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

691–700 of 868 posts

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#691

Post by mike_hearn »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #382
mike_hearn wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's true for the rare case that something turns into a professionally run and controlled trial (incidentally there's evidence for many published clinical trials also being fake). But very little research output is ever tested that way. Most doesn't even claim it could have real world impact in principle.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#692

Post by pclmulqdq »

wredue wrote: post #325
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…

Science sent us to the moon. “Do your own research” sent millions to their graves. “Do your own research” is a movement that is fraught with grifting and basically foundationally just fraud to the core. “Science” definitely has some fraudsters, but remains the best institution we have in the search for truth.

"Science" didn't send anyone to the moon. The science of getting to the moon was centuries old when it was applied. Engineers, working from alloys to computers, sent people to the moon.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#693

Post by pclmulqdq »

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?

> How do you know that? Can you prove it scientifically?

We know it as a point of meta-analysis. If you go read a 30-year-old biology textbook, a lot of what it says will have been proven false by now. 30 years before that, the textbook says a lot of other wrong things that were disproven 30 years later.

There is no fundamental reason other than hubris to think that the current understanding of the thing is perfect. There is a huge body of evidence that we are inclined to promulgate imperfect understandings of scientific subjects, though. So in the absence of clear, definitive evidence that something is fundamentally different now, the best assumption is to assume that a lot of current "scientific knowledge" is wrong.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#694

Post by lazide »

_heimdall wrote: post #332
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…

The fact that it can still be considered science when intentional fraud is involved is a huge problem itself.

The scientific method itself is a respond to fraud and deception (intentional, delusional, accidental).

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#695

Post by lazide »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #287
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.

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…

‘Heavy handed Covid response’ - lulz. What other emerging pandemic has been so lightly handled?

We used to forcibly quarantine people in their homes at gunpoint for measles. Smallpox? Even crazier.

Hell, we didn’t even shut down international travel until well after it was plainly obvious it had spread well past the point it would matter.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#696

Post by pclmulqdq »

smolder wrote: post #657
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're far from a scientist, so it's easy for you to put scientists/academia on a pedestal. For most of the people who end up in these scandals, this is just the day job that their various choices and random chance led up to. they're just ordinary humans responding to ordinary incentives in light of whatever consequences and risks they may or may not have considered. Other careers, like teaching, medicine, and engine…

And management consulting. But probably not plumbing, where the work product is very concrete and easy to judge.

Plenty of plumbers cut corners, too. Their work gets judged by non-experts, so the bad ones will try to pass off a bad job.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#697

Post by pclmulqdq »

ta_1138 wrote: post #252
mden wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ef…

Our judgment of societal ills and the concept of "evil" rests too much on the question of "is this a bad person?" today. Most people who do heinous things are not bad people, but the fact that they did bad things really ought to be enough to mete out punishment.

Lack of foresight isn't a virtue, it's as much of a vice as knowing the consequences and ignoring them. If you lack foresight and that causes you to commit fraud, you committed fraud, plain and simple. That is evil.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#698

Post by gus_massa »

idunnoman1222 wrote: post #6

The amazing part about this to me is that the only reason the authors were caught is image manipulation. The fraud in numbers and text? Not so easy to uncover. Prediction: papers stop using pictures entirely

When I read a paper, I first look at the images and tables. A paper (in this area) without images would be very suspictious.

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#699

Post by pclmulqdq »

kzz102 wrote: post #109
neom wrote: post #11

I'm the furthest thing from a scientist unless you count 3,000 hours of PBS spacetime, but I love science and so science/academia fraud to me, feels kinda like the worst kinda fraud you can commit. Financial fraud can cause suicides and ruin in lives, sure, but I feel like academic fraud just sets the whole of humanity back? I also feel that through my life I've (maybe wrongly) placed a great deal of respect and trus…

In my view, prosecuting the bad actors alone will not fix science. Science is by its own nature a community because only a small number of people have the expertise (and university positions) to participate. A healthy scientific discipline and a healthy community are the same thing. Just like the "tough on crime" initiative alone often does not help a problematic community, just punish scientific fraud harshly will n…

"Broken windows" policing has been shown to work, which I think is what you mean by "tough on crime."

Re: Fraud, so much fraud

#700

Post by pclmulqdq »

wredue wrote: post #329
neom wrote: post #11

I'm the furthest thing from a scientist unless you count 3,000 hours of PBS spacetime, but I love science and so science/academia fraud to me, feels kinda like the worst kinda fraud you can commit. Financial fraud can cause suicides and ruin in lives, sure, but I feel like academic fraud just sets the whole of humanity back? I also feel that through my life I've (maybe wrongly) placed a great deal of respect and trus…

Can you go to jail for knowingly defrauding another entity out of money (such as grants). Yes. Absolutely. Are you going to go to jail for fudging some numbers on your paper, not likely.

IMO faking a paper and then sticking that in your CV on a grant application is fraud enough to be worthy of jail.
Post reply on HN