Live data from Hacker News

Fraud, so much fraud

science.org

581–590 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#581
I think the worst part has been lost in the noise.

There were, and currently are, people suffering from Parkinsons disease whom are being subjected to greater suffering, knowingly, to further this person's career.

This is Nazi and Tuskegee experiment level evil. This person should go to jail. Not US jail, international jail. These are crimes against humanity.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#582
>>>> "..sleuths began to flag a few papers in which Masliah played a central role, posting to PubPeer, an online forum where research publications are discussed and allegations of misconduct often raised. In a few cases, Masliah or a co-author replied or made corrections. Soon after, Science spotted the posts, and because of Masliah’s position and standing decided to take a deeper look."

I am conforted that there are still real journalists such as those at science, doing fantastic work and pulling on a thread, wherever it may lead , reputations be damned.

Kudos to the PubPeer scientists for spotting the problem. Hat tip to you.

Last but not least, never forget that the free flow of information allowed this fraud to be uncovered. Truth and "moderation" (of the censorship/disinformation kind) cannot simultaneously exist.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#583

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…

If humanity is to mature, we should be an open book when it comes to incentives and build a world purposefully with all incentives aligned to the outcomes we collectively agree upon. https://fs.blog/great-talks/psychology-human-misjudgment/ Charlie Munger's Misjudgment #1: Incentive-caused Bias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-2yIO8cnvw https://fs.blog/bias-incentives-reinforcement/

(I keep mentioning this but no one seems to be picking up on it.) There is an algorithm that was developed in the late 80's in the context of therapy that could be used to align incentives and collectively agree on outcomes.

The algorithm is a simple recursive procedure where the guide or therapist evokes the client's motivation or incentive for an initial behaviour and then for each motivation in turn until a (so-called) "core state" is reached. In crude pseudo-code it would be something like:

    FOO = 
    M = evoke_motivation(FOO)
    until is_core_state(M):
        M = evoke_motivation(M)
Generalizing, motivations form a DAG that bottoms out in a handful of deep and profound spiritual "states". These states seem to be universal. Walking the DAGs of two or more people simultaneously until both are in core states effectively aligns incentives automatically, at least that's what I suspect would happen.

(I have no affiliation with these folks: Core Transformation Process https://www.coretransformation.org/ )

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#584
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pick up an old engineering book at some point, something from mid 1800's or early 1900's and you'll quickly realize that the trust people put on science isn't what it should be. The scientific method works over a long period of time, but to blindly trust a peer review study that just came out, any study, is almost as much faith as religion, specially if you're not a high level researcher in the same field and have sp…

Going to need some citations here since the texts that I'm familiar with from that time period are "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" by Maxwell (mid-late 1800s) and "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" by E. T. Whittaker, neither of which mentions anything of the sort. I suspect you are choosing from texts that at the time likely would not have been considered academic or standard.

Sure, check out Audel's Electric guide, 1927 print, volume 10, for example. This is a series of books intended for practitioners at the time, in wide circulation in the USA. The "Electric Therapeuthics" section changed a lot with each edition so it's even interesting to compare across older versions if you can find multiple. I didn't want to reference specific old niche books but if you're willing to ebay it, I guess you can check. My point was more general than just electric engineering though.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#586

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

Citation counts are not very useful. They vary too much between fields and topics. I've seen people finish PhDs with ~20k citations, because they got involved in highly visible projects. And even if they stopped publishing new papers, they would have reached 50k citations in another 5-10 years purely on inertia.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#587
Technical/Academic people might hate "influecer" culture for its crassness, but whenever fame/popularity is the primary goal, this is the only social dynamic.

People are not outraged in academia that the primary goal is fame/popularity (rather than knowledge, technical ability), they're outraged that someone is cheating in this game to get ahead.

This is happening across the spectrum tbh, as the world becomes increasingly monocultural and winner-takes-it-all social schema. People talk about anthopocene, but look at human social cultures : the millions of ways of living (with dignity mind you) sustained by In such a vast pool, this kind of stuff is not only bound to happen, but is the optimal way forward (okay, may be not such blatant stuff). Honor-code etc. are BS unenforceable measures that are game-theoretically unstable (and kill-off populations that stick to it). See what the finance industry does for instance.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#588
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…

What's amazing to me is that journals don't require researchers to submit their raw data. At least, as far as I know. The only option for someone who wants to double check research is to completely replicate a study, which is quite a bit more expensive than double checking the researcher's work.

Replicating the results from someone's original data is difficult and time consuming, and other researchers aren't getting paid to do that (they're getting paid to do new research). And of course the (unpaid) reviewers don't have time either.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This happened all day long during Covid. The answer was never “we don’t know yet” which was at least honest but instead it was always “just trust us”. Exactly like i use to hear from preachers growing up.

The difference between public health and basic research. To stop an epidemic in flight one has to go with ones best guess and that saves lives so they do it.
Post reply on HN