like you go to the not-believing-until-seeing convention with lies and what? expect to get away with it?
I used to follow her on Twitter. She’d be constantly berated by some guy in France. Like, dude, if you’re arguing with a buster because she combed through your shit and found louse, you’ve lost twice this game.
Not any guy, our very own Didier Raoult. Unethical, gross, money hoarding, conspirationist and overall public danger Didier Raoult.
I’d say there are three pieces, each feeding into the next.
- A Culture Favouring Novelty Over Replication - There are no Nobel prizes for replicating findings. There is no Fields medal for roundly and soundly refuting the findings of a paper. There is no reputation to be built in dedicating oneself to replication efforts. All incentives push towards novel, novel, novel.
- Funding Follows Culture - Nobody wants to pay twice for a result (much less thrice) especially if there’s a chance that you’ll expose the result as Actually Wrong on the second or third go.
- Publish or Perish - Scientists have material needs – both personally and for their actual work – acquired through funding. That funding demands the publishing of novelty. If your results aren’t novel, then they won’t get published (not anywhere that matters, anyway). And if you don’t get published (where it matters), then you don’t get funded. And if you don’t get funded, you perish. And so the circle of scientific life is complete.
At every step, the incentives involved in the production of science are, ironically, rewarding un-scientific behaviour and ignoring – if not outright punishing – actual science. Until replication is seen as an equal to novelty, this regime will persist.
Yeah, if you’re foolish enough to go into research, you still have to pay rent.
My father in law (prior to his passing) worked for the National Science Foundation and his job was to investigate grant fraud like this. Apparently it happens all the time.
If Scientists don’t publish they do not get grants. Grants it turns out pay their rent, and things like food, and transportation, and kids summer camp. Failure also has a detrimental effect in the attaining of grant monies. There’s a direct line here. For those that choose to go down this road, they do it for as long as they can get away with it, then try to plea bargain.
Academia needs to be restructured, just like everything else
Hey, that sounds like Communism!1!
Count me in!
Its not just the volume of publishing, but the conclusion of the paper if you publish a paper and the result is boring (the X had negligible impact on Y but its inconclusive) you might still put your grant at risk.
Fuck capitalism!
We need housing and food for everyone, then we can all chill out and focus on advancing further.
This hamster wheel of shit is going to kill us all.
but think of the bajilionaires! how will they afford their yachts without stealing value from people!?
Before I decide you’re cool or not you have to pass a test.
How do you feel about NATO?
Simple - does anything threaten the housing and food? If yes, can NATO stop it? If yes, then yay NATO. Any other case? No thank you.
Demilitarizing the world won’t happen in a night, but we all know NATO won’t agree to it, so it will have to go eventually.
I would argue belligerent nations waging war on agricultural nations, for example Ukraine, is a threat to food and housing.
Well there we go!
In ideal world, things like that would not be necessary, but as we know, asking countries to destroy their weapons never leads to their prosperity… so fuck that, too.
I didn’t ask about Ideal world NATO, I asked about NATO which implies the context of reality we currently live in.
Did I not answer that question in my first comment? Wait - I did.
I then tried to hint that (as my first comment actually started), we as species should try to build a better world, focusing on providing the minimum for everyone before giving very few everything there is.
Is NATO perfect? No, it sucks, but we currently won’t do any better. Like nothing I keep repeating all over here.
But I wish we stopped everything, and I mean everything apart from housing and basic food, to actually solve the climate crisis.
And, ironic as it is, stopping everything would actually be the best thing right now.
Building a better world involves unconditional support of mutual defence pacts such as NATO. Once you’ve eliminated the cause for NATO, then dissolving NATO will make sense. Building a better world without NATO just sounds like some Putin/CCP Cocksucking in the context of our reality.
Uhhh… how will you get that food into childrens mouths before it spoils? how will you store it? also, people have always built their home. are you saying it should be given? thats not very dignified.
Dignified?
There is a housing crisis in every developed country, millions of people are homeless while there are multiple times more empty units just because ‘investments’.
Where is dignity in that?
And for food, we need to support local produce, ideally something like hydroponics, so we can sustain everyone for as little work as possible, leaving the option to pursue better options at their leisure.
ok. so you definitely want someone else to provide a bunch of housing, free or cheap. I suppose you’d like that with hot water on tap, flushing toilets, a/c during summer and heat during winter because “muh human dignity”. amirite?
Unironically yes. All of that comes at less expense to humankind, too. Even accounting for you.
I want all of those things for everyone, not just for ‘someone else to provide’, but for every able person to provide for everyone.
You want a servant to provide it for free?
Have you ever heard of The Community ?
Money corrupts absolutely everything: science, politics, people…
deleted by creator
From the outside it’s not obvious how many variables influence scientific research that have absolutely nothing to do with science or the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
Being scientifically literate is insufficient. We must also be highly sceptical and apply critical thinking to the work of other scientists, particularly when large sums of money are involved and the inevitable conflicts of interest that entails.
People with money are able to fund research but they will never be scientists because they are only interested in what is true to the extent it will make money.
Nah. Money is simply the mechanism that reveals true character.
That is absolute nonsense. Where does the idea that the nastiest expression of desires is the truest come from? It’s a completely absurd and unverifiable idea.
People do stuff, putting people in power over others tends to result in the people doing worse stuff. The variable we can tweak here is the power.
Power gives people the freedom to act as they choose, and they choose a lot of nastiness. Does it not make sense that unconstrained choices represent who a person truly is?
Wow, that’s a crock of shit, classist take
This kind of behavior would still exist without money. People would still fake stuff for the clout.
Sure but money motivates more people than clout alone
That’s only because money exists. If you removed money from the equation, clout would be the new currency that everyone lies and cheats for.
Anyone have the Patron?
I mean thats pretty out-right fraud, but plenty of scientific fraud is more… idk if I would say nefarious, but certainly as damaging. There is so much pressure to get “certain” results. Its much much more work to detect either intentional or “self-delusioned” statistical fraud. Science is already incredibly difficult when you don’t have the pressure on you to generate specific results.
In Paleoanthropology these days, you will not find an article about a hominid fossil discovery that doesn’t include some variant of the phrase “forcing Anthropologists to rethink their assumptions”. This all derives from the “Lucy” find that truly did force Anthropologists to rethink their assumptions. Before Lucy, it was assumed that the two most unique aspects of humans - our big brains and our bipedal locomotion - evolved together, but the fact that the 3.9 myo Lucy (since revised to 3.3 myo) was fully bipedal despite having a chimpanzee-sized brain threw this assumption out the window. The career successes of her discoverers and analysts prompted everyone else who finds a bit of thigh bone to make similar claims of significance, despite the fact that no other discovery has had any real earth-shattering significance like that.
No fraud but just massive overstating of importance.
The thing that gets me is that these people are all really smart. If someone is willing to lie and do math, why not work at an unscrupulous pharma/finance company? They’d make way more money and do way less work. I’d even argue that fraud in the private sector is less unethical - if investors give money to a fraud they deserve to lose it, and regulators take an adversarial stance and have whole orgs (in theory) policing fraud like the SEC and FDA.
It takes a really particular kind of scumbag to seek a position of public trust, make a bunch of trainees financially and professionally dependent on them, accept taxpayer money intended to help cancer patients, then commit fraud.
Very few people start with big transgressions. Usually stuff escalates.
It’s why need systems that don’t put humans in situations where bad behaviour is incentivised. Also why we need to be forgiving when someone comes forward with a small transgression, so people don’t get stuck in escalating cycles.
I’m sure this guy did some solid research once upon a time.
I don’t know about this specific case, but it’s common for the big name researchers not to do any actual research or play any direct part in generating their images. That’s often done by kids - 25 year old grad students, even 20 year old undergrads - or other trainees. Those people may not appreciate how easy it is to detect image manipulation and are still learning what kinds of ‘refining’ of imagery and datasets is acceptable, while the PI that pays their stipend or sponsors their visa rages at their inability to get an expected outcome or replicate a previous result.
Not saying there aren’t people out there just flat-out frauding, but these are group projects with a structure of trust and pressure that can muddy assignment of culpability. Like any committee or corporate action, it can be tough to say that any one individual is the guilty party or which people where just going along with the group.
Because some people just treat it like a silicon valley start-up: say you’ve got results from your smoke and mirror show and then hope someone actually gets the results.
These are fantastic documentaries BTW, highly recommend if you liked Mayday, NOVA, Life, or any long form investigative journalism.
Good ol" BobbyB does not miss, thank the gods. Memes aside, his work is indeed phenomenal.
GOD’S I WAS STRONG THEN!
That photo of Richard Eckert looks like the Leo reaction image; like he’s thinking ‘Oh my God I can’t believe they’re still buying this shit!’
I thought that so much I took a screen to post to comments. I’m glad I found your comment here. His expression is part smug, part guilt, part wainker.
I’ll never forgive him for what happened at Black Mesa.
“tRuSt tHe sCieNCe!”
This is a joke of course…well kinda. When science is done well it can change the world. Who would be against that?
I don’t like the phrase because while the process of science seeks to be as factual and unbiased as possible those in the scientific community are still human. They are fallible, corruptible and can do things for their own personal gain or profit. So to me it could mistakenly misunderstood as “trust science blindly”
But “Trust the science that is validated by multiple reputable sources” just doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely
I agree, that phrase seems to be a little misleading with the “trust in God” crowd because to them, that is the ultimate answer, and no other answer would come close to being “right”. But “trust the science” is not meant to be the ultimate answer, just a sign pointing you in the right direction, so that you can then check the science to see if it’s reliable. So, the science that you’re trusting is not theirs, but yours.
you can then check the science
Me and what degree? Science is so far beyond what I can understand that I would need to spend years of my life studying a single topic to understand a small sliver of science.
I, and generalizing to we, need to take science on faith as much as anyone in a church. Actually, it’s more on faith than in a church because anyone can pray and see what that results in.
This reminds me of der rote liste, the big directory of all pharmaceutical drugs. during the 90s I opened the huge book on random pages and read the details of ~200 drugs. i concluded that maybe 1/50 prescription drugs are truly beneficial.
