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

381–390 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#381

Post by neura »

griffzhowl wrote: post #293
infamouscow wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Manhattan project was a government project that was run like a startup. If such a project happened today, academic scientists would be trying to figure out ways to bend their existing research to match the grants. Then it would take another 30 years before people started to ask why nothing has been delivered yet.

Run like a startup in what respect? It was a massive government-directed military project in wartime that was able to recruit all the top theoretical physicists at the time around a common aim in an urgent technological arms race to build the bomb. It included a vast effort of army engineers to build the facilities to process the fuel and so on. I'm not seeing the parallels with startups.

Even your description sounds like a startup, to me.

There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime). Recruiting the top talent. Urgency (beat everybody else to the punch). Outsourcing the building of infrastructure while you focus on the unique/hard part.

I'm not seeing how you can't see the parallels with startups.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#382

Post by matthewdgreen »

mike_hearn wrote: post #365
SkyMarshal wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Publishing and citations can and are gamed, but is impact also gamed on a wide scale? That one seems harder to fake. Either a result is true and useful, or it's not.

Actual real world impact? Hard to game. But, nobody measures that. Everything that's tracked is a circularly defined success metric (you're successful if other academics consider you successful).

The article mentions that there are two drugs that resulted from this research. One of them failed a trial recently. Nobody knows if this fraud means that the drug never could have worked, or if this was just bad luck. So yes: people do measure real-world impact. It's just that it takes a very long time and there are plenty of confounding factors, since even non-fraudulent drug research can fail.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#383

Post by bashfulpup »

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…

I love this, do tell the direction to be nudged in.

I wish to experience this new level of understanding.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#384

Post by jonhohle »

mike_hearn wrote: post #365
SkyMarshal wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Publishing and citations can and are gamed, but is impact also gamed on a wide scale? That one seems harder to fake. Either a result is true and useful, or it's not.

Actual real world impact? Hard to game. But, nobody measures that. Everything that's tracked is a circularly defined success metric (you're successful if other academics consider you successful).

Convince (lobby) a politician that your research will save the trees/whales/global warming/end starvation/any other fear inducing thing and get funding to bribe (lobby) more politicians to further your “research” until anyone would be a fool to question the science.

I feel like this same story happens every year and people are surprised. I often wonder how many “academic” or “scientific” quotes to not conflate valid research and study) need to happen before it becomes as distrusted as politicians.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#385

Post by jonhohle »

almostgotcaught wrote: post #371
testfoobar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar - when I was younger, I would never have suspected that a scientist was committing fraud. As I've gotten older, I understand that Charlie Munger's observation "“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” is applicable everywhere - including science. Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their caree…

> Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their careers lol arguably? i would bet my generous, non-academia, industry salary for the next 10 years, that there's not a single academic with a citation count over say ... 50k (ostensibly the most successful academic) that isn't gaming the system. - signed someone who got their phd at "prestigous" uni under a guy with >100k citations

Username checks out.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#386

Post by mike_hearn »

daedrdev wrote: post #28

Is there no liability for the author? There are billions of dollars wasted in drug trials and research that can be tied to this fraud. Surely they can face some legal issues due to this?

The US has the Office for Research Integrity which can prosecute scientific fraud cases, but it only does a handful of cases per year.

To put the scale of this problem in perspective, the ORI was set up in the 1970s after Congress became concerned at widespread reports of scientific fraud. It clearly didn't work, but hangs around regardless.

It's ultimately a culture problem. Until academics have the same level of respect as ordinary corporate employees, you're going to get judges and juries who let them off scott free.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#387

Post by atmavatar »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #295
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It becomes a survival bias: if people can cheat at a competitive game (or research field) and get away with it, then at the end you'll wind up with only cheaters left (everyone else stops playing).

As they say: the scum rises to the top, true for academia, politics etc, any organization really. Quote: "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" My own nuanced take on it: Incompetent people are quick to grab authority and power. On the other hand principled, competent people are reluctant to take on positions of authority and power even when offered. For these people positions…

Those you'd want to lead recognize leadership is a responsibility often times marked by personal sacrifice.

Those you'd never want to lead mostly regard leadership as a privilege used for personal gain.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#388

Post by [deleted] »

jvanderbot wrote: post #370
momoschili wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, but you are clearly missing the historical context as these were two highly celebrated and referenced texts of the time period by leading scientists. However, it appears that the leading scientific minds (of which Maxwell and Whittaker are) did not include these uses in their texts. I do not dispute that science can be wrong (in fact it is almost always 'wrong' in the end) nor do I dispute that there could ha…

And what's to say that other highly celebrated and highly referenced texts from that time were not based on bad science or were outright frauds? Your memory of them? Picking the winners as examples is not good sampling.

[deleted]

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#389

Post by jonhohle »

lupire wrote: post #311
drevil-v2 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In defence of the "less bright people" or deplorables as others have called them - they are deeply suspicious of Science(tm) used as a cudgel. They intuit that some parasitic entity or entities has latched on to Science and is co-opting it for it's own gain to achieve it's own purposes which run counter to the interests of the people. The heavy handed Covid response and censorship is a prime example of that. The whol…

You're not wrong, but people who oppose "science as a cudgel" tend to support "religion as a cudgel", and don't see a difference between science and religion, except that one is the Yellow team and one is the Purple team, and they have a preferred color.

When the public is told to “trust the science”, it is no longer science and is now religion.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#390

Post by sally_glance »

huijzer wrote: post #308
testfoobar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar - when I was younger, I would never have suspected that a scientist was committing fraud. As I've gotten older, I understand that Charlie Munger's observation "“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.” is applicable everywhere - including science. Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their caree…

> Academic scientists' careers are driven by publishing, citations and impact. Arguably some have figured how to game the system to advance their careers. Science be damned. I’ve talked to multiple professors about this and I think it’s not because they don’t care about science. They just care more about their career. And I don’t blame them. It’s a slippery slope and once you notice other people who start beating you…

Citizen science may be a direct response to these circumstances. When you think about it, it's basically just people who love science but _don't_ depend on it for income.
Post reply on HN