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

‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#101

Post by kmmlng »

tptacek wrote: post #17
BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #6

at the end of the day, all of academia is part of the larger "publishing industry"... though I think that to keep up with the scale, maybe I should call it "publishing institution " (alongside, government institutions, organized crime institutions (arguably blended with the government in some places ), industrial institutions, and merchant institutions like banks) so then, journalism was the first to be redrawn by th…

When people talk about stories like this they're invariably discussing the numerator without the denominator. Count up every story about research malpractice that has ever been on HN, and you're not even in the vicinity of 1% of all the research done every year; a truly huge amount of research is published every year, in every field.

This is true, but as in many areas, power laws apply. The vast majority of research has very low impact and mostly serves fulfilling publication quotas. There is likely plenty of scientific fraud happening in lower tier publications as well, but no one notices because no one cares.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#102

Post by fluoridation »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #87

From the article -- "...after researcher Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, was discovered to have falsified data. In Schön’s case, and in his own experience, Muller says, 'people who fake data tend not to do it just once'." I think this is the "money shot" here, but I admit I am biased :-). I got into a heated debate years ago over the "harshness" of treating students who cheated on an exam.…

No, corruption arises when people lose faith in the system and its rules. Using harsh punishments doesn't work, if some people can pull strings with acquaintances to get themselves out of trouble. A system where every infraction has a minor punishment can work without corruption, if everyone believes everyone else will act honestly.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#103

Post by moritzwarhier »

cycomanic wrote: post #94
ChuckMcM wrote: post #87

From the article -- "...after researcher Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, was discovered to have falsified data. In Schön’s case, and in his own experience, Muller says, 'people who fake data tend not to do it just once'." I think this is the "money shot" here, but I admit I am biased :-). I got into a heated debate years ago over the "harshness" of treating students who cheated on an exam.…

The serious question that arises from your argument is, should we apply this stance to all parts of life. Should drivers loose their licence indefinitely if they drive to fast or park wrong? Should we chop of the hand of thieves (or maybe forbid them to enter any stores)?

It depends, better comparison would be the test drive where you acquire your license (sry, can't find the word, not a native speaker).

Since it's about exams, right? I'd say, at school tolerance is appropriate, but at university deliberate and definite cheating justifies at least being recorded like a triple-fail at that particular exam IMO. Which in Europe, AfAIK would mean being "expelled" from your main course if it's a mandatory exam.

Not sure if all the details are right but I am all for harsh penalties for certain kinds or cheating in high-stakes situations.

With "high stakes", I particularly mean things like university exams or scientifc publications, not every violation of the ethical and/or formal rule sets of society in general.

Another example would be a physician who was caught doing something that intentionally and significantly violates the rule set for physicians, endangering his patients: it's not negligience, it's malicious.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#104

Post by sfink »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #87

From the article -- "...after researcher Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, was discovered to have falsified data. In Schön’s case, and in his own experience, Muller says, 'people who fake data tend not to do it just once'." I think this is the "money shot" here, but I admit I am biased :-). I got into a heated debate years ago over the "harshness" of treating students who cheated on an exam.…

But the cultural expectation has shifted. AFAICT, it is now expected that people will cheat as a matter of course.

That may have happened because of past leniency, but at this point expelling students is shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

If 10% of students cheat, you can hold the line through punishment. If 80% of students cheat, you have a systemic problem, and beating students is only going to produce better cheaters. The whole structure is now set up to strongly disadvantage those who don't cheat, and once that happens, the decision to cheat ceases to be a moral one.

I went to school during the last century. I did not cheat. Cheating was already pretty common, I knew of plenty of people who did cheat, but the norm (as I understood it) was still to not cheat. If I were go to school today, I'm not sure what I would do. It would depend partly on the stakes.

It's like being an honest politician. You can feel good and pat yourself on the back, but you'll never get elected. (Ok, "honest" may not be the best word for it. Someone who measures the effects of various things and governs accordingly rather than by how popular and marketable positions are, and refuses to make deals that go against principles.)

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#105

Post by kmmlng »

rcxdude wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about stories like this they're invariably discussing the numerator without the denominator. Count up every story about research malpractice that has ever been on HN, and you're not even in the vicinity of 1% of all the research done every year; a truly huge amount of research is published every year, in every field.

The question is how much of that stuff is fraudulent or at least suspect: you'll find that most scientists are skeptical of a large fraction of papers published in their field, there is a lot of crap that gets through peer review, and most will not get openly questioned because it's a lot of effort and quite high-risk, especially if it's a result that's of low importance.

Yes, the label "peer review" is meaningless. There are good peer review processes at top journals and conferences and getting through those is a meaningful accomplishment. Then there are also worthless peer review processes at lower quality avenues. Getting through those is like getting a participation trophy. Yes, you need to show up on time, but not much more than that.

The real peer review happens afterwards, when other researchers actually engage with your work.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#107

Post by rcxdude »

shortlongterm wrote: post #82
rcxdude wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a slap in the face? The point is the metrics by which academia judges science have been divorced from what actually produces good science for a while (and you'll find very few scientists who disagree with that), but it does reward cheaters quite well.

Short term or long term? Sure in the short term dishonesty might work for a scientist but long term? Legacy after death? I'm not so sure on that. Surely the conditions for being a professional academic are much more favorable than times in the past. (By virtue only that University is more accessible to more people today than any other time) Just because we see flaws today doesn't mean that those flaws can not be 'fix…

Well, cheaters are generally more interested in the short term than the long term, and non-cheaters have to content with it too, before they can get to the long term.

> Surely the conditions for being a professional academic are much more favorable than times in the past. (By virtue only that University is more accessible to more people today than any other time)

If anything this has made things worse in the current system, because it has grown so much more competitive. Competition is good only so far as success in the competition is based on contributing to the overall goal, and academia lacks a good alignment between that and rewards, so the competition has some fairly significant negative effects.

I agree there are likely ways to fix the current system, but it will require a concerted effort from many directions, as the current incentive structure rewards many in the current system for perpetuating it.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#108

Post by burnished »

sfink wrote: post #104
ChuckMcM wrote: post #87

From the article -- "...after researcher Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, was discovered to have falsified data. In Schön’s case, and in his own experience, Muller says, 'people who fake data tend not to do it just once'." I think this is the "money shot" here, but I admit I am biased :-). I got into a heated debate years ago over the "harshness" of treating students who cheated on an exam.…

But the cultural expectation has shifted. AFAICT, it is now expected that people will cheat as a matter of course. That may have happened because of past leniency, but at this point expelling students is shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. If 10% of students cheat, you can hold the line through punishment. If 80% of students cheat, you have a systemic problem, and beating students is only going to prod…

Disagree. I went to university within the last five years - cheating was rampant but tended to produce students who seriously struggled to keep up with coursework in their third and fourth year. I did not cheat and was typically one of the top performers in my courses.

However we may be operating under different assumptions; there was no assumption of grade curving (it happened a few times when an exam was a little over juiced, but it pulled people into a passing grade instead of pushing people into a failing one). On reflection it sounds like you are anticipating a curve designed to flunk a certain portion of students. I'm not sure if one or the other is the 'default' experience these days.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#109

Post by Gibbon1 »

cycomanic wrote: post #94
ChuckMcM wrote: post #87

From the article -- "...after researcher Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, was discovered to have falsified data. In Schön’s case, and in his own experience, Muller says, 'people who fake data tend not to do it just once'." I think this is the "money shot" here, but I admit I am biased :-). I got into a heated debate years ago over the "harshness" of treating students who cheated on an exam.…

The serious question that arises from your argument is, should we apply this stance to all parts of life. Should drivers loose their licence indefinitely if they drive to fast or park wrong? Should we chop of the hand of thieves (or maybe forbid them to enter any stores)?

The difference is a college degree is a cert issued by the state. It's not unfair for part of the cert is the presumption that the person is honest. And to deny cert to people known to be dishonest.

Disclosure. I never cheated in college and have a hunch that people trying to make excuses for cheaters are cheaters themselves.

Re: ‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction for controversial physicist

#110

Post by ertian »

constantcrying wrote: post #18
vouaobrasil wrote: post #10

It may be a person's instinct to immediately blame the researcher, and of course, I definitely think data fabrication is never justified. However, what is the societal problem here? It's the problem that in academia, there are such pressures to publish and be first nowadays that many people will do anything to get ahead. It doesn't help that social media and news sites have introduced a sort of gamification into it.…

>It's the problem that in academia, there are such pressures to publish and be first nowadays that many people will do anything to get ahead. If you can not do honest work in academia you should leave and go work somewhere else. Fraud is not the correct reaction to the problems of academia, as it actively hurts it even more. Nobody is forced to do academic research for a living, especially if you have a degree in phy…

Remember when Lance Armstrong got in big trouble for taking performance-enhancing drugs for the Tour de France, and he was lambasted in the media?

That might have been right and proper. But years later, I read that of the top 30 finalists that year, every single one was taking performance-enhancing drugs. Presumably the same was true in previous years. Armstrong just happened to be the first-place finalist in a year where they finally had the ability to start testing.

In a case like that, it's not enough to say "if you can't bike fast without steroids, then biking isn't for you!" If cheating is pervasive, those who can't or don't cheat will fall behind and quit, and all that's left will be those willing to cheat. From the POV of Science writ large, if the culture is rotten then the incentives must be changed. You can't rely on the independent integrity of every individual not to cheat, or you'll just end up with only cheaters.

Post reply on HN