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

221–227 of 227 posts

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#221

Post by alexashka »

weehoo wrote: post #207
alexashka wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll trade my credential for a few million any day of the week. Never have any takers, I wonder why.

Credentials are non transferable and non-voidable unless you are later discovered having cheated. I don’t get what point you’re trying to make here.

> The root of the problem is that we allow people with high esteemed credentials to run society.

If high credentials run society, surely somebody would offer me a bribe of a few million dollars by now, in order to make use of my 'society running' abilities.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#222

Post by rapjr9 »

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…

This is also why you see announcements of new "breakthroughs" and then nothing further ever happens. The experience is so unpleasant for many people (often compared to slavery) that they leave when they get their degree and never work on that project again. The PI's also get bored and want to do something new to keep building their reputation (so onward to the next grad student or post doc). Patents are sometimes generated, but new ideas are very difficult to take to market successfully so those that can afford to buy or license them do so very carefully (unless they want the patent to attack some competitors product.) In general there is rarely any follow through on new ideas, unless you work on projects with DARPA funding where they insist on "technology transfer", and even then many ideas turn out to be unworkable because they require additional extensive engineering for the practical aspects.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#223

Post by nl »

roel_v wrote: post #202
webmaven wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But not being included as an author on a paper, or being included when you didn't contribute that much? I've been in both situations and in some cases, I was completely fine with it; in others I was a bit miffed (mostly because of the same interpersonal frictions that happen everywhere where people work together) - but in none of those I would call it anywhere near 'fraud' or even 'dishonest'. As I understand it, g…

shrug Sure, theoretically, but someone who wants to ensure a positive review can just as easily collude with someone who didn't do any of the work. And then still - yes it's possible that a completely bogus paper gets signed off on by a dishonest conspirator, but the editor should see the discrepancy between that and the reviews of the other authors, and dig deeper. But the real problems start in the grey zone; like…

To add to this - there are plenty of issues with peer review, but someone deliberately avoiding an authorship so they can peer review seems low down the list of real world problems.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#224

Post by BurningFrog »

pas wrote: post #208
BurningFrog wrote: post #129

Starting to think it's time to close down the university system and start a new one...

Sure, but how would you organize the new one?

I'd just hope new alternatives would emerge as the old system gets out of the way.

Then we'll see what develops.

Not a selling argument, I know :)

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#225

Post by adamsea »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #218
adamsea wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is entitlement spending? These? "Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called "entitlements," because people meeting relevant eligibility requirements are legally entitled to benefits, although most pay taxes into these programs throughout their working lives." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_Sta...

Pretty much, “entitlement” isn’t a technical term but it refers to government spending on pre-defined benefit programs. A better term above might have been Non-discretionary Spending, but most of it is entitlement spending. And yes, Social Security and Medicare are the two most significant components, followed by Medicaid as the third. Those three plus interest on debt constitute the majority of the federal budget.

For sure. I was just trying to be sneaky and point out that we pay taxes for our "entitlements" so even though it's an accepted term, I think it's an inaccurate one and implies things about the programs people call "entitlement" programs which aren't true.

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#226

Post by prionassembly »

kergonath wrote: post #170
prionassembly wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, but where is your experience? Academia, industry, STEM, biosciences, the pub?

Re: Cracking down on research fraud

#227

Post by kergonath »

prionassembly wrote: post #226
kergonath wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but where is your experience? Academia, industry, STEM, biosciences, the pub?

All of them except biosciences :)

Condensed matter physics in a well-known university. But it does involve working with engineers and quite a lot of pub-going.

Post reply on HN