Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says

[rgulrich]

This may prove a bit problematical, especially for those that reference the research in question.
https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says

Cheers,
Ray

 

[AydenLincoln]

That’s interesting! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I saw that this morning. Sad.

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

In being the Devils Advocate on this one...
In a severely competitive male dominated field, what was the motive of the whistle blowers?
Do these papers not go through a peer review? If it had, why were these ?'s not asked before?
I'm seems from the article, it wasn’t the results,, but the method of obtaining the results.
Basically her career is over. If it is true, who created the pressure to take shortcuts in obtaining the results.
These are the ?'s you have to ask yourself.

 

[Rick Mathew]

I saw that this morning. Sad.

Yes this is very sad! ....The Alzheimer's research scandal is another example of this type of "made up" research outcomes....Hurts the confidence in research results in general...vey sad

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

In being the Devils Advocate on this one...
In a severely competitive male dominated field, what was the motive of the whistle blowers?
Do these papers not go through a peer review? If it had, why were these ?'s not asked before?
I'm seems from the article, it wasn’t the results,, but the method of obtaining the results.
Basically her career is over. If it is true, who created the pressure to take shortcuts in obtaining the results.
These are the ?'s you have to ask yourself.

Paper reviewers do not generally review original files of data to look for things like duplicated columns, and if they did, such a thing would never have been tried by any reasonable person.

"The draft report also confirms claims by the whistleblowers and independent statistical experts consulted by Science’s News team that a large Excel file containing the study’s raw data was riddled with inexplicably duplicated columns. “Numerous errors are also present within the data files such that the results presented in the publication could not be generated from these files,” it says."

 

[jabberwock]

The draft report also confirms claims by the whistleblowers and independent statistical experts consulted by Science’s News team that a large Excel file containing the study’s raw data was riddled with inexplicably duplicated columns.

And this is why Excel is NOT a data management platform...

 

[topjimmy]

This may prove a bit problematical, especially for those that reference the research in question.
https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says

Cheers,
Ray

"Peer reviewed"

 

[bnord]

It is indeed a shame and will be a matter of time before the climate change deny press gets ahold of this to support their position that science is just making things up, which is also a shame…

 

[topjimmy]

It is indeed a shame and will be a matter of time before the climate change deny press gets ahold of this to support their position that science is just making things up, which is also a shame…

Because apparently they are.

 

[bnord]

Because apparently they are.

But getting caught when they do

 

[WVNed]

But getting caught when they

are 1% of the time

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Paper reviewers do not generally review original files of data to look for things like duplicated columns, and if they did, such a thing would never have been tried by any reasonable person.

"The draft report also confirms claims by the whistleblowers and independent statistical experts consulted by Science’s News team that a large Excel file containing the study’s raw data was riddled with inexplicably duplicated columns. “Numerous errors are also present within the data files such that the results presented in the publication could not be generated from these files,” it says."

First of all, not saying either side is right or wrong. I am just trying to encourage ppl. to ask some ?'s before believing what is written on the inter-webs.
But why would someone falsify or be sloppy with data that is going to surface at a later date? Why would you risk your careers for a momentary gain? I mean she also had co-authors, which isn't a big deal, because even if you suggest something you are automatically a co-author.
When I say why, I do not mean, I don't believe that this could happen. I ask why, because If it did happen "why" did it happen?
Not a conspiracy theorist, but there are many people that do not believe climate change is happening. There are also many people with very deep pockets that also do not want people to believe. A promise of a grant here, some funding, even a key position, then all of a sudden you have your movie of the week. Is the corruption of her raw data, not feasible?
Again more questions....

 

[topjimmy]

But getting caught when they

Eventually

First of all, not saying either side is right or wrong. I am just trying to encourage ppl. to ask some ?'s before believing what is written on the inter-webs.
But why would someone falsify or be sloppy with data that is going to surface at a later date? Why would you risk your careers for a momentary gain? I mean she also had co-authors, which isn't a big deal, because even if you suggest something you are automatically a co-author.
When I say why, I do not mean, I don't believe that this could happen. I ask why, because If it did happen "why" did it happen?
Not a conspiracy theorist, but there are many people that do not believe climate change is happening. There are also many people with very deep pockets that also do not want people to believe. A promise of a grant here, some funding, even a key position, then all of a sudden you have your movie of the week. Is the corruption of her raw data, not feasible?
Again more questions...

Money is probably the best guess.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

First of all, not saying either side is right or wrong. I am just trying to encourage ppl. to ask some ?'s before believing what is written on the inter-webs.
But why would someone falsify or be sloppy with data that is going to surface at a later date? Why would you risk your careers for a momentary gain? I mean she also had co-authors, which isn't a big deal, because even if you suggest something you are automatically a co-author.
When I say why, I do not mean, I don't believe that this could happen. I ask why, because If it did happen "why" did it happen?
Not a conspiracy theorist, but there are many people that do not believe climate change is happening. There are also many people with very deep pockets that also do not want people to believe. A promise of a grant here, some funding, even a key position, then all of a sudden you have your movie of the week. Is the corruption of her raw data, not feasible?
Again more questions....

Of course one should not assume everything written is real, but their own university investigation admitted it was wrongdoing, and they have every reason to hope it wasn't true. It's a black eye to them.

 

[Rick Mathew]

First of all, not saying either side is right or wrong. I am just trying to encourage ppl. to ask some ?'s before believing what is written on the inter-webs.
But why would someone falsify or be sloppy with data that is going to surface at a later date? Why would you risk your careers for a momentary gain? I mean she also had co-authors, which isn't a big deal, because even if you suggest something you are automatically a co-author.
When I say why, I do not mean, I don't believe that this could happen. I ask why, because If it did happen "why" did it happen?
Not a conspiracy theorist, but there are many people that do not believe climate change is happening. There are also many people with very deep pockets that also do not want people to believe. A promise of a grant here, some funding, even a key position, then all of a sudden you have your movie of the week. Is the corruption of her raw data, not feasible?
Again more questions....

Fame...Fortune....and Power can be powerful motivation for corruption and their is no profession exempt from the temptation...IMO

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

This seems like one of those topics that mostly everyone "knew the truth" (whatever they believe to be the truth) before doing any investigation because ocean acidification as a result of climate change is such a hot topic.

This is slightly off topic but a truly open mind is rare although everyone seems to claim to have one...

 

[PatW]

I agree with Randy. The university has a vested interest in the work being fine. The fact that they took action meant that it was something that could not be swept under the rug. Also, the fact that the articles were published in Science is a really big deal. It is a premier publication.

And do scientists cut corners? Sure, But any major finding is going to be replicated in some way. Sometimes those sorts of things are a matter of methodology and sometimes someone messes up or out and out cheats. But a major finding will be scrutinized and confirmed. I can name all sorts of findings that were confirmed later multiple times.

 

[Wasabiroot]

Because apparently they are.

Sample size is a thing...

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Exxon Misled the Public on Climate Change, Study Says...​

Guess who is a $1-5 million donor at UD...
Again, I am not saying who is right, but people tend to not want to ask the hard questions...