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

561–570 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#561

Post by aliasxneo »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #547
aliasxneo wrote: post #377

I wonder if there's evidence of fraud _increasing_ or if the detection methods are just improving. In my last workplace, self-evaluation (and, therefore, self-promotion) was mandatory on a semi-annual cycle and heavily tied to compensation. It's not surprising that it became a breeding ground for fraud. Outside of a strong moral conviction (which I would argue is in declining), these sorts of systems will likely alwa…

You're definitely seeing the consequences of papers being written in the past when large-scale fraudulent analysis wasn't that feasible, and now you have all this tech that can scoop it up and look for those "needle in a haystack" instances of fraud. I'm thinking about all the plagiarism issues uncovered with the publications of the former Harvard president Claudine Gay (and, similarly, of Neri Oxman, the wife of Bil…

That's an interesting perspective. We tend to make judgments based on what's possible today, not twenty years from now (obviously, there are exceptions, like privacy). So it's easy to fall into sloppiness and not expect consequences. Maybe there's a lesson here...

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#562

Post by mustang-med »

My career has been in this space (medical research, not neuroscience) and I honestly cannot fathom how this happened. I don't understand how a researcher can wake up one day, manipulate data, and then show it to others. I feel bad for everyone's time that was wasted in building off this research, likely other's careers were chartered based on the basis of this research. What a shame.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#563

Post by jshdhehe »

nativeit wrote: post #543
fluoridation wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it's difficult to tell if the subplot makes sense on purpose, or if the writers just wanted to make a joke and it just happened to end up making sense. I don't think I had ever put the three scenes together before now.

One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and…

Goofy cartoon but I always thought it was very cleverly done in parts. The laugh followed by "fuck life is actually like that" aftertaste.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#564

Post by infamouscow »

griffzhowl wrote: post #473
neura wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In that case any high-priority military intelligence project is "like a startup". Why say that it's run like a startup as opposed to just saying it was run like a high-priority military-intelligence project? The GP suggested that a reason for the success of the Manhattan project was that it was run like a startup, whereas it seems more illuminating to point out that it was a massively funded military project in warti…

In a startup—especially one that is heavily funded, like a government—roadblocks that can be resolved by eliminating paperwork, cutting through bureaucracy, or simply by paying money, tend to disappear.

No serious person can argue this being plausible today. Sam Altman will drop 10B at a blink of an eye if it means unblocking a major problem for OpenAI.

The government spends 10x that all of the time without anything impressive to speak of since the moon landing.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#565

Post by ClumsyPilot »

neura wrote: post #381
griffzhowl wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Even your description sounds like a dtartup There was a hook to get the funding (easy to get weapons funding in wartime

Huh? Decision was made by the president Roosevelt, advised by government agencies and even Albert einstein.

This is like top-down, command economy with elements of technocracy. There are no investors, no markets, etc.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#566

Post by jshdhehe »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #472
molave wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disheartening to think that the virtues you are told to have as a kid are considered "weak sauce" once you are an adult.

The reason many people hate children is because children are not satisfied with the level of epistemology that most people can provide them, and have no compunction in saying “that answer is unsatisfactory” Hence why institutional pedagogy is so often rote and has nothing to do with understanding - when we know science of learning says that every human craves understanding (montessori, piaget etc…) In fact, the short…

Those questions esp 1, 3, 5 sound almost like therapy. Maybe CBT, ACT?

Good orgs would ask at all 5 in every power gradient direction: so peers, managers, ICs, execs ... although not for everything as you would grind to a halt!

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#567

Post by hilux »

hovden wrote: post #546
hilux wrote: post #129

I shared this article with an MD/PhD friend who has done research at two of the three most famous science universities in America ... and she said "this [not this guy, this phenomenon] is why I left science." Maybe it's like elite running - everyone who stays competitive above a certain level is cheating, and if you want to enjoy watching the sport, you just learn to look the other way. Except that the stakes for hum…

Blatant fraud is rare in physics, engineering, chemistry. Lying is rare. Quality is high at the highest institutions of physics and chemistry. Exaggerated claims occur, but much less than in day to day life. Top visibility work is quickly reproduced. Reproduction is the essence of science.

Did you google "fraud in physics" or "fraud in chemistry"? (I just did.)

> Exaggerated claims occur, but much less than in day to day life.

"Day-to-day life" does not lay the foundation for millions of dollars in followup research, or set the direction of a grad student's research, i.e. their career.

> Reproduction is the essence of science.

Did you read OP's link to the Science article?

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#568

Post by atrettel »

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…

I have also talked to many researchers and professors about this, but to me it just seems to come down to survivorship bias. We all observe a lot of scientists who care a lot about their careers because the ones who don't focus as much on advancing their careers are no longer around. I've commented to many people at my own place of work about how I dislike the up-or-out nature of current research practices, because it incentives people to play it safe and focus on incremental ideas that get results by the end of the current funding cycle. But as other people are saying here, we need to change the incentives to reduce these kinds of behaviors. Form follows finances.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#569

Post by BostonFern »

jonas21 wrote: post #411
huijzer wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> They just care more about their career. It's not even that. In most fields, you need lab space and equipment and grad students to get stuff done. And to pay for that, you need funding. And to get funding, you need to publish and apply for grants. You have to pay attention to the "career" side of things -- otherwise, you won't get to do the science at all.

That’s exactly the rationale the corrupt senator uses to justify his actions in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#570

Post by komali2 »

infamouscow wrote: post #564
griffzhowl wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case any high-priority military intelligence project is "like a startup". Why say that it's run like a startup as opposed to just saying it was run like a high-priority military-intelligence project? The GP suggested that a reason for the success of the Manhattan project was that it was run like a startup, whereas it seems more illuminating to point out that it was a massively funded military project in warti…

In a startup—especially one that is heavily funded, like a government—roadblocks that can be resolved by eliminating paperwork, cutting through bureaucracy, or simply by paying money, tend to disappear. No serious person can argue this being plausible today. Sam Altman will drop 10B at a blink of an eye if it means unblocking a major problem for OpenAI. The government spends 10x that all of the time without anything…

I'm baffled, I must be misreading your comment. Are you saying the government is like a startup or just that's heavily funded startups are like the government because the government is also heavily funded?

It's also really odd to me that you claim Sam Altman can do more impressive things with 10 billion than some government. I mean, have you seen a public transit system? A sewer system? A dam? Sam Altman could hand code a true AGI tomorrow and people would still need to flush their poop.

It's also worth noting that without the government there is no economic system that allows for startup investments, nor does the USD really have any value.

Post reply on HN