The Fall of a Leading Behavioural Scientist
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2023
- Francesca Claims Innocence: • Francesca Gino Claims ...
Sources: sites.google.com/view/sources...
Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest to mention.
Articles - sites.google.com/view/sources...
Community - / discord
Newsletter - dannyhatcher.substack.com/
Ways to Support:
- My Patreon: / dannyhatcher
Where to find me:
- Twitter (X): / dannyhatcher
- Contact me: dannyhatcher.com/contact/
How I make my videos:
- Behind the scenes: / dannyhatcher
My Courses:
- Obsidian Onboarding: dannyhatcher.com/obsidian-onb...
About:
Exploring learning and theories of education.
I am an independent researcher currently based in the UK, sharing interesting trends and stories domestically and from around the globe.
Blending rigorous research with animation to create content that explains complex issues in relatable ways. I hold a BSc in Sports Coaching and an MSc in Strength and Conditioning from Brighton University.
Whether you are a teacher, student, parent, or interested learner, there is always another perspective that I think is worth exploring. If that sounds interesting, subscribe and follow along.
Disclaimer:
Content has bias, and information can be interpreted in various ways.
Don't take these videos as fact.
Systems, ideas, and science changes over time.
Thank you all for the amazing feedback, keep it coming!
UPDATE: Francesca's rebuttal to the claims: www.francesca-v-harvard.org/
I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those CZcams notifies me off.
FEEDBACK:
- We hear you about the animation - TOO MUCH.
- Apologies for my pronunciation, I should have searched how to say the university. My bad. Lesson learned.
- Do more spell checking.
KEY COMMENTS:
- Journal reviewers should be paid
- Critics should also have critics
- 'Hard sciences' are not the same - with rebuttals claiming the contrary
- Peer review should be double blind
- Academics should focus on lecturing not just publishing @fridavinci6177
The animation is a BIG distraction
Here's some feedback: I didn't understand a word you said. I'm going back to TMZ and "Married With Children" vids.
Keep your animators busy with a new cartoon series about the adventures of a pepo fruit with rage issues: Carnage Melon.
Hard sciences have (at least) one important difference: They require actual theoretical motivation. And by that, I mean theories that not only describe (behavioral science, full stop!) but also explain (serious explanation, not childish accumulation of data cherry picked to support someone's intuitions) and Predict (beyond the psychology's limit of predictive prowess ="effect present" and "effect absent") -- that is, they can support actual parametric assertions based on theory..
Ensuring reviewers don't know the identify of authors is good when possible but not always feasible in practice. In very small areas of research, it's not hard to guess who an author is, or at least narrow it down to a few people.
She tries to financially destroy the 3 investigators who caught her fraud. This is as criminal as an armed robbery. She should be made an example for hijacking the legal system to attack the investigators with a spurious lawsuit.
Certainly questionable actions but this is all over the industry, unfortunately.
A classic sociopath
@@ConstructiveMinds100 Or, classic female behavior. I mean some females. ;)
Now imagine that there are 10,000,000 people like her in government and business.
Standard behaviour I'm afraid. The world is full of frivolous lawsuits designed to shut people up
I used to work at a prestigious Cancer research Institute. One of the very “successful” researchers would always ask his technicians to give him all the control data so he could select which one to use!!
This is the norm, almost all academia (except some hard science where you actually have to provide the data) is a giant fraud, reproducibility is 0, methods are biased, conclusions are wrong if not plainly fraudulent.
But this is the reality of the publish of perish industry, researchers are forced to fake stuff just to stay afloat
Your comment doesn't show sny evidence of wrong doing.
@@albertseabra9226 nudge nudge, wink wink 😂😂😂
@@albertseabra9226are you thick?
@@albertseabra9226 It does you just have to read between the lines, as in disgruntled employee.
The bigger question is… how Common is this misconduct in our academic institutions?
Much bigger question.
Very
Hopefully they’re not so stupid in their falsification
On a serious note - this is why repeatability is critical
I worked in university administration for 5 years. Academic fraud is utterly rampant. Careers and money are on the line. The problem is there's no actual oversight other than peer review. Current academia is basically a modern take on what universities have been doing for 800 years. It's time to rethink and revamp the system, especially publishing.
Very common. Mostly just through ignorance and poor knowledge but a lot will make stuff up to get published. It’s the worst thing an academic can do.
Is it just me or CZcams algorithm is giving small creators a chance? Anyways nice video, though you could reduce splashing animation and make it like readable for second.
Agreed on both fronts!
I’ve def noticed that
It seems to have gotten better at picking high quality videos relevant to your interests from small creators. Definitely found a few new channels I had no idea weren't well established!
It’s a very interesting report which is more listenable than watchable. Appreciated in any case! 👍🏼 Sub’d.
Yes there is a video about these annoying ( to me) changes in the algorithm. It's no longer about sharing channels similar to your interests. You will also notice increased pushing of CZcams shorts which is designed to counter Tiktok. Personally I am irritated. I don't like it. I prefer how it was before. I am not a tiktok fan. I now prefer to look at my subscriptions to view what I like. Though from habit I land on the main feed.
Harvard has some integrity problem: Within 13 years, it involved economics and history. Now the problem can involve psychology.
They face no consequences
I don’t think it’s limited to them. I think they get more scrutiny because if you’re looking at academic fraud, starting with prestigious schools implies that it’s ubiquitous. Or at least it’s going to gain more attention because it’s an expensive Ivy League school.
The real issue is that reviewers for journals are not paid. They only point out issues assuming the data analysis was handled correctly. It is unreasonable for an unpaid reviewer to spend tens of hours combing through data and replicating parts of the study when they are unpaid and have their own work to deal with. Pay them and make this a requirement.
Agreed. There are many flaws with the current process.
Who do you think should pay the reviewers? Journals...
Maybe making it a requirement for all researchers to do as many reviews as they are reviewed. Keep it as simple as possible. If anyone is found to be lying about the research, either the researcher or the reviewer, they are fined and prevented from getting any research reviewed or reviewing any research for a set period of time, maybe 6 months or a year. Like most professions, being out for any length of time can break a career. The loss must be enough to prevent most from even trying. It does sadden me that this is even an issue.
@@TheQueenRulesAll That is one way of incentivizing more checks, but publishers like Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, etc. make millions off of unpaid authors and reviewers. Universities pay these publishers for subscriptions to their journals, but authors (professors) and reviewers (professors) are unpaid. As it is, it is academic educate to accept reviewing a paper when requested (if you turn down reviewing too many, you can get blackballed from that journal). I think putting more burden on the professors isn’t fair. Make the journals pay for better quality articles. Even if there is no intentional misconduct and data forgery, mistakes happen in coding all the time, and having a technical reviewer should be standard but is unpractical with the way things are now.
not paid directly. participating in the academic publication process at all levels has been considered part of the job of a university professor, and thus their salary is partially due to this activity. you get paid for your reviewing by having your own articles reviewed by others. and when the tenure review committee sees that you are on the review board of respected journals, you are more likely to get that tenure. whether this is adequate or not is a different story, but this has been academic practice for decades, part of what professors are expected to do for their university pay.
@@perfectallycromulent yeah but that’s the university paying, not the journal
She is one crystallized example of the entire academic infrastructure. It's been lost.
Yep. Well said
LOL Sure bud.
This is a great video; tone down the animations in future videos and you have the ingredients for a growing CZcams channel :)
Thank you!
Yes, some other feedback had a similar recommendation and I agree.
Will work on it 😁
Agreed was a little using every PowerPoint transition available but content was good 👍
Not PowerPoint but I agree with your point 😁
also maybe a bit less music in general. Wel placed, its nice, but i felt it was a thriller movie, while its dead serious and necessary to actually understand what you want to explain to us. Great video! Thanks very much!
Prezi?@@Danny.Hatcher
Makes me think of Goodhart's Law (and the 'That every measure which becomes a target becomes a bad measure' version due to Hoskins). There are metrics to measure 'researcher productivity', and researchers are pressured to appear good with respect to these measures, and so there is temptation to game those measures: produce more papers with more significant results in less time.
Agreed.
Yep, Goodhart's law is definitely a big factor in the incentive structure in academia at present.
What she did was par for the course in academia. The only unusual aspects are that she focused so much on the topic of dishonesty-fittingly or ironically, I can't decide-and that she was a superstar academic seeking the limelight, which is poor strategery when you've been fudging all your data. I doubt she'll have any success in her lawsuits given harvard and data colada had independently arrived at the conclusion she was faking her data; on its face it shows there was plenty suspect in her research, so her best bet is to suggest there's a big conspiracy between one of the most prestigious educational institutes in the world and three random bloggers. I wish her all the worst luck in her future endeavors.
Whenever there's a catastrophie in the USA, there's usually a Harvard man at the center of it.
🤔
Bud Light has left the chat.
Turns out they ended at a corner!
I was discussing her case with some colleagues, and they also agreed that she had done some horrible things. They expressed concern that she might win the case, though I hope not. We speculated about how she could manipulate the situation in the court, playing with the idea of how others attempted to destroy her reputation. However, regardless of the outcome, it's clear that she has lost her credibility forever.
This is rife throughout the Academy. Somehow, this nonsense needs to be pulled out, root and branch. She didn't "fall". She was revealed.
I'm sorry, but "Carnage Mellon University" cracked me up. Good overall though!
Did I pronounce it wrong or is there another reason?
Thanks!
Always open to feedback and further conversation 😁
@@Danny.Hatcherit's pronounced carn-eh-gee instead of carnage; you may have missed the 'i' in 'Carnegie' :)
@@thatcabbage1258 Yes, that made me chuckle, too :D
I've generally heard it pronounced car-NEE-ghee, as In Carnegie Hall in NY.
Car-NEG-ie most properly, but the key is 3 syllables
Carnage Mellon, I think they should change the name :-)
The idea that original research has any kind of standing has to be dispensed with. Such research papers, when finalized, should then be submitted for verification, with all the necessary detail to allow other teams to exactly copy the experiments. When reproduceable results have been achieved, you get to "publish" your work as something of meaningful value to the field of study, with extensive explanations contributed by the other teams of what they thought about experiment and the conclusions.
That is much closer to the scientific method than just "have 2 friends look at it and give an OK". Which is just a guild protecting its own.
The replication crisis in many fields of science is certainly an issue.
How would you suggest we alter the review system?
The vast majority of people in psychology actually provide clinical services and work with people. Then there are people who study psychiatry and psychology and behavioral science, and then there are a subset of people who study absurd constructs and attempt to create gigantic arguments about human behavior on the basis of a questionnaire administered to college students.
University departments tend to value the last type of researcher far more than people who do clinical work. I can think of nothing more trivial or random than her study about weather and honesty pledge be at the top or bottom of the page. But that is literally the kind of BS that these clinical psych people use as the basis for their larger arguments.
And while she is doing her TED talks, there are thousands of other scientists studying psychotherapy and how to treat symptoms, etc, and that is never going to get any press at all because everybody is more fascinated by these weird mediastars and their ridiculous trifling bloviation.
*Break the Rules* [1:35] "How did she (Gino) fall, and fall so far?" Seems like a pretty self answering question. Gino's scientific obsession with decision making and rule breaking seems to have crossed over into her personal and professional conduct. Drank her own Cool-Aid? Gino's problem with such a successful and remunerative strategy is that the validity of her work, career and profession are almost wholly dependent upon everyone else trusting implicitly that she is following the rules.
There's a literary tradition of the gamekeeper taking up poaching. In real life, I can think of Dan Ariely, the Bankman Fried family and "The Crossbow Cannibal" at the present day.
Hiding in Plain Sight
I am an old man and I have just recently come to understand the age-old battle of empiricism vs rationalism. I finally understand the argument and I stand with empiricism.
As someone with a background in psych research I find it surprising that these outliers were included in the final dataset. The heteroscedasticity of the data would be apparent in the methodology section and flagged as such by any peer reviewers, I presume
With Dan Ariely as a co author and supervisor. I'd have to side with Data Colada. He is also accused of falsifying data, but he kept his job.
Meanwhile, Dan Ariely keeps his job and gets to advise a TV show despite doing the exact same thing.
Its strange to pick on this person in particular. What I saw was data manipulation of a fairly standard kind, misunderstanding of the value of ordinal data and a somewhat bizarre criticism of column headers. The presentation itself was fast. Blasting from one fact to another, never giving you time to process what was going on. In essence, the researchers method of removing outliers was assumed to be deceptive. I have no doubt that the researchers knew that dopping so would skew the results in their favour, but I'm willing to bet the entire department considered that kind of thing to be valid research.
I think the row duplicate was a genuine mistake.
My advice is that a log transform should be used whenever possible, removing the need to remove outliers
I just stumbled upon your channel. I've decided to subscribe. Keep up the good work.
Thanks, will do!
Haha, I can tell you had fun making the video animations with how it all flips and flops everywhere! 😊
I was in a pre-graduate psych program in university and I decided not to continue in academia when I learned that basically all psych research was horribly confounded by the practice of selecting data to support a predetermined outcome.
I've been talking about similar issues too. You got my subscription!
Fantastic video mate, the best I’ve seen on this Francesca Gino thing.
Great video!
Have you done the President of Stanford University? A freshman with the university newspaper scooped the story.
I have written about him, and am familiar with hundreds of cases that are similar.
Potential future videos 😁
Awesome video!
Glad you enjoyed it
"Carnage melon university"... that's where I'd like to study 😊
I didn't understand the vitriol thrown at her but this video explains it quite well basing your work on the wrong data or making it up yourself to defend your work is wrong ...she should have been a politician, academia was not for her😂
Aha interesting take!
Yeah, the story has so many angles. Hopefully I covered most the main points 😁
"Why it pays to break the rules at work and in life" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣😵
😅😅
Good job on the video 👍
This is a problem not only with scientists, but all professions.
For example, a professional engineer needs to be truthful about their results and faking them can be very bad, thus faking results can result in being fired for cause.
This does not necessarily mean the underling science or technology is wrong, but it could be, and thus false data is really bad. The engineering example I saw of this was where the engineer in question had a system fault ruin the data collection of a long difficult test which he was certain what the results would be, so rather than go through all the time and effort of redoing the testing, he just made up passing test results. But, the testing was for quality control endurance testing on communication lasers, some of which in fact did not pass the test. What he did then invalidated any quality testing he did because it was unknown how much faking of results he had been doing. Needless to say, the engineer that faked the data was fired with cause.
💯
A previous video about driving licenses in the UK shares a similar example where professional quality and developed skills are not effectively monitored.
I am hoping AI, trained to detect such frauds with much available material, will be applied to the research of the past. Much cant will fall.
I think AI will help, but it has it's limitations.
Honestly I don't think so. Do you remember a few weeks ago or so, when they said in the news that research papers created by AI used fake citations? And that the cited papers don't even exist? They said it is because the AI was "hallucinating". I mean, this could be true. But maybe there are just so many 'faked' scientifc papers out there (maybe like 20%), that it is hard to find a sensible data set to train the AI in the first place. In this sense, the AI indeed shows us more truth than we actually may want to digest at the moment und it just shows us how we humans (or at least the western scientific hemisphere) are.
Anything created by humans is corruptable.
I feel like AI could be used to make fraud much worse.
Peer review process is broken, studies need to be reproduced. there is no alternatives
I agree.
What would you suggest as solutions for peer review?
I think the reproduction of studies is a crises all social sciences struggle with.
Agreed but would add that they are "independently" reproducible...
That’s exactly how much of this gets exposed. Someone looked at the findings and questioned what they saw. Then others in the larger community examine the work and if no one else can replicate it or it’s inconsistent with other research then more scrutiny is warranted. Lastly there is a misconception that a published paper somehow becomes the dominant paradigm when nothing could be further from the truth. Papers are just individual works and until they are replicated examined and re-examined they remain isolated works. Given there is a risk that someone else might cite bad research in their work which can create a snowball effect in terms of questionable research being cite in otherwise legitimate research.
Repeatability
Great video!
But this Carnegie Mellon alumnus grimaced at your pronunciation of “Carnage Mellon.” Andrew Carnegie was from the UK - you know how to pronounce Carnegie. 😅
interesting, but hard to watch, so much useless stuff happening on the screen
Thanks for the feedback!
In what way was it useless?
Just too many animations with lots of text that go away in 1 second and don't let us time to read. It makes the viewer try to focus on all that text but in vain. I would suggest reducing the bloat and selecting the most relevant visuals to leave on screen for longer periods of time.
I agree.
It was one of the things I thought about the video when watching it back after the render (~2 hours).
Learning animation has been really fun, but definitely went over the top here 😆
Really appreciate the feedback, if you have any other thoughts let me know.
PS: CZcams doesn't notify me when you reply unless you tag me.
That is why I encouraged people to go to discord, so I don't miss anything 😉
This channel is like the Coffeezilla of the academic world.
CARNAGE MELON HELL YEAH I'M SUBBED
😆😆😅 Yeah big boo boo on my part, but at least it got a giggle
The field of psychology is going from a pseudoscience to an absolute shitshow.
@@robertmayfield8746 descriptive is non-judgemental but psychology attempts to arrive at conclusions. They make studies, use data, draw conclusions. This is where it comes in for criticism as it fails to arrive at conclusions rigorous enough to be considered scientific. The conclusions they do make fall so short in terms of anything in the way of something therapeutic.
Man I could not agree more. I have a four hundred pound sister in law who’s a psychologist who treats people with disorders but she is dying from eating. How is that possible? She is out of control and can’t see the truth. OMG I give up.
@@robertmayfield8746 you are correct. Her weight is aggressive towards the whole family. It has taken a toll on all of us. If actual therapy existed I would be agreeable. But since we all are flawed people, including therapists, therapy doesn’t exist. You guys made all this stuff up and regurgitate it to each other until you believe it. If you tell a lie often enough people will believe it. I will say this. If highly educated people tell a lie often enough the uneducated people will believe it and not question it.
@@robertmayfield8746 graduated from trade school.
@@1911Earthling what level, what degree? years of experience?
I HATED the video formatting on this podcast. The constant popping up and movements of words on the screen were too fast to follow or read, but also took away enough of my attention that I wasn't comprehending the audio track either.
I watched it once and I believed every single word. I watched it a second time, and now I don't understand almost any claim you do in the video. Honestly, as this video might blow up in the future weeks, I suggest you balance it. As one commentator already pointed out, the claims made only touch smaller details of the publications. Minor mistakes can be found in any publication as the matters involved and statistics can be really complicated nowadays. Also, even scientists do mistakes.
Great work 10/10
I'm glad you like it
Content is good but the animations and transitions made me look away and just listen in some portions
Yeah. Will be working on that.
Lots of feedback is similar.
Something I’m interested to learn more about. Hehe.
0:53 "Carnage melon university" --> "Carnegie Mellon University"
Peer review is like wrestling with a loaded gun
We only here about the cases with something extra glamorous like the irony involved in this case. There are thousands of boring frauds we never get videos about. Think how scary that is. 😮
Nice summary. Lots of typos though!
Thanks for this very interesting video. I suggest that you turn the music down a little bit? For me it made it hard to hear you.
Noted! We have adjusted the editing for the videos on the channel 😁
Great story! I don't know if you can edit your video, but it's Carnegie Mellon, not Carnage --which has a rather nasty meaning.
Carnage Melon would be a great name for a metal band
So if this lawsuit is on-going, wh has she supposedly fallen? Is it a case of found guilty merely on accusation, despite categorical denials. This happens to so many men. For once a woman is a victim.
This is some great animation, I love the design but it feels like you ought to linger on some screens like BobbyBroccoli or LegalEagle does. Too much motion can be a bit distracting from the narration.
0:52 "Carnage"? Seriously? Carnage. It is either CAR-neh-gee (US style) or car-NEH-gee (Scots style)--both have a hard "g" as in geek at the end. Good video otherwise. . . at least as far as I can tell; I don't have access to the original documents.
All the documents I use are free online 😁
Her work on dishonesty was a Freudian slip
An interesting video, but I have two minor criticisms.
1. The graphics are too tricky and obscure what is being said.
2. You need to review the text before publication - or get an editor to do so.
10:31 "safty bill"?? Educational science indeed!
Humans make mistakes 😁
Business Schools ought not to be in universities. There’s no place for MBAs in academia.
I would agree, but they bring in the Big Bucks, and that's what higher education is all about nowadays. Star professors are employed to bring in research grants from outside, and to lead teams which churn out publications in highly-regarded journals. At least they are not football coaches.
@@faithlesshound5621 - Give it time...
What did you use to make this video?
Research/Writing - Obsidian
Video Editing - Davinci resolve
Thumbnail - Affinity Photo
Project Management - Morgen
Could be something as silly as misusing excell:adding data to the spreadsheets with rows with unmatched column entries . Careless, but something expected from fuzzy subject researchers.
Maybe if I'm a researcher specializing in dishonesty and I authenticity, no one will notice...
Lol Spot on! It’s exactly what she did.
"Carnage Mellon" is where Gallagher got his degree.
A suggestion to add to other comments: please proof and spell check all your text. Interesting content, nonetheless!
"Carnage-Melon University" 🤭
I am amused by little things...😅
Good thing someone didn't "trust the science". We need more guys like that right now.
Apparently she didn’t sign the honesty pledge at the top of her own papers…
Carnage Mellon sounds about right
Can you look at the PACE trial please.
Carnage mellon has me rolling💀💀💀💀
Dude has no clue who andrew carnegie was.
There are some real smart people in academics today. They all know exactly how to game the system.
It's sickening
Did you say "Carnage Mellon"? Lol, sorry, it's usually we Americans who get skewered for butchering pronunciations. Nice video!
Society might want to be more careful about putting people on a pedestal because of their vocation, whether they be doctors or lawyer or scientists or clergy. There are good people in these careers and there are also bad ones. They are people, just like we are.
He definitely edited this video in MS PowerPoint
car neh gee melon is how you say the name of the university
also really cool and interesting video ;-;
Ah thank you!!!!
I was so confused when trying to say it 😆
Should have just used a search enguine. Lesson learned.
It seems like intellectual narcissism.
9:45 bear, not bare :-)
Where exactly is "Carnage Melon" University? Is that where Gallagher went to school?
I would search the Internet for that.
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
💯!!
I am working on videos covering some other points. Would be great to get your thoughts!
Talking about it in the discord - link in description.
I believe so too. There’s a revolution coming to western academia. A lot of these big so called high rank institutions will be getting very humbled in the next few decades. It’s all going to come crashing for them soon. The relationship between corporate interest and high rank academia is what is behind this, and there will be plenty more coming to the forefront in the years coming. Just sit, watch and see.
Francesca was right Data Coloada is no where as knowledgable as they think. Their mistakes were obvious to me and I am a QC guy in manufacturing. If Data Colada has the power to get people fired than fired people have the right to sue. The real problem is that no one is having a serious discussion about how to analyze data
Agreed!
With AI and increasing levels of academic misconduct it is a discussion that should be happening!
Carnage-Mellon University? Let me guess. They investigate watermelon stabbings....
Why not do a video on the much more far-reaching (not to mention exceedingly more interesting) case known as the Grievance Studies Affair, undertaken by Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose?
It is on the list of thousands of cases I have as potential videos. This was first because it was the most recent I looked into at the time 😁
Is it that the professor is just not good with Excel (and sloppy)? It’s easy to get columns disconnected when you try to sort a data set if you’re not careful. It happens often.
I believe that could be it too. But then again, wouldn’t one expect far better than sloppy work from such a renowned Harvard professor?! I believe that one should expect better from any graduate student of any university, even more so from a university professor and again one that was supposed to be so renowned, and again a Harvard one at that! Things like this make me happy about having graduated from my mid rank universities. UCL and University of Lisbon every day of the week thank you! Y’all can keep your offensively overpriced, posho Harvards and Oxfords, thank you. If that’s the kind of work that is coming out of their ranks these days I’m good.
thought that was loki in the thumbnail
I am not sure what you mean.
Yes Harvard fraud is eluded to in the thumbnail, but the details (background/papers/lawsuit/gofundme) are in the video.
Am I missing something?
This video should come with a epilepsy trigger warning. Bar that, amazing production values.
Like Mark Jacobson, she will withdraw the suit or lose and probably pay the other sides costs.
American titan this one
Hi there. I'd be happy to assist you as a proofreader for your videos for no charge. I don't mean to offend but your video was littered with spelling errors. Otherwise, this was a fascinating watch.
Thanks. I share my videos with members in the discord beforehand for proofreading and theoretical questioning. 😁
Send me a message in discord if you are interested.
You have me at “Academic Industry.” But oh man the words. But how do you measure the value of this industry? In the US we’d have to acknowledge the college football industry as well. It ain’t all papers.
"Carnage Mellon University"?
The most ironic things is how most of the research focuses on ethics and means to improve honesty. Of course such a thing needs data manipulation ...
Sorry, but at 9:46 the phrase "too much to bare (sic)" should be "too much to bear." Otherwise very interesting. One question: shouldn't this be a double blind review system?
Double blind review is something I like the ida of. There are limitations I am learning about tho - so am not sure what it would look likein application.
She’s 100% right about men. I know a woman who was fired, ruining her career, because her boss co-authored dozens of papers with allegedly “massaged” data. She was not responsible for the data, being a lead administrator, but she took the fall. He’s still there and one of his co-signer is now HEAD OF RESEARCH. So though she allegedly faked data, men who do the same thing get passes all the time because of their gender and prestige. Prestige alone won’t cut it. Guess where the not- insignificant number of papers with suspect data are now? Cited by hundreds of others and unretracted. Who made the allegations? The school? Other scientists? Nope. The NYT, and they blew the story, emphasizing minor inconsistencies and overlooking systemic fraud that f which the administrator in our story was unaware. So enjoy your genetics pop science everyone! It’s TOTALLY LEGIT!
Good documentary but I would take it easy on the flashy animation, it’s all over the place and it’s distracting.
Agreed.
We live in a system that promotes sensationalism and sociopaths willing to dive headlong into it
Commenting for the algorithm
What abour Dan Arielly with whom she collaborated?
That is a different story. One I am looking into 😁
@@Danny.Hatcher Ariely seems to have gone on the straight and narrow once he got tenure. He may have been less careful earlier in his career.
Data Colada deserves a Nobel Prize; the problem is that lots of studies cannot be duplicated due to their being part of the 5% that are wrong even when the investigators are doing their best.