4 ms·

I'm not a physicist (I'm a biologist), but I still find this email highly suspicious. Basically, the message boils down to: « Don’t criticize our field. We at

I'm not a physicist (I'm a biologist), but I still find this email highly suspicious. Basically, the message boils down to: « Don’t criticize our field. We at academia need taxpayer’s money to do useless research. But keep this confidential ». I can’t see how such a message could exist. The content repeats what she has been saying almost point for point, is highly damaging to scientific research in general, yet the email's author (a researcher) would have asked Sabine (a YouTuber) to keep it confidential. This makes no sense. But it is very convenient as Sabine wouldn’t have to provide any evidence for the message’s legitimacy. Despite the author sharing Sabine’s views, they would at the same time criticize her for having written an opinion paper about it (in Nature Physics). This also doesn’t make sense. If the goal of the email was to make Sabine aware of the damage she’s done to the field, why include content that is even more damaging? A legit email would have at best included phrases like « I know there are issues in our field, but... ». Describe your own research as "crap" in an email you ask to keep confidential? Give me a break. I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". In research, you believe in what you do. The email also says that the problem exists in "all other areas". Yeah sure. And how would the emailer know about "all other areas"? Incidentally, this is exactly the idea Sabine tries to convey. Another inconsistency: the author says they're sorry for being harsh. Why apologize to Sabine for stating what she believes? For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here.

computerthings 2y ago
> highly damaging to scientific research in general Uhm, what? How so? > Describe your own research as "crap" in an email you ask to keep confidential? Give me a break. I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". You don't have to think of something as crap to use the word once, in an email. It's not that deep. > And how would the emailer know about "all other areas"? Incidentally, this is exactly the idea Sabine tries to convey. It's also what you'd say when you think that "everybody is doing it". And do you know that people can just state something even though they may not actually know if its true? Not just in emails, also on the web! > Another inconsistency: the author says they're sorry for being harsh. Why apologize to Sabine for stating what she believes? Why not? > For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here. Oh, so it's all fake, right. Because you "can't see" why someone you don't know would write that about something you don't know either. I find the efforts to make mountains out of mole hills, or even nothing at all, this focusing all on her as a person and the email, rather than the usual "everyone going off a tangent on the subject", where in this case there would probably a lot of anecdotes to tell, insightful in its own right.
tiniestcabbage 2y ago
I think it's less "But keep this confidential" and more "This is an off-the-record remark," sort of like something a colleague might say in hushed tones in a hallway. I think the point whoever wrote this at the time was trying to get across was to try to tell her to shut up and not ruin a good thing, if not for herself then for other people. To their credit, they have somewhat of a point in that: speaking up against this will hurt people, even if it does make for better science and even if it's the right thing to do. I have absolutely no idea why she published this, suddenly and with such vitriol after having already covered it, today of all the times - but my hunch is that it might only be because the US grant funding system is currently coming apart at the seams that she's comfortable finally stopping with pulling her punches. I mean, what more damage can it do? Most of these people are losing their funding anyway - her speaking out isn't going to cost anyone a grant, and not outing the person who pulled her aside directly isn't going to cause anyone any permanent reputational damage. It's all ethically self-consistent and makes a sort of sense, even if it's not what I'd personally do. But I haven't walked in her shoes, either. > I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". In research, you believe in what you do. I'm glad you know good people! Sincerely - it's reassuring to hear. I'd love to believe that all science and all researchers are as noble of heart as this, but there is a clear and documentable issue of fraud in the sciences that points to systemic issues in how science itself is incentivized and performed - none of this is a secret. So many people go into science (and stay in science!) for all the best reasons, but it is not exactly a stretch to imagine that, despite relatively recent high-profile exposures, there are still people out there even today doing some or all of their jobs in bad faith. Perhaps the author's commentary about "all other areas" had to do with that fraud even back then (the letter was written seven years ago, the video said) - I don't know. To be fair, it wouldn't be that difficult to find at least one major episode of academic fraud in every major hard science discipline at this point, so I personally really don't think the "all" here is exactly doing that much heavy lifting. I also get the impression reading the letter that the author may not have been a native speaker of English, so perhaps giving them (and, consequently, Sabine) the assumption of good faith here and hand-waving the "all" into a "many" would be a sensible thing to do here. > For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here. Does this speak to her audience? Of course - she makes her living off her YouTube channel. But that doesn't really discount the message. The timing is odd, though, and makes her look oddly partisan in a way that hasn't agreed with other things I've seen her talk about on her channel (which I do watch). For what it's worth, I'm no scientist but I've been in academia myself - please believe me when I tell you there's plenty of corruption and grift in the humanities, too. I have stories.

computerthings 2y ago

> highly damaging to scientific research in general Uhm, what? How so? > Describe your own research as "crap" in an email you ask to keep confidential? Give me a break. I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". You don't have to think of something as crap to use the word once, in an email. It's not that deep. > And how would the emailer know about "all other areas"? Incidentally, this is exactly the idea Sabine tries to convey. It's also what you'd say when you think that "everybody is doing it". And do you know that people can just state something even though they may not actually know if its true? Not just in emails, also on the web! > Another inconsistency: the author says they're sorry for being harsh. Why apologize to Sabine for stating what she believes? Why not? > For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here. Oh, so it's all fake, right. Because you "can't see" why someone you don't know would write that about something you don't know either. I find the efforts to make mountains out of mole hills, or even nothing at all, this focusing all on her as a person and the email, rather than the usual "everyone going off a tangent on the subject", where in this case there would probably a lot of anecdotes to tell, insightful in its own right.

tiniestcabbage 2y ago

I think it's less "But keep this confidential" and more "This is an off-the-record remark," sort of like something a colleague might say in hushed tones in a hallway. I think the point whoever wrote this at the time was trying to get across was to try to tell her to shut up and not ruin a good thing, if not for herself then for other people. To their credit, they have somewhat of a point in that: speaking up against this will hurt people, even if it does make for better science and even if it's the right thing to do. I have absolutely no idea why she published this, suddenly and with such vitriol after having already covered it, today of all the times - but my hunch is that it might only be because the US grant funding system is currently coming apart at the seams that she's comfortable finally stopping with pulling her punches. I mean, what more damage can it do? Most of these people are losing their funding anyway - her speaking out isn't going to cost anyone a grant, and not outing the person who pulled her aside directly isn't going to cause anyone any permanent reputational damage. It's all ethically self-consistent and makes a sort of sense, even if it's not what I'd personally do. But I haven't walked in her shoes, either. > I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". In research, you believe in what you do. I'm glad you know good people! Sincerely - it's reassuring to hear. I'd love to believe that all science and all researchers are as noble of heart as this, but there is a clear and documentable issue of fraud in the sciences that points to systemic issues in how science itself is incentivized and performed - none of this is a secret. So many people go into science (and stay in science!) for all the best reasons, but it is not exactly a stretch to imagine that, despite relatively recent high-profile exposures, there are still people out there even today doing some or all of their jobs in bad faith. Perhaps the author's commentary about "all other areas" had to do with that fraud even back then (the letter was written seven years ago, the video said) - I don't know. To be fair, it wouldn't be that difficult to find at least one major episode of academic fraud in every major hard science discipline at this point, so I personally really don't think the "all" here is exactly doing that much heavy lifting. I also get the impression reading the letter that the author may not have been a native speaker of English, so perhaps giving them (and, consequently, Sabine) the assumption of good faith here and hand-waving the "all" into a "many" would be a sensible thing to do here. > For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here. Does this speak to her audience? Of course - she makes her living off her YouTube channel. But that doesn't really discount the message. The timing is odd, though, and makes her look oddly partisan in a way that hasn't agreed with other things I've seen her talk about on her channel (which I do watch). For what it's worth, I'm no scientist but I've been in academia myself - please believe me when I tell you there's plenty of corruption and grift in the humanities, too. I have stories.