Cracking down on research fraud

Post by henriquemaia » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 6:22 AM UTC

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…

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 6:46 AM UTC

adminprof wrote: post #143

martincmartin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

This entire thread is really frustrating for me to read. A lot of these ideas are one-liners from people who have had very little experience with different parts of academia, except maybe being a student. Every single idea here are debated to death by academics already (not just university academics, but funding agencies, academic societies, award panels, journal editors and conference organizers), with changes happe…

Post by henriquemaia » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 7:17 AM UTC

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…

Post by rscho » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 7:38 AM UTC

moralestapia wrote: post #121

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…

>labs operate largely as fiefdoms of the individual principal investigators To add to the injury, you wouldn't believe the extent of the actions to which some PIs become engaged in order to attain/preserve their 'power'. Illegal, unethical and pathetic. The core problem is that PIs are human, and humans are flawed. The solution (if there is one) should take this into account, and somehow try to reduce it systematical…

Post by TrackerFF » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 8:12 AM UTC

shuckles wrote: post #159

logicslave wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the point is that the gap in the middle often doesn't matter. I've hung around the Stanford crowd and as I enter my thirties I am awestruck by the opportunities they have regardless of what they have done since graduation. The credential is almost all that matters, as long as they dont mess up massively. A common path is: Graduate Stanford => Work at Mckinsey => Get hired into VC. Graduate Stanford => Raise 1…

Of every 2,000 graduating seniors at Stanford every year, far less than 1% end up in top consulting companies. Even fewer raise a Series A 2-3 years out of school. I am personally not so shocked that these individuals end up succeeding at other social games. They have a track record of doing so.