How a Graduate Student Reluctantly Uncovered a Huge Scientific Fraud

New York Magazine ^ | 5-29-15 | Jesse singal

[DeweyCA]

The exposure of one of the biggest scientific frauds in recent memory...

(Snip)

Over and over again, throughout the scientific community and the media, LaCour’s impossible-seeming results were treated as truth, in part because of the weight Green’s name carried, and in part, frankly, because people — researchers, journalists, activists —wanted to believe them.

(snip)

...Broockman was consistently told by friends and advisers to keep quiet about his concerns lest he earn a reputation as a troublemaker, or —  perhaps worse — someone who merely replicates and investigates others’ research rather than plant a flag of his own.

(snip)

This might seem like a strange, mafia-ish argument to a non-academic, but within the small world of political science — particularly within the world of younger, less job-secure political scientists — it makes sense for at least two reasons. The first is that the moment your name is associated with the questioning of someone else’s work, you could be in trouble. If the target is someone above you, like Green, you’re seen as envious, as shamelessly trying to take down a big name. If the target is someone at your level, you’re throwing elbows in an unseemly manner. In either case, you may end up having one of your papers reviewed by the target of your inquiries (or one of their friends) at some point — in theory, peer reviewers are “blinded” to the identity of the author or authors of a paper they’re reviewing, but between earlier versions of papers floating around the internet and the fact that everyone knows what everyone else is working on, the reality is quite different. Moreover, the very few plum jobs and big grants don’t go to people who investigate other researchers’ work — they go to those who stake out their own research areas.

[BeauBo]

The only thing that makes this whistleblowing acceptable (survivable) is that it is framed as serving the liberal agenda, and by highlighting the ideological purity of the whistleblower (he is Gay, and concerned that efforts to influence the Irish vote on gay marriage are effective).

On the one hand, the whistleblower protects the movement from misallocating resources in their “righteous” cause of promoting gay marriage, from bad data.

On the other hand, this case is supposed to restore our faith in academic self-policing, because such high-minded geniuses are on the job.

It could well have been a catty swipe by a disgruntled former sex partner, or out of spite for a spurned advance.

The article does highlight out how widespread the perception was that an academic would be blackballed for revealing fraud though.

[William Tell]

DeweyCA said: "... research done by a homosexual grad student ..."

I see where it is revealed that Broockman, the one who discovered the fraud, is gay. Was the author of the fraudulent study also gay?

[samtheman]

And the thing that really gets me is the two parallel tracks of the GW Hoax.

Track One: these are the things that are masking GW right now and the reasons we don’t see temps rising even though there is Climate Change.

Track Two: all the things rising temperatures are causing right now.

Nobody notices the Jupiter-sized contradiction.

[Timber Rattler]

Great article. And it also makes you wonder how much of this corruption extends into the whole "climate science" arena.

I think we all know the answer to that.

[Proud2BeRight]

They will claim victory in the future regardless of the outcome. If it gets warmer, they will claim they were right. If it gets cooler or continues to stay unchanged, they will claim they have made a difference.

[samtheman]

And if they are ever locked in prison where they belong they will claim victim-hood.

[MHGinTN]

Like Sodom and the argument Abraham had with God over how many righteous it would take for God to spare the city from annihilation, America's only hope is that there remain enough Christians so that God will withhold the catastrophes we deserve of late. Frankly, I believe strongly that the Rapture of the Church will rain down sufficient calamity that many will finally turn away from their lust and seek His Grace. It is too late to redeem the nation now ruled by an evil oligarchy who can rig any election they so desire for their purposes and can blackmail anyone in government, as evidence with men like Hastert and John Roberts.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

Gays making up research data is not new. Look up Alfred Kinsey. The twisted mind twists all.

[The people have spoken]

Academic arguments are so savage because the results are so small.

Often stated like this: Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.

[DeweyCA]

Yes, the UCLA grad student who faked the stats is deeply involved in a gay-advocacy political group.

[RobinOfKingston]

... LaCour’s impossible-seeming results were treated as truth, in part because of the weight Green’s name carried, and in part, frankly, because people — researchers, journalists, activists — wanted to believe them.

And, then, someone in the crowd (David Brookman) said, "But, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes."

[HLPhat]

>>There is liberal PC groupthink in universities
>>which simply must not be challenged

Oh, it’s spread FAR beyond universities.

The corporate-collectivist world has been infested with the same mindset.

[glorgau]

The article tells how this “research” fraud went undetected and was even published in the prestigious journal, Science.

It was peer reviewed. Whoever did the reviewing should have their tenure revoked.

[glorgau]

The article tells how this “research” fraud went undetected and was even published in the prestigious journal, Science.

It was peer reviewed. Whoever did the reviewing should have their tenure revoked - The article clearly showed that no one ran the numbers on the original data set besides the fraud that cooke them up.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I’ve heard your version as well. Thanks!