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

Fraud, so much fraud

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#251

Post by [deleted] »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #170
dekhn wrote: post #62

These sorts of articles raise so many thoughts and emotions in me. I was trained as a computational biologist with a little lab work and ran gels from time to time. Personally, I hated gels- they're finicky, messy, ugly, and don't really tell you very much. But molecular biology as a field runs on gels- it's the priimary source of results for almost everything in molbio. I have seen more talks and papers that rested…

> At the time (20+ years ago) it didn't occur to me that anybody would intentionally modify images of gels to promote the results they claimed Fraud I suspect is only tip of the iceberg, worse still is delusion that what is taught is factually correct. A large portion of mainstream knowledge that we call 'science' is incorrect. While fraudulent claims are relatively easy to detect, claims that are backed up by ignora…

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#252

Post by ta_1138 »

mden wrote: post #46
madmask wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, science fraud is terrible. It pollutes and breaks the scientific method. Enormous resources are wasted, not just by the fraudster but also by all the other well meaning scientists who base their work on that. In my experience no, most fraudsters are not evil people, they just follow the incentives and almost non-existent disincentives. Scientist has become just a job, you find all kinds of people th…

"most fraudsters are not evil people, they just follow the incentives and almost non-existent disincentives" Maybe I'm too idealistic but why does following incentives with no regard for secondary consequences not evil?

I have the displeasure of having acquaintances that have done some pretty bad things, of the fraud and bribery persuasion. They did so because they had no regard of the secondary cosequences. However, this didn't mean 'I understand this horrible secondary consequence is going to happen, but I don't care'. That would be evil. Instead, it's more common to not dedicate an iota of time at thinking of possible negative effects at all.

You'll see this all over risky startups. What starts as hopeful optimism only becomes fraud over time, when the consequences of not committing fraud also seem horrible. It's easy to follow the road until all your choices are horrible in different ways, and they pick the one better for the people around them, yet worse for everyone else.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#253

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

owenpalmer wrote: post #200
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the time (20+ years ago) it didn't occur to me that anybody would intentionally modify images of gels to promote the results they claimed Fraud I suspect is only tip of the iceberg, worse still is delusion that what is taught is factually correct. A large portion of mainstream knowledge that we call 'science' is incorrect. While fraudulent claims are relatively easy to detect, claims that are backed up by ignora…

> A large portion of mainstream knowledge that we call 'science' is incorrect. How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically? > claims that are backed up by ignorance/delusion In that case, they are not "backed up" > I will not offer to back up my above statements > an individual has to learn it on their own, through ... inquiry May I "inquire" about your reasoning?

owenpalmer, as I stated in my side note I will not be explaining myself, my sincere apologies for this.

You see there are some things that cannot be taught, or it cannot be easily taught more so for adults i.e healthy skepticism and questioning of statements/facts that come from authority figures ( example:science/religion etc). A person will have to make his or her own effort. External influences especially debates from the heretics will generally only delay that progress.

Now, if you're already open to the possibility that mainstream science could be very wrong, I can possibly nudge you in the correct direction. I have explored certain areas of biology (especially nutrition) but not all, each sub area of biology (or any of the sciences really) is vast, I have to rely on heretics who are 'experts' in their areas of specialization.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#254

Post by __turbobrew__ »

mlsu wrote: post #80
jimbokun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recommendation is for journals to place at least equal importance to publishing replications as for the original studies. Studies that have not been replicated should be published clearly marked as preliminary results. And then other scientists can pick those up and try to replicate them. And institutions need to give near equal weight to replications as to original research when deciding on promotions. Should be…

We can solve this at the grant level. Stipulate that for every new paper a group publishes from a grant, that group must also publish a replication of an existing finding. Publication would happen in pairs, so that every novel thing would be matched with a replication. Replications could be matched with grants: if you receive $100,000 grant, you'd get the $100,000 you need, plus another $100,000 which you could use t…

That doesn’t fix the incentives, people will just commit fraud when replicating results so they can perform more original research.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#255

Post by breuleux »

jimbokun wrote: post #54
eig wrote: post #44

This sort of behavior is only going to worsen in the coming decades as academics become more desperate. It's a prisoner's dilemma: if everyone is exaggerating their results you have to as well or you will be fired. It's even more dire for the thousands of visa students. The situation is similar to the "Market for lemons" in cars: if the market is polluted with lemons (fake papers), you are disincentivized to publish…

My recommendation is for journals to place at least equal importance to publishing replications as for the original studies. Studies that have not been replicated should be published clearly marked as preliminary results. And then other scientists can pick those up and try to replicate them. And institutions need to give near equal weight to replications as to original research when deciding on promotions. Should be…

I'd be careful about that. Faking replications is even easier than faking research, so if you place a lot of importance on them, expect the rate of fraud in replication studies to explode.

This is a very difficult problem to solve.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#256

Post by throwawaymaths »

momoschili wrote: post #191
antisthenes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similar - when I was younger, I would never have suspected that a scientist was committing fraud. Unfortunately many less bright people seem to interpret this as "never trust science", when in reality science is still the best way to push humanity forward and alleviate human suffering, _despite_ all the fraud and misaligned incentives that may influence it.

Agree. The fact that we are seeing this kind of discourse within the scientific community is in my opinion a great argument for the scientific method.

How's this for scientific method. The response to "not trust science" is the inductive step of a model that is validated by the fucking evidence.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#257

Post by pphysch »

ramoz wrote: post #241

Verifiable computing and data lineage are important mitigation to be developed here.

Not clear whether it would be a net benefit, adding constraints and complexity to the scientific process which will be skipped whenever possible by underpaid labrats. Also, GIGO.

Need to tackle the incentives directly.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#258

Post by timeon »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #253
owenpalmer wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A large portion of mainstream knowledge that we call 'science' is incorrect. How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically? > claims that are backed up by ignorance/delusion In that case, they are not "backed up" > I will not offer to back up my above statements > an individual has to learn it on their own, through ... inquiry May I "inquire" about your reasoning?

owenpalmer, as I stated in my side note I will not be explaining myself, my sincere apologies for this. You see there are some things that cannot be taught, or it cannot be easily taught more so for adults i.e healthy skepticism and questioning of statements/facts that come from authority figures ( example:science/religion etc). A person will have to make his or her own effort. External influences especially debates…

Sorry but this seems like bit longer version of 'do your own research'.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#259

Post by NemoNobody »

AlbertCory wrote: post #116
masswerk wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is really a societal/political issue: since we decided that economic capital is king and symbolic capital not that much… (This is really the story of the last four decades or so.)

There are some people who think everything is "a societal/political issue." But that one-dimensional view is boring. Life is more than politics.

Life may be more than politics but all of life is inherently political.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#260

Post by jimbokun »

breuleux wrote: post #255
jimbokun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recommendation is for journals to place at least equal importance to publishing replications as for the original studies. Studies that have not been replicated should be published clearly marked as preliminary results. And then other scientists can pick those up and try to replicate them. And institutions need to give near equal weight to replications as to original research when deciding on promotions. Should be…

I'd be careful about that. Faking replications is even easier than faking research, so if you place a lot of importance on them, expect the rate of fraud in replication studies to explode. This is a very difficult problem to solve.

To elaborate, you need to give equal value to well implemented studies failing to replicate a result, as you do to studies replicating a result.
Post reply on HN