Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cracking down on research fraud

undark.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 227 posts

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#161

Post by shuckles »

logicslave wrote: post #96
shuckles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have 15 years of finance experience as you “enter your thirties”?

You got me, poor wording. My father worked at a very high level in influential investment funds, I grew up around the industry and understand how it works. I will delete this later because its not something I want to advertise

It sounds like you have a background and exposure to people who might have many enabling success factors. Shiny credentials might be one but social networks are another. Collectively, they might be contributing to the success you suggest is not deserved, but I’m not sure that’s an obvious argument. People of these backgrounds could probably game any gating ritual.

Perhaps we should focus on drawing more actual talent rather than excluding the phonies (even at the highest levels, status and influence isn’t zero sum in my experience).

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#162

Post by ivalm »

jasonhong wrote: post #130
dasudasu wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic of funding is a recurrent one in these types of discussions. There are always more people wanting to do science than what is available in funding. There needs to be a process to allocate resources that takes into account competency for the job. Just granting it at random or equally is probably very very far from optimal if it means that an exceptional PI cannot even do the things to push his/her research to…

To followup, I believe there's a subtle problem with funding in general, which is that increasing the funding available means that more research positions will be created, which means that eventually grant proposals go back to the same dismal funding rates they were before.

That's an interesting Malthusian argument. I think I mostly agree in a sense that vast majority of PhD students I know had plans of staying in academia but had to join industry precisely because lack of resources. But if there were more resources and they did join academia they would then oversee an even greater number of grad students until we again hit subsistence.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#163

Post by TomMarius »

wisty wrote: post #135
dasudasu wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic of funding is a recurrent one in these types of discussions. There are always more people wanting to do science than what is available in funding. There needs to be a process to allocate resources that takes into account competency for the job. Just granting it at random or equally is probably very very far from optimal if it means that an exceptional PI cannot even do the things to push his/her research to…

> Just granting it at random or equally is probably very very far from optimal if it means that an exceptional PI cannot even do the things to push his/her research to the next level. What does "far from optimal" mean? Let's pretend the allocators are not god-like decision makers (if they are, let's fire all the scientists because our god-like decision makers can do the research for them). Let's just accept that if w…

Why do you need unlimited wisdom to rate the merits of the people?

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#164

Post by moralestapia »

exmadscientist wrote: post #158
moralestapia wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1% of research is fraud You are way, waaaaaay underestimating the extent of the problem.

I think you didn't understand the grandparent poster's point. They're arguing, basically, that only 1% of research is deliberate fraud, but 80% is simply useless garbage. The reasons for the garbage are varied, but any way you slice it, it's worthless. So why worry so much about the maliciously useless when there's so much incompetent uselessness? That matches my experience back when I was an active researcher. Inten…

Perhaps I was in an extremely corrupt environment (which eventually made me leave), but I would put the "intentional fraud" rate as high as 30% or so. I pointed out one of such instances once and that was the beginning of the end for me in that place.

More: My field was Biology. No one double checks anyone or anything. A measurement comes back and you can just pretty much ignore it, in the end you just write whatever you need for your thesis to hold (I mean not me, but that's pretty much everybody's dirty secret). In the rare case that someone actually wants to check it out (1 in 1,000), you can just say that the "original data was lost". Sometimes the only thing you can trace back is some sort of written journal, in which anybody could write anything and that doesn't make it true/false.

Not long ago, there was a group of scientists that went on to try to replicate some landmark results on cancer research (I'll update with a good reference if I find it) and found out that only a very low number of them matched their observations. Some of those were not even close ... like, waaaay outside a very generous experimental margin of error.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#165

Post by exmadscientist »

moralestapia wrote: post #164
exmadscientist wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you didn't understand the grandparent poster's point. They're arguing, basically, that only 1% of research is deliberate fraud, but 80% is simply useless garbage. The reasons for the garbage are varied, but any way you slice it, it's worthless. So why worry so much about the maliciously useless when there's so much incompetent uselessness? That matches my experience back when I was an active researcher. Inten…

Perhaps I was in an extremely corrupt environment (which eventually made me leave), but I would put the "intentional fraud" rate as high as 30% or so. I pointed out one of such instances once and that was the beginning of the end for me in that place. More: My field was Biology. No one double checks anyone or anything. A measurement comes back and you can just pretty much ignore it, in the end you just write whatever…

Ouch. Things certainly do vary from field to field and I was in one of the better ones (particle physics), so I believe you.

Given how hard an environment it is even in the honest research groups, that must have been awful.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#166

Post by Beldin »

dasudasu wrote: post #97
gwerbret wrote: post #77

These issues of research fraud come up often, but the root of the problem is a bit more subtle. In North America at least, biomedical research labs operate largely as fiefdoms of the individual principal investigators (PIs). The actual research work falls almost entirely on the backs of grad students and postdoctoral fellows. The grad students need to generate "good" data in order to graduate, the postdocs need the s…

The topic of funding is a recurrent one in these types of discussions. There are always more people wanting to do science than what is available in funding. There needs to be a process to allocate resources that takes into account competency for the job. Just granting it at random or equally is probably very very far from optimal if it means that an exceptional PI cannot even do the things to push his/her research to…

> There needs to be a process to allocate resources that takes into account competency for the job.

Counterpoint: the current system doesn't do this. It optimises for competency to attract funding. This occasionally overlaps wroth competency to perform good research, or competency to perform research well, or competency to oversee, nurture and guide research in others. But that is far from given.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#167

Post by raister »

gwerbret wrote: post #77

These issues of research fraud come up often, but the root of the problem is a bit more subtle. In North America at least, biomedical research labs operate largely as fiefdoms of the individual principal investigators (PIs). The actual research work falls almost entirely on the backs of grad students and postdoctoral fellows. The grad students need to generate "good" data in order to graduate, the postdocs need the s…

> with only about 10% gaining faculty positions themselves after many years of postdoctoral training

There are no (steady) places for everyone, sadly. That's the way things are, where they demand postdocs to be extra productive, promising a permanent position somewhere (or a letter of recommendation, whatever).

Currently, the postdoc 'experience' has multiple names: research associate, research fellow, research engineer like it is a 'career' to pursue, with minimal benefits, salary attached to research projects (so it could stop at the end), etc.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#168

Post by moralestapia »

kovac wrote: post #20
viburnum wrote: post #19

A friend of mine was doing a chemistry phd when he discovered his supervisor was falsifying data. If he had blown the whistle it would have ended his career, but if he had played along his dissertation would have been based on false data. Both options were bad so he just quit. https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/25/postdocs-grad-students-f...

That's some guts to do the right thing. Respect.

Huh? But he didn't ... he just fled.

When I started my PhD I became tangled in a similar situation. I denounced it and it got me kicked out of that program. I had to start over, but I would do it again if the situation called for it. No amount of money or "awards" compensate for having a dishonorable life.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#169

Post by aaron695 »

Gatsky wrote: post #136
aaron695 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He specifically mentions comments like yours are not helpful. This is the researcher fraud that is the problem in science that we are talking about, issues at hand are ignored or twisted so the paper mill can continue. The concept is all mice in the USA come from one laboratory and have a common attribute that's different from wild mice and European suppliers. And it's spelt out how in theory this different attribute…

I've heard everything he said. I'm well aware of the concept. Again, everyone knows that all mice come from the same place (because it's written in the papers), and that they are very different to wild mice or mice from elsewhere. I also didn't say we don't have proof that it is a problem. Again, all models are imperfect, but some are useful. I am telling you what I see as the significance of Weinstein's findings as…

You are still saying what Weinstein said you would say.

Weinstein has laid out a case. It theoretically makes sense. It is quantifiable. He makes a good argument it is massively significant. If confirmed it is fixable. If confirmed it means things in other fields.

This is in pop culture, anyone researching with mice should have heard of it, so the fact no one can whip out an article disputing it says a lot.

Science is broken and scientists are not to be trusted. I think this is a good test case how science deals with this and if it can actually move forward. It needs a good rebuttal to address the issue.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#170

Post by kergonath »

prionassembly wrote: post #139
canjobear wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another variant of the incentive problem is more insidious. Many academics are driven by ego, and specifically a desire to be influential. One way to be influential is to have great, original, and correct ideas. This can be a good incentive, but coupled with our human ability to deceive ourselves, it can become pathological. I’ve seen researchers get convinced that their ideas are so beautiful and right-feeling that…

> I’ve seen researchers get convinced Where have you seen them?

This confirmation bias is everywhere. As in, “this calculation looks off, we should re-run it” or “this number is wrong, let’s call it an outlier”. Sometimes there’s a good reason, sometimes it’s wishful thinking and they are hoping the next one will be more “correct”. Distinguishing the two is not always easy, either.

From my experience, it is checked most of the time before it becomes fraud, though.

Post reply on HN