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

Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 123 posts

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#11

Post by komali2 »

teekert wrote: post #4

“… the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.” “Probably good for science”? That is science!

It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts:

> The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”

I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#12

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

smcin wrote: post #6

[tl;dr] US District Court dismisses Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit against Harvard Business School and DataColada scientist-bloggers (Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons). The judge allowed Gino's breach of contract claim against Harvard to continue. DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by Simine Vazire [ https:…

Do universities typically go to bat for their faculty? Presumably the blog investigation is not done with any direct university involvement.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#13

Post by apwheele »

While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motions and responses are a non-trivial amount of work.

Do folks have a sense of how much the costs would have been just to get dismissed for DC? Seems to be definitely over 10k (50k?) Or am I overestimating.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#14

Post by bluGill »

kortilla wrote: post #9
teekert wrote: post #4

“… the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.” “Probably good for science”? That is science!

Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation

In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#15

Post by bugglebeetle »

bluGill wrote: post #14
kortilla wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation

In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.

The same is true in Japan. Very few are aware of how little press freedoms and speech rights are protected there and have regressed further under assault from the ruling LDP party.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#16

Post by cortesoft »

bluGill wrote: post #14
kortilla wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation

In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.

My understanding is it is a little more nuanced than that.

The truth is still an absolute defense against defamation in the UK, just like it is in the US, but the difference is who the burden of proof is on.

In the US, it is up to the person suing for defamation to prove the statements were false AND that the person knew them to be false when they said them (or should have known they were false).

In the UK, for someone to use the truth as an absolute defense, they have to prove the statements were true, which is often not very easy.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#17

Post by teractiveodular »

apwheele wrote: post #13

While a favorable ruling for the Data Colada defendants seemed incredibly likely in the end (and of course being dismissed pre-trial before discovery is a good thing). But it still took over a year, and consisted of several pre-trial hearings with multiple back and forths between them. If I ctrl-f https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259... I see Pyle (their lawyer) listed 11 times. All the motion…

I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't get out of bed for $10k:

https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/

Although given that the New Yorker stated that Pyle "appeared not only professionally but personally incensed by the fact of the lawsuit", perhaps some of the work was pro bono.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-a-scientific-di...

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#18

Post by smcin »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #12
smcin wrote: post #6

[tl;dr] US District Court dismisses Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit against Harvard Business School and DataColada scientist-bloggers (Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons). The judge allowed Gino's breach of contract claim against Harvard to continue. DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by Simine Vazire [ https:…

Do universities typically go to bat for their faculty? Presumably the blog investigation is not done with any direct university involvement.

I can't comment, but it's a truly bizarre spectacle to see research integrity being upheld by three public-minded researchers (one of them based in Spain) and a defense fund on GoFundMe organized by an Australian academic. The academic publishers didn't fund them and neither did the funders of the research. We need a discussion about frameworks to fund misconduct researchers (including related legal defense), also about pressures to publish irreproducible results with mediagenic, counterfactual findings.

The entity with the least incentive to fully investigate HBS is, paradoxically... HBS itself... because questions have been raised about multiple other coauthors, the reputational and financial consequences and wrongful termination claims look set to run for a decade. Some have conjectured that whenever the full facts are finally disclosed, this scandal will take out the reputation of Harvard in general (not just HBS, or Behavioral Economics as a field, or priming), or all the Ivies, at least for business-school.

Re: Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation

#19

Post by appendix-rock »

bluGill wrote: post #14
kortilla wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation

In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.

Very ‘ironic’ that this is quite a…dishonest representation of the truth.
Post reply on HN