Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Data sleuths who spotted research misconduct cleared of defamation
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/09/court-clears-researchers-of-defamation-for-identifying-manipulated-data/
122 comments
I'm pretty sure this guy wouldn't get out of bed for $10k:
https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/
Although given that the New Yorker stated that Pyle "appeared not only professionally but personally incensed by the fact of the lawsuit", perhaps some of the work was pro bono.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-a-scientific-di...
https://princelobel.com/professional/jeffrey-j-pyle/
Although given that the New Yorker stated that Pyle "appeared not only professionally but personally incensed by the fact of the lawsuit", perhaps some of the work was pro bono.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-a-scientific-di...
Thankfully, a lot of the filings appear short enough that I doubt he's going to charge very much. I assume the retainer was still $20-30k, but they may get some of it back.
I was hoping that there would be some fee-shifting here, but it's federal court.
I was hoping that there would be some fee-shifting here, but it's federal court.
I would guess a 20-30k retainer in this occurrence would be a discounted retainer as well. I say this just based upon my personal experience with a few smaller firms.
If you're known to be good for the money, you can often get lower retainer bills from lawyers. That's why Donald Trump has to put up tens of millions for any legal project. Many of my lawyers do not ask for retainers for work at all, even for bigger things.
He's also running out of lawyers willing to commit perjury and risk disbarment on his behalf.
I don't know him or this case, but lawyers tend to often feel that way about the cases they are representing. I wouldn't think that means he's not billing.
Fortunately, they were able to raise quite a bit of money (>$300K) on GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
From the page: At present, Leif, Joe, and Uri do not have pro bono representation. The lawyers they’ve spoken to currently estimate that their defense could cost anywhere between $50,000 and $600,000 (depending on how far the lawsuit progresses).
That's scary, really. Having no money for this means you can't afford to fight these criminal crooks. Is this how this works in europe too?
In Europe, the losing party of a lawsuit generally has to pay for the winner's legal expenses ("English rule"). Never had to go to court so I don't know what you do about the expenses in the meanwhile, but at least there's light at the end of the tunnel when someone sues you just for the heck of it.
Europe may be too wide a categorization, I am pretty sure that different countries have different ways to deal with the matter.
My (thankfully very little) experience in Italy is for civil litigations at least (where it is rare that one of the two parties get 100% reason) expenses are usually compensated (i.e. every party pays their own ones), in the more rare case where all expenses are paid by the succumbing party, what is liquidated is not really what has been paid, but rather what the expenses would be along some sort of tariff.
If your solicitor/lawyer is a famous (presumably very good as you won) one, it is likely that the amount you spend is much higher than what the judge condemned the other party to reimburse you.
My (thankfully very little) experience in Italy is for civil litigations at least (where it is rare that one of the two parties get 100% reason) expenses are usually compensated (i.e. every party pays their own ones), in the more rare case where all expenses are paid by the succumbing party, what is liquidated is not really what has been paid, but rather what the expenses would be along some sort of tariff.
If your solicitor/lawyer is a famous (presumably very good as you won) one, it is likely that the amount you spend is much higher than what the judge condemned the other party to reimburse you.
In the US, you can ask for fee-shifting if you have been sued frivolously or there has otherwise been some wrongdoing on the part of the other side. These guys may be able to motion for fee-shifting given that the case was dismissed at this early stage.
State defamation cases usually apply anti-SLAPP laws that automatically create fee-shifting in this exact circumstance, but this seems to be a federal case.
State defamation cases usually apply anti-SLAPP laws that automatically create fee-shifting in this exact circumstance, but this seems to be a federal case.
No, where I live (Germany) you usually have a legal insurance to cover this. The costs are around 30€ per month in my case.
Corporate liability insurance in the US, which is also a very common thing to get, often does not cover your defense against "intentional torts" such as defamation or fraud. It usually covers things like slips and falls, product-related liability, etc. I would be surprised if your German version covers defamation.
I live next door and have some legal insurance, but you need to pay attention to what coverage you get, because you need to select what categories you want coverage for; vehicles (e.g. if someone who caused an accident refuses to cooperate with you), consumer/housing disputes, work and salary, taxes / stocks, family issues like inheritances, second homes / real estate, etc etc etc. And of course, you can't take out insurance for an ongoing issue, it doesn't cover criminal cases (when you did a bad), business cases, etc.
Germany also regulates legal fees, so self-insurance is quite reasonable. I've now been involved in two cases (once as plaintiff, once as defendant) and it seems the amount I paid is approximately the same as I would have paid in legal insurance.
I was aware of that, but I would still be interested to know the actual costs. I do not think "it is ok to blog about potential fraud in scientific publications because GoFundMe will pay for my lawyers" is a good assumption for most individuals.
I see people saying it is a win for open science, and I just look at that Court Listener page and it still fills me with angst.
I see people saying it is a win for open science, and I just look at that Court Listener page and it still fills me with angst.
You are probably not overestimating.
Generally, I would guess conferring with the client on the facts, briefing, preparing for a hearing, and arguing a hearing would be north of, at least, 25k, assuming a lower-end rate estimate in the $800+ range and a lower-end work estimate of 30+ hours. If I had to bet, I'd go higher than the low-end estimate: both the rate and hours could be close to double. That said, the attorney / firm could be donating the time on this one.
Generally, I would guess conferring with the client on the facts, briefing, preparing for a hearing, and arguing a hearing would be north of, at least, 25k, assuming a lower-end rate estimate in the $800+ range and a lower-end work estimate of 30+ hours. If I had to bet, I'd go higher than the low-end estimate: both the rate and hours could be close to double. That said, the attorney / firm could be donating the time on this one.
It's not just the money. When you're the target of litigation, particularly irregular specialist domain stuff that it can really take over your life.
You might recover some of your legal costs from your opponent, but the disruption to your life will not be compensated.
You might recover some of your legal costs from your opponent, but the disruption to your life will not be compensated.
Not to mention the time it takes. So not only are you losing money, losing time, and it's emotionally taxing, but you often aren't even making money during that time.
...it's also an almost perfectly calibrated torture.
You have the prospect of the thing hanging over you, like an iceberg moving your way that you can't avoid, unable to make long term plans because you have little idea what your schedule will be like after the next scheduled event. Maybe in 6 months it'll be over, maybe you'll be in the middle of a trial, or depositions, or who knows what.
There are huge delays where you can do little productive, waiting out a court decision or for your oppositions filing clock to run out. It's easy to fall into a trap of spending your time worrying if there is something you missed. And it can be difficult to adopt other activities to take your mind off it since you don't control your future schedule, and those activities might end up as evidence in the case particularly if the lawsuit is over something that is your profession or your passion[1].
Then you have sudden panics as unexpected things come up with short deadlines. Then back to the wait.
Third parties often don't get why being personally targeted by litigation, particularly frivolous litigation, is such an imposition. Sure the specific hours spent handling things are easily understood, but the inability to make plans and the psychic cost of living under threat are less easily understood by someone who hasn't been there themselves.
People are prone to discount the impact proportional to the frivolity of the case, but the legal system is adversarial-- you must fully and competently defend even a fairly frivolous case or you will lose. I think the case being entirely without merit in some sense makes the pressure worse, since your opposition can make moves to strategically impose on you as they had little to no prospect of winning unless you screw up, even if those moves ultimately make them more likely to fail.
A well founded case can be clean with few distractions, you set out the fact-- the court rules. Or doesn't even rule because once the facts are established you can reach a fair settlement. With a bullshit case, potentially anything could happen.
Perhaps some people have dispositions that handle having their neck on a chopping block for years without trouble. But I know people who have thrown cases they were as close to guaranteed to win as any simply because they couldn't handle the stress of it and would rather lose and have it be over.
[1] To give a concrete example, I was being sued for several billion dollars in relation to a volunteer open source project that I hadn't contributed to for a couple years. I made a pull request to an unrelated piece of open source software in an unrelated field (a driver for a telescope focuser motor) only to have that show up in my opponents filings as "evidence" that I was still contributing to the project at issue. This is a stupid claim, but it's a question of fact, and potentially enough to keep me from being dropped from the case on a summary basis.
You have the prospect of the thing hanging over you, like an iceberg moving your way that you can't avoid, unable to make long term plans because you have little idea what your schedule will be like after the next scheduled event. Maybe in 6 months it'll be over, maybe you'll be in the middle of a trial, or depositions, or who knows what.
There are huge delays where you can do little productive, waiting out a court decision or for your oppositions filing clock to run out. It's easy to fall into a trap of spending your time worrying if there is something you missed. And it can be difficult to adopt other activities to take your mind off it since you don't control your future schedule, and those activities might end up as evidence in the case particularly if the lawsuit is over something that is your profession or your passion[1].
Then you have sudden panics as unexpected things come up with short deadlines. Then back to the wait.
Third parties often don't get why being personally targeted by litigation, particularly frivolous litigation, is such an imposition. Sure the specific hours spent handling things are easily understood, but the inability to make plans and the psychic cost of living under threat are less easily understood by someone who hasn't been there themselves.
People are prone to discount the impact proportional to the frivolity of the case, but the legal system is adversarial-- you must fully and competently defend even a fairly frivolous case or you will lose. I think the case being entirely without merit in some sense makes the pressure worse, since your opposition can make moves to strategically impose on you as they had little to no prospect of winning unless you screw up, even if those moves ultimately make them more likely to fail.
A well founded case can be clean with few distractions, you set out the fact-- the court rules. Or doesn't even rule because once the facts are established you can reach a fair settlement. With a bullshit case, potentially anything could happen.
Perhaps some people have dispositions that handle having their neck on a chopping block for years without trouble. But I know people who have thrown cases they were as close to guaranteed to win as any simply because they couldn't handle the stress of it and would rather lose and have it be over.
[1] To give a concrete example, I was being sued for several billion dollars in relation to a volunteer open source project that I hadn't contributed to for a couple years. I made a pull request to an unrelated piece of open source software in an unrelated field (a driver for a telescope focuser motor) only to have that show up in my opponents filings as "evidence" that I was still contributing to the project at issue. This is a stupid claim, but it's a question of fact, and potentially enough to keep me from being dropped from the case on a summary basis.
As someone with extensive experience paying legal bills, I would guess the bill was well over $40,000 unless the lawyer did it pro bono.
Our legal system is badly broken in favor of lawyers making more money.
Our legal system is badly broken in favor of lawyers making more money.
I’m not familiar with civil court in the US, but wouldn’t the plaintiff have to cover the legal expenses of the defendant, if the defendant is cleared? Or similar rulings.
No, both sides of a lawsuit are generally responsible for their own costs regardless of what the outcome is. There are some caveats to this, like anti-SLAPP laws, but that's how it generally goes. This is basically in contrast to every other western democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...
Even if it is, it happens months or years later, with today's interest rates you would still end up with a debt unless you have the capital. I'm not even talking about the emotional toll and stress, especially when you're the good guy, just have to prove it..
Have you seen Harvard's endowment?
I'm sure there's counterdamages and he can take a percentage
I'm sure there's counterdamages and he can take a percentage
You are underestimating...
I would agree. I'm the defendant in a (frivolous) trademark infringement case and my firm (which does work for the EFF) averages about 2 hours per (substantial) page, at a rate of $500/hour. I do wonder in the back of my mind if I'm being taken to the cleaners...
I have a limited experience, only having been involved in one trademark case professionally and am not a lawyer, but this was a case that very quickly settled and fees were still close to $30,000.
> Or am I overestimating.
Ahh, sweet summer child who has never seen these kind of legal fees.
I do hope Gino gets socked with their legal fees.
Ahh, sweet summer child who has never seen these kind of legal fees.
I do hope Gino gets socked with their legal fees.
This is why we need anti-SLAPP laws.
We're lucky to have hard-headed people willing to put up with legal threats and bullying tactics. I'm not sure I'd have the spine for it. It reminds me of when Ben Goldacre was sued [0] which luckily his publisher covered the costs for.
[0] https://www.badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now...
[0] https://www.badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now...
The problem is being able to sue for something like defamation. At the extreme, like happens in Brazil, innocent people are sent to jail for criticizing politicians.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-suits-defamation
https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-suits-defamation
That is true, but this is so much worse.
1) this is a college
2) it was about research, fundamental to the mission of higher education
3) it was fraud, not error
4) It was HARVARD, exalted bastion of elite colleges, the most prestigious university in the US
I get Harvard is always more about influence and an insiders club rather than any real academic work, but still ... So many heads should roll over this.
1) this is a college
2) it was about research, fundamental to the mission of higher education
3) it was fraud, not error
4) It was HARVARD, exalted bastion of elite colleges, the most prestigious university in the US
I get Harvard is always more about influence and an insiders club rather than any real academic work, but still ... So many heads should roll over this.
> To believe that the Original data are fake and the Posted data are real, you’d have to believe that the sensible data are fake and the backwards data are real. That is a difficult thing to believe.
> We were right about how the data were altered, Gino’s prevailing explanation for the alterations does not make sense, and yet we are the defendants in this case.
What's the academic term for "mic drop"?
https://datacolada.org/118
> We were right about how the data were altered, Gino’s prevailing explanation for the alterations does not make sense, and yet we are the defendants in this case.
What's the academic term for "mic drop"?
https://datacolada.org/118
This analysis is simple but brilliant. Some rows appeared out of order. They changed them back to what they should be according to their position, then checked the effects on the distributions:
https://datacolada.org/111
https://datacolada.org/111
> What's the academic term for "mic drop"?
I've always gone for "QED" but I'm sure there are better options out there :)
I've always gone for "QED" but I'm sure there are better options out there :)
If she was falsifying data, I must assume it was to support a biased hypothesis she held however the article doesn’t elaborate on what conclusion her fraudulent data supported beyond this being a “behavioral science” study.
Can anyone fill in the gaps to those conspicuously missing details?
Can anyone fill in the gaps to those conspicuously missing details?
The irony is that Francesca Gino and Dan Ariely are famous for their pop-sci/TED talks studying dishonesty. Turns out they were dishonest themselves.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances...
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances...
I'm at the point where if I see it in a TED talk I'm assuming it's a bullshit grifter
I blocked the TED channel on YouTube a few years back as it was getting bad. They first diluted their "brand" or quality with TEDx, and it's been downhill since as they've been scraping the bottom of the barrel and tried to "scale" or "franchise". Happens everytime, growth at all costs. The only way to stop it is to have passionate leaders who care more about the goal than the money.
Unfortunately, usually by the time these leaders have established their company they are also on a downward life trajectory in terms of years left, so they switch to "extraction" mode.
Unfortunately, usually by the time these leaders have established their company they are also on a downward life trajectory in terms of years left, so they switch to "extraction" mode.
I don't have a problem with the concept of locally branded TED talks under the TEDx umbrella, but I do have a problem of TEDx talks pretending that they are genuine TED talks. Generally actual TED talks have some quality checks built in, they sometimes allow garbage through, but it's far more rigid than the stuff you see at the TEDx talks.
Me too. Same for pretty much any "scientist" on NPR, or with a popular book. Not EVERY one is a hack or a fraud, but enough are that as a group, they're not trustworthy.
That's a big chunk of my adult life I need to forget, because I was so into the broad field of applied social science, Ariely in particular. It's a real shame.
That's a big chunk of my adult life I need to forget, because I was so into the broad field of applied social science, Ariely in particular. It's a real shame.
Even if it is a Nobel prize winner like Jennifer Doudna?
It's hard to generalize. The whole field of behavioural intelligence has lots of fake/unrepeatable studies.
Even Kahneman, who got a Economics Nobel has this issue:
https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...
Even Kahneman, who got a Economics Nobel has this issue:
https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...
Yep, it's hard, that's why sometimes it's better not to overgeneralize. But sure, that field is full if unreproducible "research".
Well the guy who invented lobotomy got one of those. Or the guy who invented microcredit. To not even venture in the peace nobel prizes area, where getting one is probably indicative of being evil.
I mean the Nobel committee gave the Peace prize to Kissinger. I’m not sure they’re a good bellwether for anything.
Tom Lehrer famously retired when Kissinger got the peace prize declaring satire to be dead. The really funny one to me is they gave literature to Winston Churchill because they thought they probably couldn't give him peace, then when Kissinger came up they thought "Why not?"
Churchill's autobiography [0] is actually a great read. I'm nowhere near qualified to judge a literature Nobel prize but I loved it. His history of the English speaking peoples is pretty good too.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Early_Life
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Early_Life
>Well the guy who invented lobotomy got one of those.
Yeah, and when you see a Nobel prize winner you must be assuming it's a bullshit grifter.
Yeah, and when you see a Nobel prize winner you must be assuming it's a bullshit grifter.
I don't know who that is but applying my heuristic, yes, I'd assume so.
It's a heuristic, not a conviction. Generally I don't bother to listen to the TED talks anymore and I'm much more distrustful in my priors than "normal" for anyone I see giving one.
That said it's not like I'm going to dismiss someone with otherwise solid credentials out of hand just because they gave a TED talk, but it still lowers my trust.
Really depends on what you're trying to use the info for. I'm not a researcher so it's not like this affects my day job, and if I was I'd like to think I'd dive into the sources rather than ever just taking someone for their word. That's like the equivalent of copy pasting some code you found on discord into your production app.
It's a heuristic, not a conviction. Generally I don't bother to listen to the TED talks anymore and I'm much more distrustful in my priors than "normal" for anyone I see giving one.
That said it's not like I'm going to dismiss someone with otherwise solid credentials out of hand just because they gave a TED talk, but it still lowers my trust.
Really depends on what you're trying to use the info for. I'm not a researcher so it's not like this affects my day job, and if I was I'd like to think I'd dive into the sources rather than ever just taking someone for their word. That's like the equivalent of copy pasting some code you found on discord into your production app.
I would argue: that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is how it works. In a system in which there are external motivations (power, money, number of citations etc.) it's a problem of incentives, and should be solved by putting the emphasis on other values, as a culture. What you describe is a symptom.
Ofc, I'm not trying to defend such behavior.
Ofc, I'm not trying to defend such behavior.
Maybe they were doing "first-person research" on dishonesty. /s
I posted this a while back on here, but my wife works in Behavioural Science, and wrote this about it last year https://www.squarepeginsight.com/post/the-dark-side-of-behav...
Unlike Gino, Ariely doesn't seem to have had a downfall. He still has a lab at Duke, he keeps getting invited to give talks, his consultancy is still getting contracts. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe another behavioral scientist can fake an experiment to explain it.
So what happens with these costs - surely the failed litigant should shoulder some if not all of the costs of defending this defamation claim?
Often, no. There's a relevant specific fee-recovery mechanism [0] in some, not all, states, because this class of lawsuit acknowledged as being problematic, as being an effective way to silence 1A-protected speech. The deeper problem is that litigation is extraordinarily expensive in the US, and generically easy to abuse as an intimidation weapon—for rich entities to use against those who can't afford lawyers; or for fanatics to use against normal risk-averse people who don't want lawsuits–don't value whatever it is the fanatic is fanatic about, highly enough to go to court to argue it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
To my (totally uninformed) eyes it looks like maybe this could count as a SLAPP suit [1], in which case there's a possbility for a counterclaim for legal costs. However, Massachusetts apparently has "much weaker anti-SLAPP laws" [2] (than California, in the context of the article)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23841742/francesca-gino-d...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
[2] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23841742/francesca-gino-d...
Sadly it doesn't work like that but even that wouldn't be fair. If you lose the defamation as the plaintiff you should be forced to pay the full amount you were suing for to the defendant. Or even a multiple of that.
If only Prof. Gino had signed her papers at the beginning she would have been less inclined to falsify the data.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458378/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3458378/
bravo!
In theory, if the other side can't outpay you on lawyers, truth should be an absolute defense to allegations of defamation. If you're careful enough not to just write "she faked the data" but "based on this evidence ... we believe the data is fake", that should be watertight.
There is no limits a grifter wont go to in order to continue their grift. Those with the funds regularly get away with it purely because they have the funds to sue their opponents into bankruptcy. The system worked in this case but it so rarely does and we see so often people having to back down due to legal threats.
see: Lance Armstrong.†
† https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lance_armstrong_admi...
† https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lance_armstrong_admi...
Time flies when you're having funds.
She wrote the book "Rebel Talent: why it pays to break the rules".
Practice what you preach, as they say.
In my opinion, defamation law is not fit for purpose, it's far too easy for rich people with axes to grind to sue their accusers in an attempt to stifle speech by putting a price on their words. Anti-SLAPP motions are supposed to fix this by allowing fee shifting, but they only exist in a handful of states, and I'm still not 100% sure how effective that alone can be at restoring freedom of speech[0].
Until such time as that legal system is fixed, the scientific community should take countermeasures against the law. I'm calling for some kind of universal default clause[1]. If you sue scientific accusers for defamation, you're not doing science anymore, so you should be automatically fired from or kicked out of any scientific institution you're a member of. You could obviously restrain this to only unproven allegations - i.e. get a scientific board to call the allegations bullshit first and then you can bring it to a court. But the pathway of allegations of fraud becoming "put up $100k in legal fees or shut up" is not acceptable in a free society.
[0] Related note: do you remember when Donald Trump was saying he wanted to "open up our libel laws" to make it EASIER to pull this shit!?
[1] "Universal default" is a concept in banking that treats defaulting on any loan the same as defaulting on the specific loan mentioned in the contract.
Until such time as that legal system is fixed, the scientific community should take countermeasures against the law. I'm calling for some kind of universal default clause[1]. If you sue scientific accusers for defamation, you're not doing science anymore, so you should be automatically fired from or kicked out of any scientific institution you're a member of. You could obviously restrain this to only unproven allegations - i.e. get a scientific board to call the allegations bullshit first and then you can bring it to a court. But the pathway of allegations of fraud becoming "put up $100k in legal fees or shut up" is not acceptable in a free society.
[0] Related note: do you remember when Donald Trump was saying he wanted to "open up our libel laws" to make it EASIER to pull this shit!?
[1] "Universal default" is a concept in banking that treats defaulting on any loan the same as defaulting on the specific loan mentioned in the contract.
Unfortunately for malicious litigants their whole goal is to damage you with the process or to use the threat of doing so to coerce you. They'll use defamation law when its the path of least resistance but if that's off the table they'll just cook up some other claim.
[deleted]
This whole ordeal has been crazy. Glad to see some sanity prevailing at this level. Curious where the rest of the story is at. Anyone have a good primer on where things ultimately are, at this point?
Curious on more than just this case. If I recall, there were several large scale misconduct cases that hit back to back. All of those still in flight?
Curious on more than just this case. If I recall, there were several large scale misconduct cases that hit back to back. All of those still in flight?
Pete Judo's channel on YouTube has been covering this since the beginning, and other cases:
https://www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1
https://www.youtube.com/@PeteJudo1
I'd love to hear more about the outcome for harvard.
it seems that they mostly did the right thing, but how they went about it may not have been conforming to the pre-determined rules for employees.
it seems that they mostly did the right thing, but how they went about it may not have been conforming to the pre-determined rules for employees.
Arrivederci, Francesca Gino.
Related. Others?
Harvard Probe Finds Honesty Researcher Engaged in Scientific Misconduct - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39712021 - March 2024 (15 comments)
They studied dishonesty – Was their work a lie? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37714898 - Sept 2023 (153 comments)
Crowdfunding a defense for scientific research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37393502 - Sept 2023 (47 comments)
I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37315292 - Aug 2023 (94 comments)
Support Academic Freedom of Speech - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37153168 - Aug 2023 (1 comment)
Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37152030 - Aug 2023 (13 comments)
Harvard professor Francesca Gino was accused of faking data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670 - Aug 2023 (146 comments)
Fabricated data in research about honesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36907829 - July 2023 (46 comments)
Fraudulent data raise questions about superstar honesty researcher (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36726485 - July 2023 (33 comments)
Harvard ethics professor allegedly fabricated multiple studies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36665247 - July 2023 (215 comments)
Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36424090 - June 2023 (201 comments)
Data Falsificada (Part 1): “Clusterfake” – Data Colada - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374255 - June 2023 (7 comments)
Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28264097 - Aug 2021 (102 comments)
A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28257860 - Aug 2021 (91 comments)
Evidence of fraud in an influential field experiment about dishonesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642 - Aug 2021 (51 comments)
Harvard Probe Finds Honesty Researcher Engaged in Scientific Misconduct - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39712021 - March 2024 (15 comments)
They studied dishonesty – Was their work a lie? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37714898 - Sept 2023 (153 comments)
Crowdfunding a defense for scientific research - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37393502 - Sept 2023 (47 comments)
I’m so sorry for psychology’s loss, whatever it is - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37315292 - Aug 2023 (94 comments)
Support Academic Freedom of Speech - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37153168 - Aug 2023 (1 comment)
Is it defamation to point out scientific research fraud? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37152030 - Aug 2023 (13 comments)
Harvard professor Francesca Gino was accused of faking data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36968670 - Aug 2023 (146 comments)
Fabricated data in research about honesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36907829 - July 2023 (46 comments)
Fraudulent data raise questions about superstar honesty researcher (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36726485 - July 2023 (33 comments)
Harvard ethics professor allegedly fabricated multiple studies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36665247 - July 2023 (215 comments)
Harvard dishonesty expert accused of dishonesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36424090 - June 2023 (201 comments)
Data Falsificada (Part 1): “Clusterfake” – Data Colada - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36374255 - June 2023 (7 comments)
Noted study in psychology fails to replicate, crumbles with evidence of fraud - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28264097 - Aug 2021 (102 comments)
A Big Study About Honesty Turns Out to Be Based on Fake Data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28257860 - Aug 2021 (91 comments)
Evidence of fraud in an influential field experiment about dishonesty - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210642 - Aug 2021 (51 comments)
How ironic that the people exposing a fraudster must defend themselves from the false allegations of a fraudster. The sad and pathetic part is that Francesca Gino even tried to blame her colleagues for the fake data. These videos are a good primer on the dishonesty of Francesca Gino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNK4nXWA_s8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE5V_nW7pPo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNK4nXWA_s8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE5V_nW7pPo
“… the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.”
“Probably good for science”? That is science!
“Probably good for science”? That is science!
It also cited a precedent I didn't know existed for the courts:
> The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”
I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?
> The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”
I wonder if this a specific case or just a general precedent? Is general precedent a thing?
I saw that quote in the article but cannot find it in the ruling itself: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259...
It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
It seems to be a quote from a London court ruling in 2010: https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1895
It's mentioned around page 30-31:
> Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer
> reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.” (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter,
> 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment against defamation claims and
> stating that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by
> the methods of litigation”).
So, https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter
> Instead, this is a case where the trial of ideas plays out in the pages of peer
> reviewed journals, and the scientific public sits as the jury.” (cleaned up)); Underwager v. Salter,
> 22 F.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming summary judgment against defamation claims and
> stating that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by
> the methods of litigation”).
So, https://casetext.com/case/underwager-v-salter
Thanks! I don’t know why my search didn’t find that.
Yes, that’s why the ruling is good for science. It would be a dark world if publishing statistical analysis opened you up to defamation
In the uk at least truth is not defense againts defamation. Beware if you live there.
My understanding is it is a little more nuanced than that.
The truth is still an absolute defense against defamation in the UK, just like it is in the US, but the difference is who the burden of proof is on.
In the US, it is up to the person suing for defamation to prove the statements were false AND that the person knew them to be false when they said them (or should have known they were false).
In the UK, for someone to use the truth as an absolute defense, they have to prove the statements were true, which is often not very easy.
The truth is still an absolute defense against defamation in the UK, just like it is in the US, but the difference is who the burden of proof is on.
In the US, it is up to the person suing for defamation to prove the statements were false AND that the person knew them to be false when they said them (or should have known they were false).
In the UK, for someone to use the truth as an absolute defense, they have to prove the statements were true, which is often not very easy.
In both bases proof is only on balance of evidence, so the difference between proving something is or isn’t true is not as great as it would be if the standard was proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It’s a lot easier to prove that there is a white swan than a black swan in the world somewhere.
This is ironically, not true.
“It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences
“It is a defence for defamation to show the imputation in the statement complained of is substantially true.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013#Defences
The same is true in Japan. Very few are aware of how little press freedoms and speech rights are protected there and have regressed further under assault from the ruling LDP party.
The same in Germany.
My own post here [0] got suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged, even though I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. Truth defense.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41526702
TL;DRs are frowned upon on HN because HN encourages people to read the article (especially before commenting) rather than Don’t Read the article.[1] You’re further breaking guidelines by complaining about votes.
That said, your comment isn’t a summary of the article at all.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459
That said, your comment isn’t a summary of the article at all.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12667459
[deleted]
jakedata(1)
Very ‘ironic’ that this is quite a…dishonest representation of the truth.
[deleted]
[deleted]
“[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”
Boom. And the researchers didn't accuse a person of fabrication, they accused the data of being fabricated.
Boom. And the researchers didn't accuse a person of fabrication, they accused the data of being fabricated.
Courts have had little hesitation to decide these matters themselves for a long time - check out "Bite Mark Analysis" or any number of trials involving medical evidence. While I do think that they need to consider scientific matters they are vastly overconfident in the conclusions reached.
[deleted]
I don't see any distinction there.
[deleted]
[tl;dr] US District Court dismisses
Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit against Harvard Business School and DataColada scientist-bloggers (Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons). The judge allowed Gino's breach of contract claim against Harvard to continue.
DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by Simine Vazire [https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...]. Yet apparently not a penny from the journals which Gino published in, or by HBS, or the funders of Gino's research.
(EDIT: this got upvoted, then suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged - why? I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. If anyone's quibbling the term "Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit", that term was used by the MBA-watching blog https://poetsandquants.com/2024/09/12/judge-dismisses-france... )
DataColada's legal defense (so far) was paid for by their own universities; there is also a $378K private GoFundMe organized by Simine Vazire [https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...]. Yet apparently not a penny from the journals which Gino published in, or by HBS, or the funders of Gino's research.
(EDIT: this got upvoted, then suddenly multiply downvoted and flagged - why? I wrote it very carefully and double-checked every single statement. If anyone's quibbling the term "Francesca Gino's controversial $25m defamation lawsuit", that term was used by the MBA-watching blog https://poetsandquants.com/2024/09/12/judge-dismisses-france... )
Do universities typically go to bat for their faculty? Presumably the blog investigation is not done with any direct university involvement.
I can't comment, but it's a truly bizarre spectacle to see research integrity being upheld by three public-minded researchers (one of them based in Spain) and a defense fund on GoFundMe organized by an Australian academic. The academic publishers didn't fund them and neither did the funders of the research. We need a discussion about frameworks to fund misconduct researchers (including related legal defense), also about pressures to publish irreproducible results with mediagenic, counterfactual findings.
The entity with the least incentive to fully investigate HBS is, paradoxically... HBS itself... because questions have been raised about multiple other coauthors, the reputational and financial consequences and wrongful termination claims look set to run for a decade. Some have conjectured that whenever the full facts are finally disclosed, this scandal will take out the reputation of Harvard in general (not just HBS, or Behavioral Economics as a field, or priming), or all the Ivies, at least for business-school.
The entity with the least incentive to fully investigate HBS is, paradoxically... HBS itself... because questions have been raised about multiple other coauthors, the reputational and financial consequences and wrongful termination claims look set to run for a decade. Some have conjectured that whenever the full facts are finally disclosed, this scandal will take out the reputation of Harvard in general (not just HBS, or Behavioral Economics as a field, or priming), or all the Ivies, at least for business-school.
I was the victim of a pretty bizarre super in-your-face academic theft. Someone snooped a half-finished draft of mine off GitHub and...actually got it published in a real journal.
https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/30/stephensons-alternat...
My institution completely brushed it off as a no problem, and said that it wasn't worth pursuing it at all.
It was very traumatising (and still is). I lost all faith in academia.
https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/30/stephensons-alternat...
My institution completely brushed it off as a no problem, and said that it wasn't worth pursuing it at all.
It was very traumatising (and still is). I lost all faith in academia.
The universities might've deemed it to be an important enough PR situation and low risk enough to do it.
Alternatively maybe they were obligated to back them up if the work was done in their official capacity as faculty?
Alternatively maybe they were obligated to back them up if the work was done in their official capacity as faculty?
I think you mean the universities of the Data Colada researchers, not the researchers accused of misconduct.
Sure, but if this were to become commonplace, you can see misconduct researchers becoming a target for big recurring legal defense bills, big enough to involve insurers, faculty funding, etc. Eventually we might a some landmark verdict like the Apple-vs-Samsung of misconduct/defamation trials.
Sure, but if this were to become commonplace, you can see misconduct researchers becoming a target for big recurring legal defense bills, big enough to involve insurers, faculty funding, etc. Eventually we might a some landmark verdict like the Apple-vs-Samsung of misconduct/defamation trials.
Do you have a source for their universities paying? Their fundraising page states that "their employers have so far only agreed to pay part of the legal fees".
https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
https://www.gofundme.com/f/uhbka-support-data-coladas-legal-...
In the August 2nd, 2024 update on the GoFundMe:
"Because our universities have generously funded our defense up to this point, we have not (yet) had to use any of the GoFundMe money... we are reaching out to you to explain how we intend to use it. Obviously if we need the money for our defense, we will use it for our defense. Our plan is to donate any money we do not use to The Scientific Integrity Fund, an organization that defends scientists who find themselves in a predicament that is very similar to ours. "
"Because our universities have generously funded our defense up to this point, we have not (yet) had to use any of the GoFundMe money... we are reaching out to you to explain how we intend to use it. Obviously if we need the money for our defense, we will use it for our defense. Our plan is to donate any money we do not use to The Scientific Integrity Fund, an organization that defends scientists who find themselves in a predicament that is very similar to ours. "
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Do folks have a sense of how much the costs would have been just to get dismissed for DC? Seems to be definitely over 10k (50k?) Or am I overestimating.