Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

I thought this was very well explained, but the tests that K Sheldrick did were not actually particularly complicated. I remember learning about the Fisher Exact Test in an introductory college stats class. I have to wonder why any of the nine other groups that tried to replicate the results didn't ask for a statistician to look at the original results first.

This is flat out fraud, and if the research used any public funds the guilty party/parties deserves criminal prosecution.

View on HN

> if the research used any public funds the guilty party/parties deserves criminal prosecution.

That sort of prompts the question though: Should it be a crime for any scientist to deliberately publish falsified data?

Obviously there would need to be a very high bar for proving that it was deliberate and not an honest mistake (or even complete incompetence), and we wouldn't want juries to have the power to stop new scientific theories emerging, but other professions are subject to criminal penalties if they fail at their job.

Scientific fraud is deeply immoral because it has the potential to subvert our sapience, harming our ability to act rationally and morally. Such behaviour is criminal from basic principles of justice and human laws should reflect that.

I guess just lying in general should be illegal then?

Lying for financial gain can sometimes be fraud which is already illegal.

It is? Fraud, libel, perjury.

I guess academic fraud is fraud in the legal sense. The problem is that the 'fraud' statute requires 'damages' and 'intent' to have standing, and they're difficult to prove in academic fraud.

Nearly always, lies are protected speech. The Supreme Court has decided, rightly I think, that the government is not capable of determining what is opinion and what is fact.

The government, no. It can only make laws and execute them. But it can not interpret.

That role is reserved for the tribunals. Judges are supposed to determine what is protected speech, and what is not.

First you would have to prove this was intentional and done by the authors themselves (not e.g. an assistant).

Well, you would need to prove it was intentional and done by the person you're charging. I.e. if you could prove the assistant did it, you should be able to charge the assistant.

That's not really different from most crimes... sometimes being hard to prove doesn't mean we just make it legal.

I disagree that you need to prove who was responsible. The authors of the paper signed off on its content. They are responsible, in the same way a Professional Engineer signing off on drawings is responsible: it doesn't matter who did the work, they're guaranteeing it.

(As my username suggests, I have published scientific papers where I'm the corresponding author. I've also been added to truly shitty but honest papers against my will or knowledge, in cases where I did some of the work but left before the paper was written. I would never have approved the papers that were published had I been involved. This is an interesting wrinkle if criminal liability is on the table!)

Except it is nothing like a professional engineer, as an engineer is explicitly placing his professional license in jeopardy and assuming legal liability for those 'drawings'. Engineers have a far higher standard than academics.

You'll notice engineers tend to be scarce in arenas such as politics, it's safe to say people accustomed to and willing to face repercussions are a poor fit.

> Engineers have a far higher standard than academics.

That's exactly why I'm arguing for raising standards in academia. When you publish a paper with a traditional publisher, you have to sign a bunch of stuff. You are aware that you are literally signing off on something and claiming responsibility for it.

In my opinion that responsibility should extend to legal liability for fraud with criminal penalties if mens rea can be established.

And, yes, I'd freely apply that standard to every paper I've ever published. Because they might or might not be wrong, but they're not fraudulent!

Even if unintentional, they could answer for negligence or malpractice. Doctors, for instance, already bear that responsibility.

> That sort of prompts the question though: Should it be a crime for any scientist to deliberately publish falsified data?

I'd go with maybe based on the context. If you take money, such as grants, etc, for studies, then lie about your results that might be fraud (IANAL). If you use those incorrect results to apply for more grants for further study that is definitely fraud. Padding your CV with publications where you lied about the results may not be fraud but would seem the same as any other lies on a CV and could justifiably result in you getting fired.

As you stated, other professions disbar, disqualify, ban, in addition there are civil, criminal penalties for (gross) negligence.

I'd not be worried about "honest mistakes" so long as a juries are involved, with respect to specific studies with direct, actionable consequences.

So there would be a difference between some nut jobs proposing a flat earth theory (unqualified), which they simply can't reproduce, to running a medical trial where potentially the medical technicians, MDs, surgeons, etc. might cite and apply a study.

Its fine to have some crazy theory so long as you are not going to present it as some actionable truth - if you publish a study and show negligence and cannot reproduce, then it is known as such. You are welcome to incomplete, possibly outright incorrect theories, so long as they are academic and not cited as mainstream "technology". Its when your bullshit becomes measurably impactful, is when you decide to impose consequences.

Not sure how to write that up in legal terms, but.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com