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"