y ago
  From "The Big Crunch" by David Goodstein" (1994) https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html "The crises that face science are not limited to jobs and research funds. Those are bad enough, but they are just the beginning. Under stress from those problems, other parts of the scientific enterprise have started showing signs of distress. One of the most essential is the matter of honesty and ethical behavior among scientists. The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists. There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary. As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common. Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger. Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support. Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals. Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science. Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face. We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all. The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny. Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint. Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants. In fact, as we have seen, it already is. ..."
• BoxFour 2y ago
  Just a lark, not to be taken too seriously: I wonder if a market-driven approach could work here, where hedge funds hire external labs to attempt to reproduce the research underlying new pharmaceutical companies or trials and then short the companies whose results they can’t replicate before results get reported.
• SubiculumCode 2y ago
  Wait until image diffusion is used to fake blots and panels. :(
  • CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    We already have fake rat 50x priapic erections.
• fsndz 2y ago
  there is so much junk science these days and the problem is the incentives are wrongly set (quantity over quality)
  • CatWChainsaw 2y ago
    The quantity over quality incentive has ruined so, so much about modern life.
• mmooss 2y ago
  Intrinsic to the article is, arguably, a significant cause of fraud in this field: The article talks about fraud as if it's done by the 'other' - by someone else, other than the article's author (or their audience). The solution starts when you say, 'we committed fraud - our field, our publication, the scientific enterprise. What are we going to do?' Does the author really have no idea about these things? That they occur?
• ramoz 2y ago
  Verifiable computing and data lineage are important mitigation to be developed here.
  • pphysch 2y ago
    Not clear whether it would be a net benefit, adding constraints and complexity to the scientific process which will be skipped whenever possible by underpaid labrats. Also, GIGO. Need to tackle the incentives directly.
• PKop 2y ago
  Trust the science.
• rationalfaith 2y ago
  [dead]
• honksillet 2y ago
  Don’t worry. The next generation will use generative algorithms to make fake images that are indistinguishable from the real deal.
• hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Glad the title here is "Fraud, so much fraud" and not "Research misconduct". I hope that Masliah is charged with federal wire fraud. In cases like this where the fraud is so blatant and solely done for the purposes of aggrandizing Masliah's reputation (and getting more money), and where it caused real harm, we need to treat these as the serious crimes that they are.
• pcpcnk 2y ago
  [flagged]
• Optimal_Persona 2y ago
  I'm surprised that people are surprised by science being done in non-scientific ways. I got a taste of this in my high school honors biology class. I decided to do a survey of redwing blackbirds in my town. I had a great time, there was a cemetery across the street from my house with a big pond, where 6-8 males hung out. I was excited when later in the season several females also arrived and took up residence. I eagerly wrote up my results in a paper. I thought I did "A" level work but was distressed when the teacher gave me B- or C+. She said "My husband and I are birdwatchers who have published papers on redwing mating habits in the area, and we haven't seen any females this year. Neither did one of your classmates who watched redwings in her neighborhood." While she did not directly in writing accuse me of fraud, she strongly implied it. I told her to grab her binoculars and hang out at the cemetery one morning. She declined, as she was a published authority and didn't need to actually observe with her own eyes. IIRC I had photos but they were from faraway with a Kodak Instamatic (this was the mid-'80s), so she didn't accept those as evidence. I often wonder if my life would have gone in a different direction if I had a science teacher who actually followed the scientific method of direct observation! It didn't come easy to me, but I was very interested in science before this showed me clearly that science is just another human endeavor, replete with bias, ego, horseshit, perverse incentives, and gatekeeping.
  • mistercheph 2y ago
    Scale this experience out to tens of thousands of young people. These kinds of people should not be teaching! A good teacher is capable of fearlessly admitting to a room of children that they were wrong and the students were right, or better yet that they have no idea what the answer is! We have done a great disservice to human intellect to have mistaken the gift that empiricism gives of predicting the world, with knowledge of the world itself of which we possess almost nil.
• pcpcnk 2y ago
  [flagged]
• sva_ 2y ago
  > There's also a proposed Alzheimer's therapy called cerebrolysin, a peptide mixture derived from porcine brain tissue. An Austrian company (Ever) has run some small inconclusive trials on it in human patients and distributes it to Russia and other countries (it's not approved in the US or the EU). But the eight Masliah papers that make the case for its therapeutic effects are all full of doctored images, too. > cerebrolysin This was discussed here recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41239161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41239161
• wredue 2y ago
  So I guess it’s time for the hourly Hackernews propaganda push about “science bad”.
• mensetmanusman 2y ago
  We need a checksum for institutions: https://youtu.be/PbAVTEbGF3c?si=nAivVaZEI0gMRzX9 https://youtu.be/PbAVTEbGF3c?si=nAivVaZEI0gMRzX9 (Such a good discussion!)
• AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  If I have learned anything over 40 years, is that the number of people who actually live in a way consistent with hypothesis testing, data collection, evidence evaluation framework required to have scientific confidence in future action or even claims is effectively zero That includes people who consider themselves professional scientists, PhD‘s authors, leaders etc. The only people I know who live “scientifically” consistently are people considered “neurodivergent”, along the autism-adhd-odd spectrum, which forces them into creating the type of mechanisms that are actually scientific and as required by their conditions. Nevertheless, we should expect better from people; and on average need to do better in aligning how they think to how science, when robustly demonstrated, demonstrates with staggering predictability how the world works, compared to all other methods of understanding the universe. The fact that the people carrying the torch of science don’t live up to the standard is expected - hence peer review. This is an indictment of the incentives and pace at which bad science is revealed (like in this case) is always too slow, but science is the one place where eventually you’re going to either get exposed as a fraud or never followed in the first place. There’s no other philosophy that has a higher bar of having to conform with all versions of reality forever.
  • molave 2y ago
    It's disheartening to think that the virtues you are told to have as a kid are considered "weak sauce" once you are an adult.
    • throwawaysleep 2y ago
      But what virtues were rewarded when you were a kid? My parents and grandparents would say I should be charitable, helpful, and share, but what actually made them happy? Beating other kids.
    • AndrewKemendo 2y ago
      The reason many people hate children is because children are not satisfied with the level of epistemology that most people can provide them, and have no compunction in saying “that answer is unsatisfactory” Hence why institutional pedagogy is so often rote and has nothing to do with understanding - when we know science of learning says that every human craves understanding (montessori, piaget etc…) In fact, the shortest way to break the majority of people’s brains is to ask them one of the following questions: - Can you Explain the reasoning behind your behavior? - How would you test your hypothesis? - What led you to the conclusion you just stated? - Can you clarify the assumptions embedded in your claim? -Have you evaluated the alternatives to your position?
• mkhattab 2y ago
  Does anyone know of an up-to-date or live visualization of the amount of scientific fraud? And perhaps also measuring the second order effects? i.e. poisoning of the well via citations to the fraudulent papers. It's hard to tell at this point if it's just selection bias or if the scientific fraud problem has outgrown the scope of self-correction.
• themagician 2y ago
  Why we would expect academia to be different from anything else these days? Fraud is how you get ahead. It is how you gain competitive advantage. When everyone is cheating, the only way to win is to cheat smarter. Fraud is the end result of the dreams that motivate people to be better than they. are.
• gmd63 2y ago
  I would rather die than deliberately cause a humongous speed bump in the history of human understanding of the universe like this guy did. And the choice is never that stark. It's usually "id rather work in a less highly paid role". To selfishly discard the collective attention of scientific experts for undue gain is despicable and should disqualify a person from all professional status indefinitely in addition to any legal charges. I deeply respect anyone whose desires align with winning the collective game of understanding that science should be. I respect even more those folks who speak up when their colleagues or even friends seek to hack academia like this guy did.
• fasteo 2y ago
  What about all the authors citing these papers ? Didn’t they find any incongruences in their own research?
• drawkward 2y ago
  At what point does scientific fraud become criminal?
• aliasxneo 2y ago
  I wonder if there's evidence of fraud _increasing_ or if the detection methods are just improving. In my last workplace, self-evaluation (and, therefore, self-promotion) was mandatory on a semi-annual cycle and heavily tied to compensation. It's not surprising that it became a breeding ground for fraud. Outside of a strong moral conviction (which I would argue is in declining), these sorts of systems will likely always be targets for fraudulent behavior.
  • throwawaysleep 2y ago
    I’ve hacked even peer reviews. Nobody wants to really write yours, so offer to do it for them. Obviously making it mindlessly laudatory.
  • hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    You're definitely seeing the consequences of papers being written in the past when large-scale fraudulent analysis wasn't that feasible, and now you have all this tech that can scoop it up and look for those "needle in a haystack" instances of fraud. I'm thinking about all the plagiarism issues uncovered with the publications of the former Harvard president Claudine Gay (and, similarly, of Neri Oxman, the wife of Bill Ackman, who basically was exposed due to Ackman's campaign against Gay). I looked over all the instances of plagiarism in detail, and, while not excusing them, they seemed like less of egregious theft of others' ideas and more like laziness/sloppiness. But I could easily imagine that laziness/sloppiness being fostered by an idea of "How could someone really check this word-for-word anyway?" Well, now we have tech that makes it almost trivially easy to expose this type of misconduct.
    • aliasxneo 2y ago
      That's an interesting perspective. We tend to make judgments based on what's possible today, not twenty years from now (obviously, there are exceptions, like privacy). So it's easy to fall into sloppiness and not expect consequences. Maybe there's a lesson here...
• tokai 2y ago
  Only fix I can see is making scientific fraud criminal. But it has to be straight fraud and not just bad science. I can't imagine any other vocation where you can take public and private money, then cheat the stakeholders into thinking they got what they payed for, only to just walk away from it all when you are found out. Picture a contractor claiming to have build a high-rise for a developer, doctored photos of it, and then just go oops moneys all gone with no consequences when the empty lot is discovered years later.
• grog454 2y ago
  I'm not a scientist because of fraud and other reason related to academia, but I thought one of the tennets of an experiment was reproducibility. Were his experiments reproduced independently? Why not?
• jfengel 2y ago
  It seems like a strange thing to take someone with a long and respected career and subject them to what would essentially be a Western blot and photomicrograph audit before offering them a big position I really feel stupid asking experienced developers to do FizzBuzz. Not one has ever failed. But I have heard tons of anecdotes of utterly incompetent developers being weeded out by it.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• mrangle 2y ago
  I don't know why this would be surprising. There's nothing more obvious than the fact that research is riddled with both fraud and laughably shoddy work.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• tedk-42 2y ago
  Straight to jail. Same as white collar crime, except in academia.
• mbowcut2 2y ago
  I guess we need to find a way to incentivize good practice rather than interesting results? Turns out that science is so hard that people cheat.
• robwwilliams 2y ago
  Is it time for periodic AI-driven audits of papers. Some types of audits may be easy—Western blots for example. But many edge cases will require lots of sleuthing or preferably open access to all files and data. Obviously paying for your own audit sets up the incentives the wrong way. Alzheimer’s research has been a mess for 30 years as Karl Herrup argues persuasively in How Not to Study a Disease: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262546010/how-not-to-study-a-disease/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262546010/how-not-to-study-a-di...
• temptemptemp111 2y ago
  [dead]
• ChuckMcM 2y ago
  On the plus side, this is the kind of stuff you could screen pretty easily with large model machine learning. Not that there is a business in identifying scientific fraud, doing that with fraudulent government documents would probably have a better ROI (at least for the tax payer), but clearly we need a repository if every image/graph that has been published as evidence to start. It would be something you could offer to journals perhaps as a business. Sort of "peer reviewed and fraud analyzed" kinda service. What is truly sad for me is the 'wrong paths' many hard working and well meaning scientists get deflected down while someone cheats to get more 'impact' points.
• georgeplusplus 2y ago
  Were their papers peer reviewed? How does something like this happen.
• georgeplusplus 2y ago
  Were the papers peer reviewed? How does something like this happen
  • ansgri 2y ago
    Peer reviews are very surface-level, often delegated to inexperienced students, and not incentivized well to do any deep analysis except checking for proper references (the incentive here being making the author cite you or your friends). Been that student.
• neycoda 2y ago
  Title should be changed to be more specific. It appears as if it's referring to an industry rather than just a person.
• A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  There may be a dark twist to this story. The expose article writes: > "UCSD neuroscientist Edward Rockenstein, who worked under Masliah for years, co-authored 91 papers that contain questioned images, including 11 as first author. He died in 2022 at age 57." They say nothing else about this. But looking at Rockenstein's obituary, indications are that it was suicide. (It was apparently sudden, at quite a young age, and there are many commenters on his memorial page "hoping that his soul finds peace," and expressing similar sentiments.)
  • PromptCoding 2y ago
    [dead]
• quantified 2y ago
  At least science has mechanisms for dealing with fraud, for recognizing fraud and recovering from it. Can't be said for religion or politics.
• gwerbret 2y ago
  I think major scandals such as this one are essential, and we need more of them. Why? The misaligned incentives that drive (in my opinion) otherwise-well-meaning human beings to fraud in the biomedical sciences stem from competition for increasingly-scarce resources, and the deeply and fundamentally-broken culture that develops as a result. The only thing that will propel the needed culture shift is for the people who provide the money to see, from the visibility provided by such scandals, just how bad the problem is, and to basically withdraw funding unless and until the changes happen. Some of those changes include: 1. Reducing competition for funds by reducing the number of research-focused faculty positions (a.k.a. principal investigators, or PIs) across the board. When people's livelihoods depend on the ridiculous 5% odds of winning an important grant competition, they WILL cheat. As it stands, 20 well-funded scientists are probably more productive than 100 modestly-to poorly-funded, most of whom will do nothing meaningful or useful while trying to show "productivity" until the next funding cycle. 2. Reducing competition for funds by providing reasonably-assured research funding, tied to a diversity of indices of productivity, NOT just publications. As an example, a PI should be hired with the understanding that they'll need `x` dollars over the next 10 years to do their work. If those dollars aren't available, the person shouldn't be hired. 3. Reducing the number of PhD- and post-doctoral trainees across the board. These folks are mostly used as cheap labor by people who are well-aware, and don't care, that there will likely be no jobs for them. 4. Turning those PhD and post-doctoral positions into staff scientist positions, for people who want to do the research, but don't want the hassle of lab management. Staff scientist positions already exist, but in the current environment, when a PI can pay a postdoc $40k a year to work 80 - 100 hours a week, versus a staff scientist $80k a year to work 40 hours a week, guess which they pick. 5. Professionalizing the PhD stream. A person with a PhD in the biomedical sciences should be a broadly-capable individual able to be dropped, after graduation, into an assortment of roles, either academic or industrial. Right now, the incentive to produce publications tends to create people who are highly expert in a tiny, niche area, while having variable to nil competencies in anything else. Professionalization increases the range of post-PhD options for these folks, only one of which is academia. As it stands now, there's the tendency to feel that one has nothing if one doesn't have publications -- which increases the tendency towards fraud.
• ein0p 2y ago
  And now a whole generation of doctors will probably be “treating patients” using these “findings”. See eg COVID where it became obvious that the ventilators are killing people and then we kept people hooking up to them for several more months
• ineedasername 2y ago
  Tangential but related: My young tween child a couple of days ago: “I hate AI, I don’t know what’s real anymore” I think we’re about to see something much more extreme than the early ‘net days of “photoshop!” rage at clever fakes
• innagadadavida 2y ago
  If this trend continues, science will be more like religion
  • shinyamagami 2y ago
    It has been. Look at the history of science. Or look at well-educated lazy people. They explicitly say they believe in science.
• aetherspawn 2y ago
  It’s time that someone starts a thing similar in appearance to GitHub, but for science (datasets, images, calculations, scripts) and then, if journals required it, it just might get traction and make fraud science easy to spot. Edit: found this article which says everything I wanted to say but couldn’t put into words. https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/we-need-a-github-for-academic-research.html https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/we-need-a-github-for-ac... Add another aspect here that LaTeX is a bit outdated in 2024 (I know that’s controversial! Sorry) and that we can do a lot better for digesting and displaying information than A4 sheets of paper, for example responsiveness, audit/comment logs/references to individual paragraphs/revision logs, and the ability to click figures and see underlying data or high resolution copies. This would be great in a web-based editor medium. Also the ability to “fork” a paper would be fantastic. And to automatically track and generate references, then roll it up as back/forward reference analytics for the authors so they can see impact.
  • jahewson 2y ago
    > Add another aspect here that LaTeX is a bit outdated in 2024 (I know that’s controversial! Sorry) I met Leslie Lamport seven or eight years ago and asked him what a completely modern LaTeX might look like. He replied “well, we won’t be using PDFs in twenty years” and so it would need to be something completely different. Something interactive, with depth. Remembering, of course, to focus on quality content first and quality presentation second. In a world with LLMs, this question becomes ever more interesting - why write a literature review if one can be generated?
    • aetherspawn 2y ago
      I think the important thing is capturing information in basic blocks (text, images, etc) and having the flexibility to reflow it later for any modern presentation mode, be it ingestion by LLM, listening to it, or just rendering it on desktop, mobile. Translation and a11y is another important consideration here.
• growingkittens 2y ago
  This is all because science is systematic (step by step), not systemic (considering the whole system). Both perspectives are required to understand reality. [1] It's time to update science. [1] "Systems Engineering: A systemic and systematic methodology for solving complex problems." Joseph Kasser, 2019. p. 17
• davidashe 2y ago
  Surely the incentive mismatch isn’t this simple: Big results are rewarded, the process is considered worthless?
• anonygler 2y ago
  I didn’t get the Covid vaccine because of all the medical research fraud I’ve witnessed as a grad student. Remember things like this the next time you try to mandate injections with no long term research.
• mustang-med 2y ago
  My career has been in this space (medical research, not neuroscience) and I honestly cannot fathom how this happened. I don't understand how a researcher can wake up one day, manipulate data, and then show it to others. I feel bad for everyone's time that was wasted in building off this research, likely other's careers were chartered based on the basis of this research. What a shame.
• tomlockwood 2y ago
  I love how often STEM people point at things like Sokal as fundamental criticisms of the humanities, and then stuff like this happens.
• iancmceachern 2y ago
  I think the worst part has been lost in the noise. There were, and currently are, people suffering from Parkinsons disease whom are being subjected to greater suffering, knowingly, to further this person's career. This is Nazi and Tuskegee experiment level evil. This person should go to jail. Not US jail, international jail. These are crimes against humanity.
• IG_Semmelweiss 2y ago
  >>>> "..sleuths began to flag a few papers in which Masliah played a central role, posting to PubPeer, an online forum where research publications are discussed and allegations of misconduct often raised. In a few cases, Masliah or a co-author replied or made corrections. Soon after, Science spotted the posts, and because of Masliah’s position and standing decided to take a deeper look." I am conforted that there are still real journalists such as those at science, doing fantastic work and pulling on a thread, wherever it may lead , reputations be damned. Kudos to the PubPeer scientists for spotting the problem. Hat tip to you. Last but not least, never forget that the free flow of information allowed this fraud to be uncovered. Truth and "moderation" (of the censorship/disinformation kind) cannot simultaneously exist.
• charlieyu1 2y ago
  That’s what you get when you let bean counters take over academia and the worth of scientists are measured by number of papers and citations.
• tho23i44234234 2y ago
  Technical/Academic people might hate "influecer" culture for its crassness, but whenever fame/popularity is the primary goal, this is the only social dynamic. People are not outraged in academia that the primary goal is fame/popularity (rather than knowledge, technical ability), they're outraged that someone is cheating in this game to get ahead. This is happening across the spectrum tbh, as the world becomes increasingly monocultural and winner-takes-it-all social schema. People talk about anthopocene, but look at human social cultures : the millions of ways of living (with dignity mind you) sustained by < 1B population from as late as a 100 years back is now down to 1 or 2 at best. In such a vast pool, this kind of stuff is not only bound to happen, but is the optimal way forward (okay, may be not such blatant stuff). Honor-code etc. are BS unenforceable measures that are game-theoretically unstable (and kill-off populations that stick to it). See what the finance industry does for instance.
• bendbro 2y ago
  Aw shucks, better luck next time. I bet each of you hackers possess exactly the humanist, ethics focused, inclusive, science based, data driven solution "we" need to fix this problem. If only it wasn't for those bad people who made this bad system turning all the good people into bad people!
• dangitman 2y ago
  [dead]
• uptownfunk 2y ago
  Do folks here know how expensive it is to develop a drug? How much work it takes to get it through the pipeline? How much time, heartache, effort, has gone wasted? How many patients given false hope? This is tragic on so many levels
• trustno2 2y ago
  Oh wow, it was not just some guy publishing fradulent papers in fradulent journals that nobody reads or cites. He had giant impact, was cited tens of thousands of times!
• vt85 2y ago
  [dead]
• dartharva 2y ago
  > A former NIA official who would only speak if granted anonymity says he assumes the agency did not assess Masliah’s work for possible misconduct or data doctoring before he was hired. > Indeed, NIH told Science it does not routinely conduct such reviews, because of the difficulty of the process. “There is no evidence that such proactive screening would improve, or is necessary to improve, the research integrity environment at NIH,” the agency added. LOL. Here are your tax dollars at work, Americans.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ak_111 2y ago
  What I don't get is that people claim that the incentives are skewed because highly cited paper get you the top jobs. However, assume that a significant subset of the citation are citing because they require the fraudulent result, then this will increase the chance that it would be eventually exposed... and quickly. That is assume that person publishes results that: "factor X seems to lead to outcome Y". Many other scientists will then start trying to establish the low-hanging fruit result: "something that looks like factor X seems to lead something that looks like outcome Y". In other words they will be performing a sort of replication but in a novel way. If the result is fraudulent, then none of these results will materialise. In other words I don't get how a paper can be fraudulent AND highly-cited without escaping scrutiny, unless we are talking of a fraud mafia. Here I am using the field of pure mathematics as a mental model. Assume a person publishes a mathematical result with a flawed proof that escapes scrutiny. If this result is used by sufficient number of mathematicians (especially the lemmas used to prove the theorem) then fairly quickly it will end up generating self contradictory results.
  • _tom_ 2y ago
    And yet, it's common. And it can pay off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino That guy has a channel on fraud. Also check out Data Colada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Colada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Colada This isn't theoretical, there's a lot of it going on.
    • ak_111 2y ago
      I am more interested in how it occurs in the hard sciences. How can a scientific result accumulate a huge amount of citations without its effect not being replicated in many different contexts.
      • jldugger 2y ago
        Consider how hard it is to publish a negative result, especially when it fails to reproduce "established" science.
• whatever1 2y ago
  I misread as "Freud, so much Freud". Which is also true
• cosmic_dust9 2y ago
  Here is a relevant video that I watched recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDoml-Db64
• wg0 2y ago
  On a tangent, this video[0] from Sabine Hossenfelder about academics in general is eye opening. In comments, veritasium[1] agrees: >After finishing my PhD I went to a university-led session on ‘What Comes Next.’ What I heard sounded a lot like “now, you beg for money.” It was so depressing to think about all the very clever people in that room who had worked so very hard only to find out they had no financial security and would be spending most of their days asking for money. I realised that even what I thought of as the ‘safe path’ was uncertain so I may as well go after what I truly want. That led me here. EDIT: Typos [0]. https://youtu.be/LKiBlGDfRU8 https://youtu.be/LKiBlGDfRU8 [1]. https://www.youtube.com/@veritasium https://www.youtube.com/@veritasium
• briandear 2y ago
  And in the behavioral and social “sciences,” the fraud is just off the charts. If psychologists wanted to prove that healing crystals worked — if that was the cause du jour — there’d be journals filled to the brim with “research” “proving” their efficacy. I spent almost 10 years of my life as a founder of a mental health technology startup and the day we got acquired was a huge relief — I could finally get out of that industry — an industry that is much more about academic politics than actually solving anything. Seeing the maneuverings behind the scenes of the DSM-V, diagnostic codes, etc., was profound enough to destroy any idealism I might have felt towards that industry. (And yes, it’s an industry.) Luckily in fields such as climate science or virology, there is never fraud. Good thing too since a lot of our governmental policies result from those fields. (And yes, that is sarcasm.) “Science” feels very much like the Catholic Church — many people with good intentions, but there have been enough people participating in bad things that it poisons the entire institution and degrades whatever little faith people might have had remaining. Follow the science indeed.
• bigbacaloa 2y ago
  [dead]
• camillomiller 2y ago
  The damage this person and he accomplices blew to science and the reputation of medical research in this moment in time is enormous. The first thing that comes to mind is that this outing of such blatant fraud will be inevitably quoted by hordes of novaxxers and anti-science cultists for years to come.
• rurban 2y ago
  He probably refers to Sylvain Lesné's previously detected Alzheimer fraud, a hugely influencal doctored paper. And now the #1 Alzheimer researcher Eliezer Masliah is also a fraudster.
• rebanevapustus 2y ago
  I was the victim of a pretty bizarre super in-your-face academic theft. Someone snooped a half-finished draft of mine off GitHub and...actually got it published in a real journal: https://forbetterscience.com/2024/05/29/who-are-you-matthew-stephenson/ https://forbetterscience.com/2024/05/29/who-are-you-matthew-... In spite of having a full commit log (with GitHub verified commits!!!) of both the code AND the paper, both arxiv and the journal didn't seem to care or bother at all. Anyhow, I highly recommend reading the for better science blog. It's incredible how rampant fraud truly is. This applies to multiple nobel prize winners as well. It's nuts.
  • fluidcruft 2y ago
    This guy sounds like someone who would be fun for Javier Leiva's PRETEND podcast [0]. You should reach out to Javier. [0] https://pretendradio.org/ https://pretendradio.org/
  • cdaringe 2y ago
    Can you speak more to the “not caring at all” bit? I believe you, but how did you engage them? Did you end up publishing your work eventually? forbetterscience seems like a good idea, but the writing style, the images, and even the about page gave me pause on if this is a reliable site for trustworthy science commentary
    • ProllyInfamous 2y ago
      >I believe you, but how did you engage them? From the article, it seems the engagement came in the form of DMCA take-down requests from university lawyers... which the publication then largely ignored for a considerable period of time (possibly due to counter-DMCA). In an unrelated scientific field, EE, I recently witnessed how the DMCA process could be used by an "engineer" to silence criticism of his hybrid vehicle battery "upgrades" [2] — similar to Australian company DCS's snafu/lawsuit [1]. Just disgusting, these vultures that know [how to steal/lie/obfuscate] just well-enough to be dangerous... including how to manipulate our DMCA system to their dishonest advantage. [1] youtube.com/watch?v=_QNMVMlx48E&pp [2] theautopian.com/toyota-prius-owners-can-soon-swap-tired-old-batteries-for-sodium-ion-cells-but-drama-rages/
• Chris2048 2y ago
  I'm a little puzzled: > Splicing, cloning, overlaying, copy-and-pasting Is there no 3nd-party verification? no requirement to send original blot-papers somewhere?
• frowin 2y ago
  As a scientist, I'm so glad that we're forced to publish all our primary/secondary data along with the publication itself. It's stored in a repository which is "locked" when the DOI (digital object identifier) is generated. Overall, the publishing process is tedious and frustrating, but this extra work is crucial and cases like this makes that very clear. However, in most of the recent cases you didn't even need to look at the data as even the publication itself shows the misconduct.
• temporallobe 2y ago
  I personally know two PhDs who faked a large portion of their data in order to complete the dissertation process. The reality is that you can get stuck in the research phase because genuine, large sample-size quantitative data is often extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain, and in the cases I personally know, they simply mocked it in a realistic way. And there’s no way to know since the surveys are often anonymous.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• gadders 2y ago
  "Trust the Science" Science is the best way we have of understanding reality, but sadly it is mediated by humans. Just because a human is a scientist, it doesn't make them infallible.
• api 2y ago
  "Publish or perish" incentivizes publication volume, which is going to lead directly to all kinds of attempts to pad publication counts. You get what you incentivize.
• BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  Distrust in science is already a big problem as it is, but this is really making it so much worse. Good luck convincing an anti-vaxer now. It was already hard before, but now they have plenty of amunition.
• allpratik 2y ago
  As a funders to almost of these research studies, we also need to introduce some mechanisms which will impart a compounding fear in minds of these criminals as year passes. Basically a wrong study results over the years may ended up affecting millions (if not billions) of people. Someone(at every level of the chain) should pay a compounding punishment for a verified fraud. At the same time, this shouldn't prevent a Nobel upcoming scientist being bold. After all, science is all about pushing the boundaries of understanding or doing.
• uslic001 2y ago
  So things haven't changed in the 30 years since I left academic medicine. Par for the course given how grants and funding are carried out. This will continue to happen as the system design guarantees this outcome.
• GLAMCINEMA 2y ago
  [flagged]