What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01884-2

 

research fraud and deliberate bias should be treated like any other criminal activity . Only when the consequences are harsh will their be a deterrent.

 

It's a typical issue: self-regulation does not work. Ever. Never has. Never will. In industry, within organisations or in a regulated profession, the problem is the same: people operating under the same system generally cannot fix the system, especially when it is large.

Right now it's nearly offensive to even suggest that non-medical professionals should even have the temerity of criticizing how medicine operates. That means no criticism from outside the system, only by, from and for other medical professionals. The siege mentality is strong.

This is a common problem and it's hard to solve but it always involves independent oversight and transparency, both of which medicine reject categorically. It's also more of a legacy problem than anything anyone really designed this way. It's just the way it's always been done, but that's not an argument to keep on doing the same mistakes over and over again. The solution is simple, it's just rejected. It will have to be imposed.

 

Probably many factors at play that cause the reluctance of colleagues, or those with similar education/status to expose fraudulent research. I understand educational institutions promote collegial relationships amongst students in disciplines like medicine and dentistry. With this bond, members might be reluctant to point out the mistakes, missteps or fraud of others. It's like a family. Who wants to be the odd one out - the meat thermometer in the group - who pops up and yells fraud.

At the institutional level, ferreting out fraud and wrong doing, may reflect badly on the institution. There may often be pressure within to ignore or hide poor, or harmful research.

Regarding the research in question, I wonder what, and how far the harm spread that was based on this erroneous "science".

 

Their Director of Finance.

 

There is no graphite on the roof of reactor #4.

Not quite as bad but the reality of protecting institutional reputation being above good science is still extremely bad.

 

@rvallee

And, there are those that protect reputations and careers, over the safety of children.

 

Yeah, this grand experiment was doomed from the start but that won't stop it from surviving way past the point at which it's indefensible. It's only when the accounts are tallied that it will end. Bullshit talks, money walks.

Which basically makes all of us lab rats, with just as much say in the outcome. Even myself across the pond feel the consequences, purely for historical reasons. What a weird, dumb experiment.

 

I find some hilarity in using it unironically, but seriously: won't somebody think of the children? This isn't right. This isn't even close to be right.