285
So under his leadership it became more about positive results than it was about accurate results.
That's not science, that's marketing.
Give the guy a break! At least his students aren’t poisoning each other or anything…
You should feel bad for him. He's lost everything. All he has left is the millions he's made.
You can't blame him for that one.
Btw I dated a biochemist and they're all insane.
Is it from all the biochemicals? I think it is from all the biochemicals.
Don't forget the regular chemicals. Though I'm a bioanalytical chemist, so I likely use more of those than a typical biochemist.
Studied biochemistry as a major, currently am a microbiology grad student. Biochemistry attracts a certain type of person. Imagine smashing your head against a brick wall. That's how it feels like to do biochemistry.
People who do biochemistry are brilliant but wow, they're intense. At least they're not evolutionary ecologists.
Never have I ever strangled my roommate, poisoned my advisor for suggesting I go into a different branch of physics, and created a weapon that deletes entire metropolitan areas.
Two out of three of those, **at most.
Unfortunately that's how modern science works. The scientists with the best marketing skills get the grants, get their work mentioned in the media, and hence, get more prestigious work.
He is both a result of a broken system, and then became one of its key perpetuators. I bet he made some sweet bags of cash doing it.
Yep. And it worked all the way up to the Stanford presidency. Even now he is "only" a tenured professor.
So in his telling he was exonerated of wrongdoing, but he's retracting a bunch of papers and resigning as the president of Stanford. People really can tell themselves anything, can't they?
So in his telling he was exonerated of wrongdoing
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The ~~preacher's~~ Board of Trustees done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and ~~heaven everlasting's~~ a well funded retirement is my reward."
At some point soon they're going to be turning AIs loose on the collected scientific archives of history, I'm very curious to see how much long-forgotten and undetected fraud is going to be dug up by them. Four retractions per ten thousand articles seems like an implausibly low average given that humans are involved in writing these things.
The entire system just seems broken and encourages this type of behaviour. Just look at the Francesca Gino situation. I'm sure as this gets more attention, other discoveries will be made.
https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations
Late stage capitalism strikes again.
Retracting a paper is a rare act, especially for a scientist of Tessier-Lavigne’s stature. A database of retractions shows that only four in every 10,000 papers are retracted.
If you've ever read published research for a living, this statistic is frighteningly low.
Looks like Big Head didn't realize what he was doing.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
285 points (99.0% liked)
World News
31452 readers
1168 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS