There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit

[phinds]

Distressing news:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch

 

[kyphysics]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch

The Guardian had a piece today on academic fraud. It's sad to think this happens in academia and how it can affect "real-world" outcomes:

And these are not merely academic matters. Particularly when it comes to medical research, fakery hurts real people. Take the example of Joachim Boldt – the German anesthesiologist who, with 186 retractions, now sits atop the Retraction Watch leader board of scientists with the most pulled papers.

A specialist in critical care medicine, Boldt studied a blood substitute that was used in hospitals across Europe. His results, which were published between around 1990 and 2009 and widely cited, suggested that the product – used to help keep blood pressure and the delivery of oxygen to cells adequate – was saving lives. After his fraud came to light and researchers reanalyzed all of the available data while leaving Boldt’s results out, it turned out the opposite was true: the substitute was “associated with a significant increased risk of mortality and acute kidney injury”.

It made me wonder if there are fields that may be fraud-proof or at least less susceptible to it, given the nature of the work?

I thought of theoretical mathematics. Wouldn't a proof's internal logic "prove" the validity of the work itself? Could someone actually fake a proof?*** What about theoretical physics too?

***My one counter-point here was to think maybe some mathematician was so smart and advanced that he was doing work that literally no one else could understand. Perhaps, then, he could get away with a claim that others simply didn't have the tools to analyze. But, then, how could such a person/work get validated in the first place (if no one understands it)?

 

[hutchphd]

It is indeed sad.
)) The good news is that physics (works or doesn't) whether you believe some ignoramus or not The rest is sound and fury.

Remember Feynman:: "Science is the belief in in the ignorance of experts""

 

[Ibix]

(I've never been able to get out of them the reason why.)

Something something something funding gravy train, I think. But there seems to be good money in being a professional iconoclast and promoting speculation as OVERTURNING EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT PHYSICS!!!! So I don't buy it.

Interestingly, it's not far off one or two observations in the article about what drives these frauds (the root of all evil, of course). But here they are talking about individuals or small groups perpetrating frauds, rather than the entire scientific establishment perpetrating one synchronised fraud.

 

[Lnewqban]

"And in June it was revealed that a scholar at Harvard Business School, Francesca Gino, was accused of having falsified research about – wait for it – honesty."

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184289296/harvard-professor-dishonesty-francesca-gino

 

[phinds]

I mention that my life would be a lot easier if Einstein were indeed wrong ...

Well you can take some comfort from the fact that the TV show "Ancient Aliens" stated conclusively that Einstein himself wasn't actually all that bright but that he had a psychic link to Aliens and they told him about the theories.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Personally, I find the willingness of journals to retract flawed or fraudulent papers and the willingness of scores of volunteers to expose academic chicanery to be the opposite of distressing. There’s been a lot of progress in the publishing world toward making data/procedures/research plans transparent and openly accessible, and this should be lauded.

The cynic in me might suggest that the Guardian publishing this news with an ominous tone is largely a function of their own concern that the same sort of accountability might soon catch on not just in academia, but in mainstream journalism.

 

[Bystander]

The cynic in me might suggest that the Guardian publishing this news with an ominous tone is largely a function of their own concern that the same sort of accountability might soon catch on not just in academia, but in mainstream journalism.

It hasn't already?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am curious as to the relative sizes of the fraction of physics results that are, well, let's say known to be incorrect at the time of submission for publication and the same for Guardian articles.

 

[phinds]

I am curious as to the relative sizes of the fraction of physics results that are, well, let's say known to be incorrect at the time of submission for publication and the same for Guardian articles.

Since the Guardian is left-leaning, you may not like its slant but I have seen no evidence that its articles are incorrect.

 

[PeroK]

Since the Guardian is left-leaning, you may no like its slant but I have seen no evidence that its articles are incorrect.

There are plenty of people who would rather an independent newspaper like the Guardian ceased to exist. And that the news media generally were left solely in the hands of meglomaniac tycoons.

 

[pinball1970]

There are plenty of people who would rather an independent newspaper like the Guardian ceased to exist. And that the news media generally were left solely in the hands of meglomaniac tycoons.

On media representation and honest reporting.
"The independent" article today on the Homo naledi papers, does not represent the peer review, which are all negative bar one which is neutral (according to a respected third party..)
The article reads like this just one of those science things where they argue a lot. Mentioned in passing.

The finds could be evidence of the claims.
Peer review suggests those claims are not sufficiently supported.
Media does not really report that current state of affairs.

So, a person reading that article from a respected broad sheet will get the wrong impression.

 

[BWV]

"And in June it was revealed that a scholar at Harvard Business School, Francesca Gino, was accused of having falsified research about – wait for it – honesty."

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184289296/harvard-professor-dishonesty-francesca-gino

However, this angle is concerning -she is suing the bloggers that uncovered the fraud for defamation

https://www.science.org/content/art...concerns-sues-harvard-and-accusers-25-million

 

[Swamp Thing]

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/20/24106779/lk-99-superconductor-researcher-ranga-dias-misconduct
Physicist who worked on room temperature superconductor accused of ‘research misconduct’

“The University has completed a thorough investigation conducted by a panel of scientists external to the University who have expertise in the field,” University of Rochester spokesperson Sara Miller says in a statement to The Verge. “The committee concluded, in accordance with University policy and federal regulations, that Dias engaged in research misconduct.”
Last year, Dias co-authored a research paper in Nature highlighting a nitrogen-doped lutetium hydride. The paper claimed the material could conduct electricity at ambient temperatures without resistance. (If that sounds familiar that’s because you’re thinking of the supposed LK-99 superconductor that went viral on social media last year.) Scientists later found inconsistencies in Dias’ research.

"He produced super-misconductivity"

 

[Vanadium 50]

I couldn't help think of thisL

 

[phinds]

I love that movie.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A young Teri Garr aside, there are some interesting features to this story, which probably contributed to it:

1. In the retraction, the journal calls it a "review article". These are consolidations of other papers, and as such are heavily edited and lightly reviewed. At least mine was.
2. Biology. The culture in biology is different than in physics. I'll leave it at that. I won't say better or worse. It's different.
3. China. The CCP puts enormous pressure on Chinese researchers to publish in Western journals. They do not put the same degree of pressure to do good science.

 

[phinds]

China. The CCP puts enormous pressure on Chinese researchers to publish in Western journals. They do not put the same degree of pressure to do good science.

I have read that same thing in several places in the last couple of months. Seems to be quite an issue.

 

[Vanadium 50]

We will see what happens. So far, 17,000 oaoers from China have been retracted.

The CCP wants China to be feared, can tolerate it being hated, but cannot abide it being a laughingstock. Unfortunately, that's what Chinese science - especially in biology - has become. This may be the motivation they need to change things.

 

[Sargon38]

"And in June it was revealed that a scholar at Harvard Business School, Francesca Gino, was accused of having falsified research about – wait for it – honesty."

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184289296/harvard-professor-dishonesty-francesca-gino

Mmm.
I would think she was perfectly behaving according to her proper research
"professor in the field of fraud is fraudulent"

 

[Filip Larsen]

Paul Sutter has recently written an entire book about what he thinks can be done to rebuild trust lost due to fraud in publications:
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...sential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/

Not being a scientist I have no day to day experience with this issue as such but it surely concerns me greatly that science as whole, and not "just" a few isolated fields anymore, has become less trustworthy with a higher noise floor, also because this pattern seem quite applicable to the detoriation of quality and thrust we have in our society when it comes to broad general-public discussions of what really should just be "factual matters". I wonder if some of the remedies Sutter suggests also are applicable on a broader scale to re-incentivize society to be more careful to associate discussions of facts with a proper level of quality?

 

[f95toli]

I agree that fraud in science is a serious problem. However, I am not at all sure there is a direct link between this and the lack of trust from the public. The latter seems more related to a general lack of trust in "authority" and the idea that everyone's opinion about a topic is equally valid irrespective of the level of expertise. I don't believe fraud was much of a factor in e.g., the discussions around the safety of COVID vaccines

That said, there seems to be a tendency for proponents of crackpot theories to want to get published in scientific journals(it does not matter if the journal if of questionable quality); although I am not sure if I would label this as "scientific fraud", it usually part of a grift.

.

 

[phinds]

I agree that fraud in science is a serious problem. However, I am not at all sure there is a direct link between this and the lack of trust from the public. The latter seems more related to a general lack of trust in "authority" and the idea that everyone's opinion about a topic is equally valid irrespective of the level of expertise. I don't believe fraud was much of a factor in e.g., the discussions around the safety of COVID vaccines

Totally agree.

 

[phinds]

I wonder if some of the remedies Sutter suggests also are applicable on a broader scale to re-incentivize society to be more careful to associate discussions of facts with a proper level of quality?

A wonderful idea, and approximately zero chance of it happening.

We have become a society of primarily scientifically illiterate, mathematically illiterate, and grammatically illiterate people.

Also, you kids get the hell off my lawn !

 

[Nik_2213]

When so many institutions seem to run on a 'Publish or Perish' model, with grants, jobs, even entire departments subject to 'Sword of Damocles' of getting citations...

So 'Senior' staff members are either added to papers' author list, or add themselves at local review stage...
So actual work gets re-spun and reported multiple ways, with scant differences...
So the 'Null Hypothesis' that a finding 'Just Ain't So' gets scant credence...

Then there are the true fouls:
Photo-shopping eg Blots to 'unambiguous', selective use of data, failure to 'Double Blind' etc etc.
Inventing data, either inappropriately re-purposed or utterly faked.
Following 'Corporate Policy' in the face of apparently irrefutable falsification.

Then there's the problem that 'management' refuses to accept, credit and/or action 'unfortunate' results.
Or when the very least ''Operational Analysis' shows that eg running production line a tad slower would hurt local managers' purblind numerical targets, but decimate stoppages, producing much more reliable product overall requiring much less QA/QC effort to 'Weed out the Wonkies', cull wastage..

( Latter drives apparent paradox that slightly faster speed limits may severely slow busy traffic, due stop/go segmentation lurches, tail-backs and accidents. Hey, it's just a breakdown of 'laminar flow'....)

 

[Vanadium 50]

it surely concerns me greatly that science as whole, and not "just" a few isolated fields anymore, has become less trustworthy

I agree. There is a great deal of ignorance of how science functions, and that leads to people with agendas to use "science tells us" in ways that advance their agendas, but are not exactly scientific.

Consider the idea that a social distancing of 2.000 meters was required during COVID, At 2.000 you're fine. At 1.999 we're all gonna die!! Unless you're in Switzerland, where it's 1.000 meters. Or protesting injustice, where you are fine so long as you are wearing a mask. Praying for justice, however, well, that needs to be done in your car in a parking lot. Because science.

People are not stupid. They know this doesn't make sense. Had the position been "Prudence suggests staying away from other people, because they can be infectious without showing symptoms. There is no separation that is absolutely safe, so be smart and try and keep as much distance as you reasonably can" I think there would have been much less backlash.

I could have picked on other "Science makes a definitive statement that we should do what I've thought we should do all along - what a coincidence!" examples. I'll just pick on The Guardian again, who said in 2004 that many major European cities would be under water and the UK would have a Siberia-like climate. I can point you to a 1972 book that sold 30 million copies where "science tells us" that even in the best scenario, we would run out of petroleum in 2022.

Somehow it's not enough to say "I think X is a good policy, and what evidence we have supports this". It needs to be ginned up to "Science demands we do X!" which doesn't do anything but ruin credibility.

 

[phinds]

People are not stupid. They know this doesn't make sense. Had the position been "Prudence suggests staying away from other people, because they can be infectious without showing symptoms. There is no separation that is absolutely safe, so be smart and try and keep as much distance as you reasonably can" I think there would have been much less backlash.

Sure, less backlash. Also, LOTS of cases where Aholes insisted that it was OK for them to stand directly behind you and breath down your neck, because after all there was no suggestion that you HAD to maintain distance. In the actual case, social pressure (and little painted footprints on the floor) at least kept up the 6 feet, which, yes, is totally arbitrary and I think that was a good thing.

It DID get particularly silly when there were multiple lines with people standing 6 feet apart but right next to others in the next line over.

 

[Frabjous]

Policy and science are two different things. I think that too much COVID policy was described as science with the inevitable backlash.

 

[Vanadium 50]

It DID get particularly silly when there were multiple lines with people standing 6 feet apart but right next to others in the next line over.

But Science!

The problem wasn't that a given policy was good (or bad). The problem is that the explanation was "science tells us" when the truth was nothing of the sort. If you tell people to do something silly (your word) because of Science, of course they will conclude Science is a bunch of malarky.

That is true even if the silly thing is intended to be for their own good.

 

[Rive]

But Science!

It's about the divergence of the language describing 'science' and 'common sense'
Lawyers also facing the same issue (with legalese on table it's even more extreme).
But you can trace it back to some other 'closed circle' professions too: postal services, railways and such. (All strange people )

The same divergence can be identified on the forum too. Professional answers often has no decipherable meaning to simple questions: they are using different language.

So we need translations.
But professional translation is a profession.

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Just about everyone who works at the post office is an alien."
-- Agent J, Men In Black II

 

[phinds]

The same divergence can be identified on the forum too. Professional answers often has no decipherable meaning to simple questions: they are using different language.

Yes, they use the precise language of science, not the often vague language of common English.

 

[yungman]

Distressing news:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch

I think so called scientific results are all have biased and subjective to a different degree. I question how many people actually research into something without any preconceived idea or looking for a specific result.

I published paper in America institute of Physics review of scientific instruments. I really give a conclusion, then show what I did to get the result. People look and approved and published them.

Particular in some issue that involve long period of observation, one can pick and choose data to support or disprove result one way or the other.

Hate to get political. Just look at Climate Change. How much history we have recorded. People likely set out with a preconceived idea, then look for data the favor to their believe and published it.

I am pretty sure if people that truly do not believe Climate Change, AND HAVE THE FUNDING FOR THEM TO DIG INTO IT. They likely able to find "scientific" result to disprove Climate Change. Just a lot of research are done by Universities and you know how that goes already,

JMHO

 

[Swamp Thing]

The Francesca Gino / Harvard Case : End of a Sordid Saga?