Specifically, this bastard allowed false data into studies which have formed some of the backbone of Alzheimers research over the last two decades. When people talk about a replication crisis in...
Specifically, this bastard allowed false data into studies which have formed some of the backbone of Alzheimers research over the last two decades.
When people talk about a replication crisis in scientific papers, this is the sort of thing that is a great example. We need to have funding not just for new research, but also for replication and verification of the existing corpus of information.
The cases can be particularly egregious, for example in this FT article one fraud detector at a scientific journal mentions
The cases can be particularly egregious, for example in this FT article one fraud detector at a scientific journal mentions
They [various cases of poor academic practice] range from clear duplication — the same images of cell cultures on microscope slides copied across numerous, unrelated studies — to more subtle tinkering. Sometimes an image is rotated “to try to trick you to think it’s different”, Chesebro says. “At times you can detect where parts of an image were digitally manipulated to add or remove cells or other features to make the data look like the results you are expecting in the hypothesis.” He estimates he rejects 5 to 10 per cent of papers because of fraudulent data or ethical issues.
The New York Times also had a great article from a researcher talking about the concerning amount of photoshopping in microbiology. Publish or perish seems to be encouraging this kind of work....
The New York Times also had a great article from a researcher talking about the concerning amount of photoshopping in microbiology. Publish or perish seems to be encouraging this kind of work.
It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest issues with academia at the moment. I've had coworkers move from research to engineering positions purely because there was major pressure on getting...
It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest issues with academia at the moment. I've had coworkers move from research to engineering positions purely because there was major pressure on getting papers out, and null results aren't sexy, so you either worked ludicrous hours or embellished your research, which thankfully none of them resorted to. Hell, articles that merely confirm a negative don't get much attention too.
This is how we get stories like Jan Hendrik Schön, however, it is much too difficult to come up with a realistic solution that simultaneously promotes quality research and doesn't push down null result publications. For now, at the very least, there should be ways of mitigating that: maybe preregistration, deeper investigations into conflicts of interest, a greater emphasis on reproducibility (although, nowadays, techniques are getting more and more complex, and this could prove a challenge).
As pointed out on Hacker News, the lead reporter for the Stanford Daily was an 18 year old freshman. An 18 year old with an incredible leg up in life with both of his parents, sure, but to...
As pointed out on Hacker News, the lead reporter for the Stanford Daily was an 18 year old freshman. An 18 year old with an incredible leg up in life with both of his parents, sure, but to capitalize on it the way he has... genuinely impressive.
Specifically, this bastard allowed false data into studies which have formed some of the backbone of Alzheimers research over the last two decades.
When people talk about a replication crisis in scientific papers, this is the sort of thing that is a great example. We need to have funding not just for new research, but also for replication and verification of the existing corpus of information.
The cases can be particularly egregious, for example in this FT article one fraud detector at a scientific journal mentions
The New York Times also had a great article from a researcher talking about the concerning amount of photoshopping in microbiology. Publish or perish seems to be encouraging this kind of work.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/science-fraud-image-manipulation-photoshop.html?unlocked_article_code=VaFHPCuw4x34i4lXnaCxQ0CBV_cQuBuaOKN0qX7dsNPhR81vAjW-YAzB7Y48lggrkH82-5BGNtg8_W7TWgkD0iZgSbx8Q9BCpW-_crGRpzi-aYvPZ9EJrAYkbJQK-n2clHiII3ddZtmNNmb6R4TzVcExuJnTAuUC3_6ulEZdaBivNUKn8jx_tI9M0Ls16pc7Y9czv8DfEaRvwt3E0vo5JljwcfNlrddduSsB85yTSUbgLlUR2Fh854k8_NGafJt5QtpS0yqu3apZQ1uiPzlI2TrYHRRuRGDO3_uTx_JJl6GSsTJEUN01l09FfoqQRh1xsvo_hqxeNRgIRagxQA2p5GOjFLMmvEBQf939M2mhIBzb-orRpa3QnKM6i84VaXrfhuSU6qo&smid=url-share
It is, in my opinion, one of the greatest issues with academia at the moment. I've had coworkers move from research to engineering positions purely because there was major pressure on getting papers out, and null results aren't sexy, so you either worked ludicrous hours or embellished your research, which thankfully none of them resorted to. Hell, articles that merely confirm a negative don't get much attention too.
This is how we get stories like Jan Hendrik Schön, however, it is much too difficult to come up with a realistic solution that simultaneously promotes quality research and doesn't push down null result publications. For now, at the very least, there should be ways of mitigating that: maybe preregistration, deeper investigations into conflicts of interest, a greater emphasis on reproducibility (although, nowadays, techniques are getting more and more complex, and this could prove a challenge).
As pointed out on Hacker News, the lead reporter for the Stanford Daily was an 18 year old freshman. An 18 year old with an incredible leg up in life with both of his parents, sure, but to capitalize on it the way he has... genuinely impressive.
His site is awe-inspiring and jealousy inducing :D.
His interview with KPCC was super interesting!
https://www.kpcc.org/podcast/airtalk/the-stanford-freshman-who-broke-the-story-that-spurred-an-investigation-and-resignation-of-stanford-president-marc-tessier-lavigne