China introduces ‘social’ punishments for scientific misconduct(nature.com)
nature.com
China introduces ‘social’ punishments for scientific misconduct
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07740-z
93 comments
I think the key here is that there is no due process. No right to face your accuser and see the evidence against you.
We have this in the US with terrorists watch lists and no fly lists.
We have this in the US with terrorists watch lists and no fly lists.
Yeah - it sounds like the fisa courts exactly. You'd be surprised who ends up on these lists.
Imagine someone standing outside one of these shadow court houses protesting the fact they're being harassed and persecuted without due process.
Imagine someone standing outside one of these shadow court houses protesting the fact they're being harassed and persecuted without due process.
Correct. But the difference in China they are making this sort of system cover a hundred times as many areas of living.
I find it crazy that people are surprised by this at all. I’ve always assumed this was the logical progression of China’s new “social credit” system. The end goal is complete control over all aspects of the Chinese citizen’s life (and honestly, I’m not sure it stops at the Chinese citizen).
[deleted]
> can easily blackball an individual with no recourse.
It doesn't say you cannot seek recourse.
> it should be through the courts and through a fine or some sort of government restriction, not enforced by the public sector. Legal system in China is weak and probably doesn't have enough capacity to handle such large volume of court fights. Any major city in China can have tens of millions of people.
TBH I think restriction on taking high-speed transportation is quite genius, better than fine, and only China is able to do that because there's no boundary between public sector and government there. Fine can be easily got over by rich people, and may incentivize over-enforcement.
Government and laws in China is fundamentally different from Western ones, also quite different from those depicted in Western fictions about authoritarianism. Don't blindly assume government can impose whatever they want onto the people, social unrest can cause disaster and CCP doesn't have another party to blame.
> it should be through the courts and through a fine or some sort of government restriction, not enforced by the public sector. Legal system in China is weak and probably doesn't have enough capacity to handle such large volume of court fights. Any major city in China can have tens of millions of people.
TBH I think restriction on taking high-speed transportation is quite genius, better than fine, and only China is able to do that because there's no boundary between public sector and government there. Fine can be easily got over by rich people, and may incentivize over-enforcement.
Government and laws in China is fundamentally different from Western ones, also quite different from those depicted in Western fictions about authoritarianism. Don't blindly assume government can impose whatever they want onto the people, social unrest can cause disaster and CCP doesn't have another party to blame.
> Don't blindly assume government can impose whatever they want onto the people
I see absolutely no evidence that this is true.
> social unrest can cause disaster
I believe that’s what the re-education camps are for.
I see absolutely no evidence that this is true.
> social unrest can cause disaster
I believe that’s what the re-education camps are for.
China is not a democracy. You have the rights the government says you have.
And you don’t even have those in many cases.
America isn't a democracy, and you have natural born rights protected by the Constitution.
I'm confused. China is not America.
You said your phase as if the reason Chinese people don't have natural rights is because they don't live in a democracy, which is why I compared to US. Granted, we're much closer to democracy than them, but in a more strict sense, we're also not a democracy.
We are a republic. We always have been. We've sprinkled in some democratic elements.
We are a representative democracy and a republic. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.
When people say things like "US is a republic, not a democracy", they're using the archaic definition of "democracy" from 200 years ago. Modern English has a different definition.
When people say things like "US is a republic, not a democracy", they're using the archaic definition of "democracy" from 200 years ago. Modern English has a different definition.
I think that "archaic" definition still has plenty of modern salience. Whenever someone is complaining that a majority of the people support xyz or wanted so-and-so as President but didn't get it, they are appealing to "democracy". Whenever someone responds by saying that's just fine and that the point of the system isn't to translate majority wills into policy, they are appealing to a notion of republicanism.
The modern terms for these is "direct democracy" and "representative democracy". Furthermore, insofar as the ability to decide things by voting is constrained by the constitution, it's a "constitutional democracy".
There are many countries in the world that fulfill all these criteria without being republics. Canada would be the closest example - they have a constitution that limits democratic decision making, and they have people elect representatives rather than deciding on issues directly. But they're not a republic, solely because they have a monarch.
There are many countries in the world that fulfill all these criteria without being republics. Canada would be the closest example - they have a constitution that limits democratic decision making, and they have people elect representatives rather than deciding on issues directly. But they're not a republic, solely because they have a monarch.
Those are two totally different meanings of the word “republic”. The definition as the opposite of monarchy and the definition having to do with organizational qualities are related only by historical overlap, not by unity of core concept.
And what I’m trying to get at as one definition of democracy is the idea that policy should track majority preferences, totally aside from any structural features of the system that might make that likely. For example, someone arguing that a certain bill should pass because a majority of citizens support it is making an argument from this idea. That argument in itself is totally aside from whether the legislature is even elected by the citizens.
And what I’m trying to get at as one definition of democracy is the idea that policy should track majority preferences, totally aside from any structural features of the system that might make that likely. For example, someone arguing that a certain bill should pass because a majority of citizens support it is making an argument from this idea. That argument in itself is totally aside from whether the legislature is even elected by the citizens.
In that sense, our system is still a democracy. Even the Constitution can be arbitrarily amended with a large enough majority, after all.
The definition of republic has held up. It's still true that we are a republic, even under modern English. Some call it a democratic republic but notice no one calls it a republican democracy.
We call it "representative democracy".
But it's usually redundant, because all modern democracies are representative. Some have more direct democracy features than others (e.g. Switzerland, or some western US states with their public initiative process), but they're still fundamentally representative.
But it's usually redundant, because all modern democracies are representative. Some have more direct democracy features than others (e.g. Switzerland, or some western US states with their public initiative process), but they're still fundamentally representative.
We don't call this a representative democracy. We're just not a democracy. Majority vote doesn't even determine the president. Even in the house and the Senate, bills have to pass BOTH in order to become law...and remember, Senators don't line up with population figures...they represent whole states. The definition of republic is 2000 years old. It's okay to use it.
The US is (by Constitutional design) both a representative democracy and democratic, federal republic.
“Republic” alone is correct, but overly nonspecific; essentially any government that isn't a hereditary monarchy or similar system where government power isn't private and heritable is a republic.
> The definition of republic is 2000 years old.
Well, sure, there is a definition that old (older, actually), but the one you seem to be using (the colloquial American one referring specifically to a system of elected representatives) is much newer, peculiar to American non-technical usage, and equivalent to “democratic republic” and very close to “representative democracy” (differing only in that the latter can coexist with constitutional monarchy.)
“Republic” alone is correct, but overly nonspecific; essentially any government that isn't a hereditary monarchy or similar system where government power isn't private and heritable is a republic.
> The definition of republic is 2000 years old.
Well, sure, there is a definition that old (older, actually), but the one you seem to be using (the colloquial American one referring specifically to a system of elected representatives) is much newer, peculiar to American non-technical usage, and equivalent to “democratic republic” and very close to “representative democracy” (differing only in that the latter can coexist with constitutional monarchy.)
We have many Democratic elements. We elect our Representatives, many times we elect our own laws, and we even indirectly elect businesses, voting with the wallet. But yes, generally speaking we live in a republic hybrid, for good reason.
Electing representatives to manage the government is the defining part of a republic. When citizens are voting on laws themselves, they are practicing actual democracy. That's relatively rare in the U.S. and it also only happens at the state and local level.
My gut reaction is to agree with you.
After a little thought, I'm not so sure.
Could such a system prevent scientists and doctors claiming, on behalf of their employer, that there's no connection between smoking and health, or that there's no anthropogenic climate change, or that there's no asbestos in the baby powder? Then there's the countless pseudo scientific cures and remedies. Could it do better than the system we have?
Clearly, it could be abused, but so can the system we have and it is being, heavily.
Which produces the more honest result?
After a little thought, I'm not so sure.
Could such a system prevent scientists and doctors claiming, on behalf of their employer, that there's no connection between smoking and health, or that there's no anthropogenic climate change, or that there's no asbestos in the baby powder? Then there's the countless pseudo scientific cures and remedies. Could it do better than the system we have?
Clearly, it could be abused, but so can the system we have and it is being, heavily.
Which produces the more honest result?
But on the flip side, how much was considered inappropriate, wrong, or irresponsible in the past and became accepted in the end?
I'd rather a situation where scientists are given freedom to publish what they produce, than fear excommunication for challenging the current theories and conventional science.
If you want a system where scientists aren't bought as mouthpieces by industry, instead find a way where they can get paid and fund their research without commercial interference.
I'd rather a situation where scientists are given freedom to publish what they produce, than fear excommunication for challenging the current theories and conventional science.
If you want a system where scientists aren't bought as mouthpieces by industry, instead find a way where they can get paid and fund their research without commercial interference.
Large organizations aren't the ones who are going to lose here. They're the ones who already have the government's ear. This is just another lever they could pull to discourage research that goes against their interests.
What if the government decides to force certain "facts" about whatever, and punishes truly honest scientists for getting too close to the truth?
What if the sugar industry lobby successfully moves blame from sugar to fat for 40 years? Which had the effect of punishing truly honest scientists who published the first links between sugar and obesity.
Who might be more honest - a government funded body, or a commercial entity making profit off one particular answer?
Who might be more honest - a government funded body, or a commercial entity making profit off one particular answer?
You think either one is more honest than the other? Powerful people will manipulate public opinion that's what they do. They only thing that keeps things relatively moderate is competition among powerful entities. In the case of the Chinese, their government IS big business and big business is government. Power corrupts...and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This Chinese social credit system is among the highest forms of absolute power I've ever seen.
I get the feeling we're going to have to reteach people about these kinds of problems, every so often. It seems like people just kind of forget that sweeping authoritative power and control isn't a good thing.
In your case, the scientists were likely punished by wasted time, disqualifying otherwise correct science work, maybe even lost their jobs.
How do you think they'd be punished in China under this system? Maybe they can't ride a train anymore, or forced into dingy second rate establishments, or refused certain services. I wonder how that will work when facial recognition hits big.
And to answer your question, trusting the government is always foolish.
How do you think they'd be punished in China under this system? Maybe they can't ride a train anymore, or forced into dingy second rate establishments, or refused certain services. I wonder how that will work when facial recognition hits big.
And to answer your question, trusting the government is always foolish.
Trusting the government to set up an independent oversight body, such as gave us trading standards, food safety, and the bodies that became the BSI (British Standards, the first national standards body) or various regulators etc.
It's perfectly possible to trust an independent body set up, and funded, by government whilst entirely distrusting party politics and the government of the day. I have yet to lose trust of, for example, the BSI Kitemark. Nor trading standards despite governments occasionally limiting their funding, and thus their effectiveness. Despite being funded by the state they are not the government. (Actually I think BSI is self-funded these days, but the point stands)
Professional bodies, such as those for lawyers, doctors etc, frequently attract criticism for being to lenient. The market clearly heavily weights where the money is. Government action is one of very few opportunities to balance that.
Now, I don't know enough from the article about how this will be set up, or which government agencies are being granted this role. Nor do we know how it will work - Party Members punishing errant scientists is clearly very wrong, an independent body of scientists "striking off" an errant scientist may be a very good thing. Little different to a doctor being struck off, but perhaps freer from commercial influence. We can assume, but we don't know. Hence my original question.
Harsher, further reaching penalties for faking peer review, falsifying data or CVs seems a reasonable goal, that might just work. The devil, as mentioned above, is in the unknown details.
It's perfectly possible to trust an independent body set up, and funded, by government whilst entirely distrusting party politics and the government of the day. I have yet to lose trust of, for example, the BSI Kitemark. Nor trading standards despite governments occasionally limiting their funding, and thus their effectiveness. Despite being funded by the state they are not the government. (Actually I think BSI is self-funded these days, but the point stands)
Professional bodies, such as those for lawyers, doctors etc, frequently attract criticism for being to lenient. The market clearly heavily weights where the money is. Government action is one of very few opportunities to balance that.
Now, I don't know enough from the article about how this will be set up, or which government agencies are being granted this role. Nor do we know how it will work - Party Members punishing errant scientists is clearly very wrong, an independent body of scientists "striking off" an errant scientist may be a very good thing. Little different to a doctor being struck off, but perhaps freer from commercial influence. We can assume, but we don't know. Hence my original question.
Harsher, further reaching penalties for faking peer review, falsifying data or CVs seems a reasonable goal, that might just work. The devil, as mentioned above, is in the unknown details.
Trusting the private sector is too. You can at least vote the public sector to change. Its your government, it will never be your company.
You actually can't just 'vote' to change the public sector at your will. In fact very few things are Democratic in American government. The closest you could get would be voting for politicians who pinky-promise to try approving plans to try implementing something that's probably not even what you want but will cost twice as much.
The government very much works like a business does: there are worker-bees, managers, committees, higher people in charge, crooks and thieves, power-abusers and criminals. On the other hand, the private sector is literally made up of competing groups and individuals who are looking for success when the market is fair.
The same problems above exist in some businesses as well. The benefit with the private sector is, when we find corruption we can destroy contract, sue, and find a competitor. You can't do that with the government.
The government very much works like a business does: there are worker-bees, managers, committees, higher people in charge, crooks and thieves, power-abusers and criminals. On the other hand, the private sector is literally made up of competing groups and individuals who are looking for success when the market is fair.
The same problems above exist in some businesses as well. The benefit with the private sector is, when we find corruption we can destroy contract, sue, and find a competitor. You can't do that with the government.
Ironically, a (public) company can totally be my company. Wheress the government will never belong to me.
Always cracks me up when people think corporations are full of evil people but noble government would never be similarly evil.
Always cracks me up when people think corporations are full of evil people but noble government would never be similarly evil.
What about someone that publish a study that says that below a very small threshold asbesto is safe? (Not good, but at least lees dangerous that eating a banana?)
What about someone that publish a study that says that second hand smoke is not dangerous (except at ridicule high levels)? IIRC the evidence against second hand smoke is not conclusive. What about third hand smoke? That is just ridiculous.
What about pronuclear research, that compares the danger of nuclear contamination and the reduction of CO2 emission?
The real question is who is in charge of deciding what is good science and what is bad science. The president? The Nobel committee? The UN? The consensus? Who organize the pools to decide what is the consensus? Do they use secret ballots or everyone vote is published for enabling public shamming?
If someone publish article against homeopathy who will vote? The homeopathy specialists or the corporate allopathy drones payed by big pharma?
What about someone that publish a study that says that second hand smoke is not dangerous (except at ridicule high levels)? IIRC the evidence against second hand smoke is not conclusive. What about third hand smoke? That is just ridiculous.
What about pronuclear research, that compares the danger of nuclear contamination and the reduction of CO2 emission?
The real question is who is in charge of deciding what is good science and what is bad science. The president? The Nobel committee? The UN? The consensus? Who organize the pools to decide what is the consensus? Do they use secret ballots or everyone vote is published for enabling public shamming?
If someone publish article against homeopathy who will vote? The homeopathy specialists or the corporate allopathy drones payed by big pharma?
Why is this down voted?
This comment raised a reasonable, and frankly, quite meaningful, question about the prospect of this new system.
This comment raised a reasonable, and frankly, quite meaningful, question about the prospect of this new system.
To quote the Guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Votes tend to improve a lot over time as more users visit, so just wait.
I'm likewise disappointed. I don't agree with the proposal, but it is absolutely a worthwhile one to discuss, even if only to practice opposition to it and find out what others think, for and against.
I can't help but feel this is some reddit-grade "downvote because I don't agree" voting.
I can't help but feel this is some reddit-grade "downvote because I don't agree" voting.
I didn't downvote it, but it is probably because it is a system that can be used to punish honest research as easily as it can be used to punish the dishonest kind.
I downvoted it. I also downvoted you for whining about it.
To be honest, I downvoted because I disagree, yes. But more to the point, I find it so dangerously ridiculous AND the same sad “whataboutism” that always gets commented in response to whatever China’s latest human rights atrocity is. It annoys me. Yes, I could post a long substantive comment explaining why I think this is the road to civilization’s ruin, but I don’t always have the time :)
Also, if you think that HN doesn’t downvote based on agreement, you must not post anything controversial often. I can almost always predict how my comments are going to perform within a few points.
To be honest, I downvoted because I disagree, yes. But more to the point, I find it so dangerously ridiculous AND the same sad “whataboutism” that always gets commented in response to whatever China’s latest human rights atrocity is. It annoys me. Yes, I could post a long substantive comment explaining why I think this is the road to civilization’s ruin, but I don’t always have the time :)
Also, if you think that HN doesn’t downvote based on agreement, you must not post anything controversial often. I can almost always predict how my comments are going to perform within a few points.
I agree with this. They are punishing those who are using fake CVs, falsifying data, fake resumes. We don’t have much of a problem here with that and it’s easy to do solid background checks and ethics are just higher. In that environment this may be a great solution. They aren’t arresting or jailing anyone and this in my opinion is an ample threat to prevent would be borderline cheaters to think twice.
There is far more temptation to cheat when money, job, promotion is on the line and you have no social welfare to fall back on. False scientific data worsens the country’s image and threatens lives etc.
We have our own deep deep problems with research but that’s another discussion.
There is far more temptation to cheat when money, job, promotion is on the line and you have no social welfare to fall back on. False scientific data worsens the country’s image and threatens lives etc.
We have our own deep deep problems with research but that’s another discussion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire "social credit" system completely opaque? As far as I know, there's no due process, trial, or opportunity for those being labeled with an offense (for to be "accused" implies that there is some transparency involved) to defend themselves. That, coupled with the Chinese government's abuse of the system to suppress their citizens (the system already penalizes you for merely suggesting that the government is imperfect) makes me think that it'll likely be used to e.g. punish those publishing papers that don't agree with the state narrative.
Oh you’re absolutely right about the punishing those who don’t agree with the state. But as of now they already do punish by sending them into a black cell disappearing forever. Xi has done this to anyone including multibillionaires and CCP highest ranking billionaires. When he was in charge of rooting out corruption, he went after enemies to shore up political support. A group of highly influential CCP elites wrote a letter disagreeing with the road to tyranny and I believe every one of them disappeared.
I’m sure the system has abuses, I think it is opaque but not sure but I imagine beaurocrats will abuse it with petty grudges and bribes. Just in this case, I’m glad China is cracking down on scientific fraud and I prefer these measures to jail. I don’t think going against the state’s narrative for hard sciences is possible. For policy, sociology, history, I’m sure there is already an iron hand there with no room to wiggle.
I’m sure the system has abuses, I think it is opaque but not sure but I imagine beaurocrats will abuse it with petty grudges and bribes. Just in this case, I’m glad China is cracking down on scientific fraud and I prefer these measures to jail. I don’t think going against the state’s narrative for hard sciences is possible. For policy, sociology, history, I’m sure there is already an iron hand there with no room to wiggle.
> A group of highly influential CCP elites wrote a letter disagreeing with the road to tyranny and I believe every one of them disappeared.
I am extremely curious what this letter contained. Do you have any idea what it was called or any ideas on how to find it? Key words or a time frame or anything like that. (Not accusing you of making it up at all by the way, if it sounds like that.)
I am extremely curious what this letter contained. Do you have any idea what it was called or any ideas on how to find it? Key words or a time frame or anything like that. (Not accusing you of making it up at all by the way, if it sounds like that.)
First, they came for the scientific frauds . . .
A little shameless self-promotion here, but if anyone is interested I just finished translating part of an article from Han dyansty China about law and punishment: https://dragoncarvings.wordpress.com/2018/12/08/law-and-puni...
I appreciate you doing this. Much wisdoms in the Book of Han as usual. Though I agree with a lot of points in there, the problem is power corrupt the wisest. Chinese has been through those issues so. many. times... Still making the same mistakes. There WILL be abuses of power, inequalities and social disruptions because of this. Cycle of life in deed.
I have some doubts regarding this --
1.) What if the topic on which someone wants to publish is still developing, and the researches in the meantime produces wrong results which can be a genuine case, then does the individual get penalized?
2.) Also if point 1 is allowed then one might always claim this as a backdoor escape for all wrong publications.
3.) What role does a reviewer have if there is a false publication, will the reviewer be also punished?
I am not suggesting this is a bad move, it is just a different view point which might actually work out for good, but unless all points have been addressed correctly, claiming that something might be a punishable offence is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
1.) What if the topic on which someone wants to publish is still developing, and the researches in the meantime produces wrong results which can be a genuine case, then does the individual get penalized?
2.) Also if point 1 is allowed then one might always claim this as a backdoor escape for all wrong publications.
3.) What role does a reviewer have if there is a false publication, will the reviewer be also punished?
I am not suggesting this is a bad move, it is just a different view point which might actually work out for good, but unless all points have been addressed correctly, claiming that something might be a punishable offence is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
I'd add the follow-up question of "how could this system being maliciously gamed?"
There should be severe punishment for scientific misconduct. Especially fraud. The lynchpin is who gets to decide? That said, I suggest another punishment. Branding cheaters with a scarlet letter. WCGW?
This is so complex. I think it's too complex to completely understand for me (dude in california). Originally I thought it was kind of dystopian, but in itself (ie academics doing "bad things") it fits into the rest of the social fabric of the community. The overall social credit system is super strange to me, which I think is worth talking about, but this part seems like an extension of that status quo.
I think people need more economic mobility, and the ability to live where they want when policies like this come up. Bringing the smartest / most entrepreneurial Chinese away from China because of bad policy is one way of driving economic incentives... but I'm not sure how to deal with this in itself.
Makes me want to study sociology more though.
I think people need more economic mobility, and the ability to live where they want when policies like this come up. Bringing the smartest / most entrepreneurial Chinese away from China because of bad policy is one way of driving economic incentives... but I'm not sure how to deal with this in itself.
Makes me want to study sociology more though.
> The overall social credit system is super strange to me
Spotted the person who hasn’t seen the relevant (and really awesome) Black Mirror episode.
Spotted the person who hasn’t seen the relevant (and really awesome) Black Mirror episode.
thats horrible! It makes me don't want to go back to China for having a faculty job.
What sort of research do you want to do that you're afraid might result in punishment?
Or put another way, what do you think a government agency might see as misconduct that you see as legitimate?
Or put another way, what do you think a government agency might see as misconduct that you see as legitimate?
you probably never heard of the so called "political flighting" among university professors in China
I would be concerned about ideologically incorrect research, innocent mistakes, non-research-related activism, working for a disfavored person, being part of a disfavored ethnic group, etc.
You are saying that as if the government is immune to corruption and abuse of power.
This is my thought Everytime someone defends increasing government power and authority. They always assume the government is going to act in good faith and never use the power in a harmful way. Almost as if they've never read a history book.
This is similar to how privacy-conscious people are told that “if you don’t have anything to hide then why are you so concerned about actually hiding things?”.
> what do you think a government agency might see as misconduct that you see as legitimate?
I'm not the GP, but that one is easy:
- Discovering that some drug is ineffective (or worse) when the manufacturer has made party contributions;
- Discovering that some public policy does not benefit the population while it benefits some politician;
- Any research on a propaganda line with results that are not aligned with the official truths.
I'm not the GP, but that one is easy:
- Discovering that some drug is ineffective (or worse) when the manufacturer has made party contributions;
- Discovering that some public policy does not benefit the population while it benefits some politician;
- Any research on a propaganda line with results that are not aligned with the official truths.
My understanding is that the Chinese government is implementing this system because there has been a great breakdown in social norms of honesty and rule-following. For thousands of years the Chinese operated under an elaborate set of social norms from Confucianism.
But then these were thrown away under Communism, and in particular during the Cultural Revolution period there was paranoid chaos, and a great loss of social trust. And then a further radical change with the capitalist industrial revolution under Deng Jiaoping.
The consequence is that people don't trust anyone outside their immediate circles, and often feel no obligation to act in a non-harmful way toward them. The Government is trying to restore a sense of moral obligation to the members of the population. It will be interesting to see how well it goes.
But then these were thrown away under Communism, and in particular during the Cultural Revolution period there was paranoid chaos, and a great loss of social trust. And then a further radical change with the capitalist industrial revolution under Deng Jiaoping.
The consequence is that people don't trust anyone outside their immediate circles, and often feel no obligation to act in a non-harmful way toward them. The Government is trying to restore a sense of moral obligation to the members of the population. It will be interesting to see how well it goes.
Eloquently stated. Although the observation requires a grasping of Chinese history, so it will be dismissed by many, I believe this is on the mark, not withstanding standard disclaimers around any appeal to an historical utopia.
Surprised no one seems to have addressed the real purpose of the "social" punishment for "scientific misconduct", which is to punish those who dare to mention or research topics that the government doesn't like, such as the tiananmen massacre, Huawei spyware, etc.
[deleted]
What a great incentive for top Chinese scientists to immigrate elsewhere.
Will this weaken the scientific community in China?
Will this cause researchers to become adverse to speaking out for fear of retaliatory attacks on themselves?
Seems like a major step in the wrong direction for Chinese society.
Will this cause researchers to become adverse to speaking out for fear of retaliatory attacks on themselves?
Seems like a major step in the wrong direction for Chinese society.
> Chinese leaders have been increasingly focused on scientific misconduct, following ongoing reports of researchers there using fraudulent data, falsifying CVs and faking peer reviews
It sounds like a step in the right direction. It feels less gross if you think of "social punishment" as a lighter version of "legal punishment". No need to send cheaters to jail, but don't let them off the hook either.
Assuming the system won't be abused for political (I'm sure it will), the detection is accurate (I'm sure it'll be hard), the social punishment is reasonable (we'll see), it sounds reasonable in theory.
It sounds like a step in the right direction. It feels less gross if you think of "social punishment" as a lighter version of "legal punishment". No need to send cheaters to jail, but don't let them off the hook either.
Assuming the system won't be abused for political (I'm sure it will), the detection is accurate (I'm sure it'll be hard), the social punishment is reasonable (we'll see), it sounds reasonable in theory.
The social score in China is even worse than in Black Mirror, it defines everything you can access from bank, education, job, health, transport , social relationships, etc.
It is not a legal score, it is a social score (both in theory and in practice)
I completely agree that it is stupid to send non-dangerous people to jail, but we should punish them with fines and possibly specific job restrictions decided on a per-case basis by a tribunal if there is a clear danger, but not by restricting their every aspect of their private, public, social and professional life.
It is not a legal score, it is a social score (both in theory and in practice)
I completely agree that it is stupid to send non-dangerous people to jail, but we should punish them with fines and possibly specific job restrictions decided on a per-case basis by a tribunal if there is a clear danger, but not by restricting their every aspect of their private, public, social and professional life.
It seems like a systemization of how a small society might shun an outcast. If you’re a rude asshole at school or work, people might intentionally make your life harder by refusing to do things for you, at a minimum they won’t be trusting you with any favors. In the extreme they won’t talk to you.
The government can’t tweak at such a fine level but wherever it can, that’s what the system feels like from my very far and biased point of view.
The government can’t tweak at such a fine level but wherever it can, that’s what the system feels like from my very far and biased point of view.
Fines will give you less money, which will restrict every aspect of your private, public, social and professional life.
[deleted]
> It feels less gross if you think of "social punishment" as a lighter version of "legal punishment".
The mental gymnastics people present for support on these policies is astounding to me.
The mental gymnastics people present for support on these policies is astounding to me.
In the states, if you're known for scientific misconduct, will you get a job at a a state school?
Probably not but you can still buy train tickets, get a mortgage, and live in Manhattan if you make some other career work out for you.
That's what's disturbing here, the link to this other system that is, in itself, nightmarish.
That's what's disturbing here, the link to this other system that is, in itself, nightmarish.
Right, their system seems to presuppose that if a person does something wrong once they should carry the consequences of that "misconduct" indefinitely. That's awfully pessimistic and depressing to me. Everyone has done something "wrong" at one point or another. Most people learn and grow from those mistakes.
What will a society look like where people aren't free to learn from their mistakes but are instead perpetually held back by them?
What will a society look like where people aren't free to learn from their mistakes but are instead perpetually held back by them?
Based on a YouTube documentary I saw it seems like you can redeem your score through payments (officially to charity, but it doesn’t look like it’s transparent): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkw15LkZ_Kw
Compare this to a prison system based on punishment instead of prevention, leading to depressing recidivism.
Compare this to a prison system based on punishment instead of prevention, leading to depressing recidivism.
Thanks for sharing! That was really interesting! From your other comments it looks like you live in China? What has the reception been so far?
I didn't realize the point system so subjective until I watched that clip you shared. How do they decide who becomes an "Information Collector?" Those positions will surely be highly coveted because they come with a massive amount of power and influence over their neighbors' lives. What concerns me about the payment system is that it seems like a fast-track to massive inequality - wealth, social, and justice. If someone can simply pay to erase their "bad" behavior then there's functionally one set of "rules" for those who can afford not to follow them and another set of rules that are actually enforced, in life changing ways, for everyone else.
I didn't realize the point system so subjective until I watched that clip you shared. How do they decide who becomes an "Information Collector?" Those positions will surely be highly coveted because they come with a massive amount of power and influence over their neighbors' lives. What concerns me about the payment system is that it seems like a fast-track to massive inequality - wealth, social, and justice. If someone can simply pay to erase their "bad" behavior then there's functionally one set of "rules" for those who can afford not to follow them and another set of rules that are actually enforced, in life changing ways, for everyone else.
You really don't see any negatives to this?
See my original comment, I see plenty of negatives! But it seems most commenters here are only downsides. References to Black Mirror and 1984 everywhere. I think that’s overblown, and it seems to me like a great experiment to run and learn from. If it turns out to be terrible then we know, if it has upsides but has trade offs in privacy that the west won’t like, then we know. But shouldn’t we find out?
I have the same thought behind UBI and drug decriminalization as well: thought experiments be damned, go try it and see.
I have the same thought behind UBI and drug decriminalization as well: thought experiments be damned, go try it and see.
But the flip side may be that since it is lighter than « legal punishment », individuals don’t benefit from the same due process and recourses they otherwise have.
So it might be a wrong step in right direction - as the majority of regulations usually are.
I would say it depends.
If you have to stereotype Chinese dominated community, I think one pattern might emerge, the disregard towards rules particularly if that leads to personal advantages. In other words, rules speak louder when employed for punishment rather than respected as means to obtain the greater good.
There is possibility such punishments could be abused, but as many things happened in China, the execution of such is contextual and selective, so only time will tell.
If you have to stereotype Chinese dominated community, I think one pattern might emerge, the disregard towards rules particularly if that leads to personal advantages. In other words, rules speak louder when employed for punishment rather than respected as means to obtain the greater good.
There is possibility such punishments could be abused, but as many things happened in China, the execution of such is contextual and selective, so only time will tell.
> Will this weaken the scientific community in China?
It most probraly will because as soon as the system starts working the definition of "misconduct" will probably include ideologically-incorrect research results and subjects, failures to comply to the Chinese job etiquette etc.
And the Chinese Government reaction on Dr. He's breakthrough is an example of how policy can stand against science.
It most probraly will because as soon as the system starts working the definition of "misconduct" will probably include ideologically-incorrect research results and subjects, failures to comply to the Chinese job etiquette etc.
And the Chinese Government reaction on Dr. He's breakthrough is an example of how policy can stand against science.
The scientific community is not strengthened in any way by those who falsify data and credentials. Quite the contrary, sometimes other scientists dedicate years to worthless pursuits because they are working in a "promising" direction set forth by others who fabricate impressive results in order to progress their carrier.
I thought that's what people wanted? Everyone said that the scientist who cloned a baby should be punished.
The government handing out the punishments is itself untrustworthy, which is why every additional power they give themselves is a step in the wrong direction.
>dozens of government agencies will have the power to hand out penalties to those caught committing major scientific misconduct
The key insight here is that you are not being punished as a result of a long, careful process administered by judges and a jury of your peers (which has some problems but at least is designed to be careful and not political), but instead will be at the mercy of a few government agencies which must by their very construction be political.
In the US, there is a similar problem in a much smaller dose, where the government is likewise attempting to assign itself more power without introducing controls to let the citizens be the ones who ultimately decide what happens. One example would be the "secret courts" in the NSA problem. Although the US government is presently much nicer to its citizens than the Chinese government, the only reason this is true is because US citizens have more leverage on the US government than Chinese citizens do on theirs. This can change, and unsurprisingly the officials are trying to gain more authority.
>dozens of government agencies will have the power to hand out penalties to those caught committing major scientific misconduct
The key insight here is that you are not being punished as a result of a long, careful process administered by judges and a jury of your peers (which has some problems but at least is designed to be careful and not political), but instead will be at the mercy of a few government agencies which must by their very construction be political.
In the US, there is a similar problem in a much smaller dose, where the government is likewise attempting to assign itself more power without introducing controls to let the citizens be the ones who ultimately decide what happens. One example would be the "secret courts" in the NSA problem. Although the US government is presently much nicer to its citizens than the Chinese government, the only reason this is true is because US citizens have more leverage on the US government than Chinese citizens do on theirs. This can change, and unsurprisingly the officials are trying to gain more authority.
It's not what anyone who wants that scientist to be punished automatically wants, no more than someone who wants a glass of water wants a tsunami.
Besides, the Chinese authorities already said what he did violates Chinese law, so what would introducing new laws achieve here, unless they're applied retroactively?
The last thing I heard was that he went missing, any updates on that?
Besides, the Chinese authorities already said what he did violates Chinese law, so what would introducing new laws achieve here, unless they're applied retroactively?
The last thing I heard was that he went missing, any updates on that?
"people who lose trust in one area of society should face restrictions in other areas."
Sounds very reasonable to me.
Sounds very reasonable to me.
Do you think the person denying a bank loan, hiring, approving jobs, etc. is going to check and verify that what the person did is wrong? Or can this at any moment be used against anyone.
If the government wants to punish someone it should be through the courts and through a fine or some sort of government restriction, not enforced by the public sector.