5 ms·

I would trace this to the same root as the reason the largest banks are allowed to walk away from open corruption and money-laundering. We have inculcated into

by olefoo 14y ago

I would trace this to the same root as the reason the largest banks are allowed to walk away from open corruption and money-laundering. We have inculcated into our society a servile deference to power. Nobody of any importance is held accountable for their actions, even if they would be universally recognized as wrong. While it may be shocking that a laboratory director is more concerned with the reputation of his institution than that it does good science in an ethical and responsible; I doubt anyone is terribly surprised. We know this, but to face it requires us to acknowledge our own complicity in the lie that things are alright, that we live in a stable society that is not on the verge of collapse. Our institutions are visibly failing, and we don't know what we would replace them with.

tome 14y ago
I don't agree with you, but I'll add evidence in your favour: Jimmy Savile.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Most of the problem was lack of trust of women making allegations, not undue deference for Savile. Other problems include lack of communication between local police forces, so a number of allegations from women in different areas don't pile up in one report. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756150 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756150) It's easy to say that these are because of deference to Savile, but let's not forget that many young women told police that they were being raped and forced to work as prostitutes and those women were also dismissed and ignored, and their attackers were not famous.
rayiner 14y ago
Oh yes, because a bunch of academics or paper-pushers at NIH have any power... The reality of why nobody addresses these concerns is: 1) It's bad publicity. Everyone is on board with making these things look good, from the universities that support this research to the federal government that spends billions funding this research. It doesn't serve anybody's interest to blow the lid on something like this. 2) It's boring. It's too esoteric to explain to the average person what actually constitutes scientific misconduct. 3) It's hard to pin down. Scientists aren't self-policing. Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work, and indeed academia has a culture of letting everyone puff up their little egos. A given academic doesn't really rip into other academics so they don't rip into him.
- scott_s 14y ago
  Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work From my experience reviewing papers, being privy to program committee discussions, listening to my colleagues talk, and attending conferences, I have to disagree.
  - tlarkworthy 14y ago
    indeed, and the biologists are some of the harshest.
    - scott_s 14y ago
      I think everyone thinks of their own field as the harshest.
- carbocation 14y ago
  > Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work I haven't experienced this. What field of academia were/are you most familiar with?
- HarryHirsch 14y ago
  > 1) It's bad publicity. Close. The professor and the university both draw their salaries from the funding agency - the university through "indirect costs" - and understandably have little incentive to get to the bottom of the matter and risk having their grant terminated or worse.
- RougeFemme 14y ago
  It seems that in this case, the university was self-policiing; it just wouldn't listen to itself.
scarmig 14y ago
I'm reminded of an article that David Brooks wrote a decade ago, about the Organization Kid. Parents nowadays raise their kids to respect organizational authority with the expectation that that's not only a way to get ahead but in fact the only way to get ahead. You take tests that provide a rational ordering of who is better than who, you do as many extracurricular activities as you can to prove that you're more well-rounded than the typical person on your resume, and you listen to the people around you to not do anything wrong. If you do these things and the right internships and get good grades, you get to go to the best med schools or financial or legal firms or grad schools. And thus you're granted a starry lifestyle, with the expectation you won't rock the boat too much or make things difficult within the organization. When you look at the crimes of people in finance, government, academia, wherever, they're not particularly unique. If you're part of that system, you can easily see them as just doing their jobs. Of course GS screws its clients, what else are you supposed to do? That's the point of the organization. Of course you over hype your scientific results, how else will you get the next grant? Etc. My suspicion is that this is setting up a period of reckoning which won't be too pretty for people who have planned out every step of their lives.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The problem with this line of thought is that the trend has been towards a breakdown of all of these organizations. You think parents taught their kids to respect organizational authority less in the 1940's and 1950's? Of course not! Indeed, it was a far better bet half a century ago to go to the best med schools and law firms and grad schools. That was an age of monopolies and guilds and white upper class privilege. It was back when blue-blood white kids didn't have to compete against striving asian immigrants to get a seat at Harvard, back when getting into that top med school or top law firm or top investment bank was a ticket for life instead of just an opportunity to strive some more.[1] I read a compelling article recently (I can't for the life of me remember where) that makes precisely the opposite argument, which is that misconduct arises from a breakdown of stratification and the subjection of everything to competitive market pressures. In a world where what mattered is who your parents were and where you went to school and where you summered, there was substantially less incentive to fake outputs than one in which your outputs are carefully measured and compared against the outputs of your counter parts. Not that I think a meritocratic world isn't better than the one we left behind. But I find that misconduct arising from the pressures of meritocracy better fits the available data than the theory you present. [1] In 1965, a lawyer at a large firm might bill 1200-1600 hours per year, versus 1800-2200 today. This increase has been the result of the breakdown of long-term client relationships and the consequent increase in the competition for business and for rainmaker partners with business. What do you think that this increase does to the incentive structure vis-a-vis misconduct? Can you see how the same basic story has played out in many different fields, including academia?
snowwrestler 14y ago
We do live in a stable society that is not on the edge of collapse. Some faked scientific research--if it was indeed faked--is deplorable but does not mean that all our shit about to coming falling down around our ears.
- olefoo 14y ago
  It's a symptom, not a cause. Like the way a bridge will start singing in the wind long before the retaining bolts crack.[1] Certainly on a day to day level it seems stable. But if you look beneath the surface, if you ask the people around you, you will discover a vast reservoir of anger and pain, that the fabric of our society is being stressed more and more, and that we all know that a small minority profits; while the rest of us are just wondering when the other shoe will drop, and if we'll be underneath it when it lands. The thing about earthquake weather is that everything is fine, until it isn't. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge

by olefoo 14y ago

tome 14y ago

I don't agree with you, but I'll add evidence in your favour: Jimmy Savile.

DanBC 14y ago
Most of the problem was lack of trust of women making allegations, not undue deference for Savile. Other problems include lack of communication between local police forces, so a number of allegations from women in different areas don't pile up in one report. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756150 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756150) It's easy to say that these are because of deference to Savile, but let's not forget that many young women told police that they were being raped and forced to work as prostitutes and those women were also dismissed and ignored, and their attackers were not famous.

rayiner 14y ago

Oh yes, because a bunch of academics or paper-pushers at NIH have any power... The reality of why nobody addresses these concerns is: 1) It's bad publicity. Everyone is on board with making these things look good, from the universities that support this research to the federal government that spends billions funding this research. It doesn't serve anybody's interest to blow the lid on something like this. 2) It's boring. It's too esoteric to explain to the average person what actually constitutes scientific misconduct. 3) It's hard to pin down. Scientists aren't self-policing. Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work, and indeed academia has a culture of letting everyone puff up their little egos. A given academic doesn't really rip into other academics so they don't rip into him.

scott_s 14y ago
Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work From my experience reviewing papers, being privy to program committee discussions, listening to my colleagues talk, and attending conferences, I have to disagree.
- tlarkworthy 14y ago
  indeed, and the biologists are some of the harshest.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    I think everyone thinks of their own field as the harshest.
carbocation 14y ago
> Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work I haven't experienced this. What field of academia were/are you most familiar with?
HarryHirsch 14y ago
> 1) It's bad publicity. Close. The professor and the university both draw their salaries from the funding agency - the university through "indirect costs" - and understandably have little incentive to get to the bottom of the matter and risk having their grant terminated or worse.
RougeFemme 14y ago
It seems that in this case, the university was self-policiing; it just wouldn't listen to itself.

scarmig 14y ago

I'm reminded of an article that David Brooks wrote a decade ago, about the Organization Kid. Parents nowadays raise their kids to respect organizational authority with the expectation that that's not only a way to get ahead but in fact the only way to get ahead. You take tests that provide a rational ordering of who is better than who, you do as many extracurricular activities as you can to prove that you're more well-rounded than the typical person on your resume, and you listen to the people around you to not do anything wrong. If you do these things and the right internships and get good grades, you get to go to the best med schools or financial or legal firms or grad schools. And thus you're granted a starry lifestyle, with the expectation you won't rock the boat too much or make things difficult within the organization. When you look at the crimes of people in finance, government, academia, wherever, they're not particularly unique. If you're part of that system, you can easily see them as just doing their jobs. Of course GS screws its clients, what else are you supposed to do? That's the point of the organization. Of course you over hype your scientific results, how else will you get the next grant? Etc. My suspicion is that this is setting up a period of reckoning which won't be too pretty for people who have planned out every step of their lives.

rayiner 14y ago
The problem with this line of thought is that the trend has been towards a breakdown of all of these organizations. You think parents taught their kids to respect organizational authority less in the 1940's and 1950's? Of course not! Indeed, it was a far better bet half a century ago to go to the best med schools and law firms and grad schools. That was an age of monopolies and guilds and white upper class privilege. It was back when blue-blood white kids didn't have to compete against striving asian immigrants to get a seat at Harvard, back when getting into that top med school or top law firm or top investment bank was a ticket for life instead of just an opportunity to strive some more.[1] I read a compelling article recently (I can't for the life of me remember where) that makes precisely the opposite argument, which is that misconduct arises from a breakdown of stratification and the subjection of everything to competitive market pressures. In a world where what mattered is who your parents were and where you went to school and where you summered, there was substantially less incentive to fake outputs than one in which your outputs are carefully measured and compared against the outputs of your counter parts. Not that I think a meritocratic world isn't better than the one we left behind. But I find that misconduct arising from the pressures of meritocracy better fits the available data than the theory you present. [1] In 1965, a lawyer at a large firm might bill 1200-1600 hours per year, versus 1800-2200 today. This increase has been the result of the breakdown of long-term client relationships and the consequent increase in the competition for business and for rainmaker partners with business. What do you think that this increase does to the incentive structure vis-a-vis misconduct? Can you see how the same basic story has played out in many different fields, including academia?

snowwrestler 14y ago

We do live in a stable society that is not on the edge of collapse. Some faked scientific research--if it was indeed faked--is deplorable but does not mean that all our shit about to coming falling down around our ears.

olefoo 14y ago
It's a symptom, not a cause. Like the way a bridge will start singing in the wind long before the retaining bolts crack.[1] Certainly on a day to day level it seems stable. But if you look beneath the surface, if you ask the people around you, you will discover a vast reservoir of anger and pain, that the fabric of our society is being stressed more and more, and that we all know that a small minority profits; while the rest of us are just wondering when the other shoe will drop, and if we'll be underneath it when it lands. The thing about earthquake weather is that everything is fine, until it isn't. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge