Academia is BROKEN! - Stanford President Scandal Explained 

The blots look like a bad copy/paste job! BIG red flags...Thanks for shouting out my western blotting tutorial vid too!

@@EmmaSandy My pleasure! It really helped me in my research for this!

The unfortunate reality is that if you're slightly less lazy than those people, it's very easy to fake these without anyone ever noticing. That's why independent replication of findings is so important.

It actually works, but under room temperature superconducting environment。

At 18.. I hadn't even properly learned to 'pleasure myself' using my left hand. . And here is a boy who almost brought down that mega scammer's career. . I feel depressed now.

This is definitely the kind of thing hiring a lawyer is for, and if you have any written evidence of the retaliation threats, then you should still take this to court. This is larger than just yourself, this affects the entire WORLD; it's scary and unfair to be threatened this way, but don't lose courage or hope that the truth matters. Integrity matters, and retaliation is absolutely unacceptable no matter the industry.

Had similiar situation in military in mid 80s. Not a good time for me. Destroyed my ability to have trust in superiors. Hats off to u and I for doing our part honestly.

This is truly infuriating! I’ve heard these kind of stories for decades. It is true that if things like this happen, gathering evidence is critical. Legal and especially social avenues now exist to level the playing field. But you are correct it is not easy and does take a toll. Best!

vote with your wallet chump, institutionalized learning is merely a relic in this digital age

Emory's my undergrad alma mater, sad to hear this.

I thought that as well!

@@nicsxnin6786 Sad that Academia has digressed so far.

Excellent, original point. Thanks!

@@jameswest4819I think academia has always been like this. We just have the benefit of hindsight(:

Sadly, the whispers of " Texting Lingo" contributing heavily in Final Exam papers has been a huge red flag of Academia's TRUE condition. Legacy admission is another potential determinant.

She took no risk whatsoever. Theo Baker suggested that she look at some papers. She did so and reported her findings.

​@@hb1338You don't know what the word risk means. White guy...

what does his race have to do with him knowing the word risk. Are you assuming white people don't take any risks? how racist of you. Theo Baker and the lady in the video both are white@@ALotOfCancer

@ALotOfCancer how ironic you say that.

@ALotOfCancer Theo Baker was the one who took the risk going against someone higher up that him. ALotofcancer is a good way to describe your self.

If he is a principal author, he carries responsibility for the content of the paper, regardless of who actually did the work.

Keep in mind that the first two are legally prosecutable, and the latter isn't. There's no way this is incompetence. The lawyers just advertised an "opinion" which many people still think means something coming from a lawyer. Now, if a Judge voiced their opinion explaining a verdict, then there would be a reason to pay attention to such an opinion. The opinion of a lawyer is completely different. Every day defense laywers have opinions that their clients didn't commit crimes when the evidence shows they did; because, that's what the law requires, a zealous advocacy of the client's interesets, which might include the client's very misguided belief he did nothing wrong. Every day district attorneys have opinions of people's guilt when they didn't commit any crimes. That's what the law requires, a zealous advocacy of the DA's client's (the state's) interests, which might include the state's very misguided believe that the defendant did something wrong. The only opinions that really amtter are those of the Jury and the Judge, and neither group voiced their opinion.

@@edwinbuck1854 wait, incompetence isn't prosecutable? Even though it was literally his job to prevent these kinds of things?

@@ChannelOfJoris No incompetence is not having the ability to do the required thing, But in this case its more negligence than incompetence and negligence CAN be prosecuted.

This. Literally this. That’s so much better isn’t it?

He’s so incompetent/ negligent (at best naive) at controlling quality in a small team that will put him in charge of the whole shop … failing upwards like one of the characters in succession

Yeah, just trust laymen.

My favorite too is studies that are funded by companies who would directly benefit the research of said studies as well

​ @planomathandscience A layman could spot the errors in the scientific papers mentioned in this video. You are making a classic error in logic; reductio ad absurdum. Just because I stated it is foolish to "just trust the science", and it is even anti-scientific to do this as it's more akin to religious dogma. You reduce this to the extreme position of insinuating I believe we should just listen to laypeople. This is disingenuous or poorly considered argumentation. You are responding to a comment on a video which is literally demonstrating a case of scientific fraud which resulted in papers that have been referenced by other researchers and thus tainted their research. The result is compounding errors and systemic problems which may effect the field for years. If we simply trusted the science then none of this would have been revealed and more lab hours would have been wasted. Science is supposed to be about questioning and testing, not trusting something just because we have previous results which suggest it's correct. I find it quite unsettling that a science educator like yourself is seemingly so ignorant about the scientific method and how human nature can subvert it. If we had more validation studies then the chances of fraud would be reduced, but sadly there is little praise and almost no money in validation studies, so lots of bad research can simply slip under the radar as people take a lot on trust. Hence the Stanford situation.

@@Madchris8828 I have worked for companies who directly benefit from my research and I have refused to alter things. It doesn't make one popular or lead to more lucrative positions. I used to work in academic settings but it's the same there. You scrap for every bit of funding and any inconvenient results might see the universities lose funding from private donors, people who are often described as philanthropists. It's rarely said in a direct way. It's more like: "I see you're about to publish your paper on (pick a subject). You know (private donor) said they are very interested in your work. Their company is developing a new medication which relies upon (insert research your paper may disprove). Well anyway I look forward to reading your paper". No direct comments, threats or pushing is required. This also makes it completely deniable and is one reason people don't complain.

Science is a consensus: discuss

I understand your frustration.

There is nothing wrong with science. There is plenty wrong with the people that practise it.

There’s a big difference between trusting chemistry, biology or medicine than trusting psychology or neuroscience/neuropsych.

@jacob9673. Please define the difference.

And don't forget the tag line, "EVIDENCE BASED" whatever the hell that means. They can change that to LIE BASED.

“Hard science fields” are not like neuroscience at the intersection of psychology.

@@jacob9673 You're not a scientist.

@@jacob9673 not at all a scientist but I would ha e to disagree with you hear Nero science is about as hard of science as you can get. Very neroq and specialized yes but still hard science. Yes it is often used to try and explain soft sciance behavioral things but from a hard science direction

The unforgiving, punishing regimen of publishing. Something. Anything! Even if it's crap. Think of the grants. The enrollment tuition revenue based on rank, prestige, reputation. Don't rock the boat! Nothing to see here. Carry on! God bless.

So, are you saying you're a member of this club?

Pal review instead of peer review. Very convenient.

Some journals dont even review anything and accept papers for money, so what? Talk concrete examples and cases

Go on, don’t be shy, which journals

Lancet med journal. The hoax papers.

At least they are taking action! Duke does not seem interested in taking any action against Dan Ariely although the evidence of data manipulation appears insurmountable-even if we were to believe his incredible story that he is an innocent victim of data fabrication by others (when he is the only person to have control over the data), not catching the obvious signs of data fraud before publishing his papers.

@@nondescriptnyc ya but (not even) half action is the same as inaction

@@nondescriptnyc At the very least, it is a confession of incompetence.

Ivy leagues quality of education have gone down over the last 2 decades nowadays its just the name and prestige instead of the quality of education Good unis are between ivy and top 20

Stanford is not part of the Ivy League.

What punishments would they get

You have no idea what a rort Academia has become. 99% of the output is fit for landfill and the ultimate pursuit is the procurement of tenure (which is basically a job for life). The great mass of academics are poor researchers, practitioners and even poorer teachers. They no longer fulfil their role in society anymore!

You don't get punished when your supervisors are engaged in the same behaviour. You might go before a council of your peers (what a joke) if caught blatantly and they'll give you a warning or more likely advise you to be more discreet! @@lizxu322

Maybe the two years of research she had already done showed that the results/conclusions would go against the narrative? Maybe she just made up the excuse of her non-native speaker of English as the excuse to get out of the research as she did not want any controversial findings.

​@@rl7012based

That wasn't done by mistake or out of stupidity.

😂😂

Cant be true

Who was the professor?

@@adamantii I can't afford to say. Lawyers are expensive.

Well, that is one way to look at it but the reality today is the "TRUTH" does not find favor in dogmatic politics. For example the demonization of meat consumption by multiple factions funds all research that supports their dogma no matter how corrupt it is. They use "science" to establish their version of TRUTH.

So, not enforced? Lol

​@@MichelleHellMartin Shkreli would like to have a word!

Lol don’t forget that there’s a financial motive too and that millions or billions of dollars are in play here. That itself should be reason enough to put these people in jail.

I say they need to have their hands and legs broken

🤯 you’re so right. Circle the wagons around the dude who could bring the house of cards down. I think this is probably 90% of why powerful people don’t get held accountable…drowning victims and all

Steal enough and they call you a king

Sadly it's been that way for a long time.

Not really, thankfully! Just look up the Phillip Felig, M.D. debacle of the late 1970's/early 1980's. Dr. Felig WAS Chief endocrinologist at Yale SOM. His research post-doc, while he was on assignment to peer review submitted lab papers to a high-end endocrine journal, literally STOLE data from another investigator at another institution and had the BALLS to publish said data as his own. Unfortunately, he also listed Dr. Felig as a co-author. The post-doc was immediately fired and Dr. Felig was forced to step down from his chairmanship. The story doesn't end there. You see, Dr. Felig at about the same time was being considered for the position of Dean at Columbia medical school. After his scandal broke: not any more!

agreed, but I don't think that's applicable in this matter

@craig4841 yes it is...stolen data = fake data! same concept at work here...lack of integrity...doesn't that sum it all up! But if you want parallel concept true stories about actual "fudged" data, I can provide you with quite a few of those, too. And, it didn't end so pleasantly for the high and mighty perps either!

Actually humanity is doing better than ever, China, Russia, Iran and many other nations have revitalized their scientific systems now that the aryan one has destroyed it's own prestige.

Once your humors re-equalize, you will be right as rain.

true but, as you said , at least it's only human science though.... oh.... wait....

While theses Socialists call everyone else a Nazi.

It's not broken. Researchers are people and some have/will fudge data until the end of time. That's why the Scientific Method is not only important, but important to understand by the majority, not just researchers. The last part of the Scientific Method is independent parties replicating your research checking to see if their methods and results can be accurately and precisely duplicated. If not, it doesn't pass. If it does, then it should be tested again and again. The true misunderstanding here is not that the person fudged her numbers, but that WE took her results as truth either forgetting or never having understood the Scientific Method ourselves. A key component of Science is to verify others work. Remember, to this day, we are still testing Gravity ; )

They are partners in crime like Cosa Nostra-except they will back stab each other.

investigated by who? the WHO?

I agree!

Why shouldn't they take advantage of everyone? According to many at Stanford, we are just evolved apes and any pesky feelings of guilt or sense of morality should be suppressed like an irrational fear of the dark.

The people haven't changed, the systems have. We can't expect people to change. All we can do is create accountability by altering our systems

@@zachmac3824 It's not just systems, it's also culture. In a different area, look at the growth of soullessness in the management of mid- to large-size corporations since the proliferation of MBAs and bean counters in upper management. And politics has become a bloodsport over the past few decades. NGOs have come under a lot of ethical scrutiny in the same period. The systems have been shaped by people up to their eyeballs in a culture of corruption.

@@grizzlygrizzleThe rise of the left.

Truer words have not been said. Sadly the buck does not always stop at the top (with the PI); it's easier to turn a "blind eye" on someone that's likeable and "productive".

I took classes with teachers who were big names in their field, national level researchers in an university not nearly as important as Stanford but one of the top universities in my subcontinent. Some of them got jobs teaching in Harvard and such. You would believe you were getting top tier education in research with these people, but nope... we got the basics that a RU-vid video could teach you nowadays, and the remainder of time we got assignments to collect data as an "exercise". But they asked for SO MUCH of it that it was impossible to produce it on time unless you dedicated your whole day to it (We had 6 more classes and lots of assignments in each one) , but if you didn't deliver before deadline, they would fail you, and if you failed any subject, you could lose your semester and thus your scholarship and your chance to work in one of their important labs in the future . So it led to the natural consequence of many students faking some data, after all, it's just homework to teach us to process it, right? The more hardworking students in my class may have faked like 10% of the data, but the most lazy ones were blatantly getting two or three 'copies' out of one original datum cause they didn't care that their sample was unrealistic, they were even happy they'd have to work less cause it'd be more consistent. On top of it half of the time we reviewed and graded each other cause the teachers Were so busy and told us to just exchange assignments and grade them. Fast forward some years and I see these researchers published impressive papers, out of curiosity I read what it is and to my surprise one of the things discussed was the one from those assignments, and it slowly downs on me that they simply use all the data collected, processed and reviewed by their students. That's how they got so much of it and what made the paper super robust thanks to the huge samples -imagine several semesters, many classes-. And what a surprise, they found consistency that supported their hypothesis, and consequently their career and lifestyle. I didn't pursue that career, I'm a nobody, so there is no way I could formally denounce them. And even if I did, why would the committee go against some of their national treasures? Turns out they're friends with the researchers sitting in such committee, having mentored them. And the scientists I discuss this with tell me it seems to be a common practice in academia. So when you mentioned "lab minions" and asked for responsibility, I really felt that. Sorry for the long useless story, your comment triggered my memory.

You are being too kind. It was OBVIOUS fraud. He was the instigator, not the victim. An 18 year old discovered this fraud.

@@sandstorm8874 Implicit faith in "science"? Science is evidence based, after all, and peer reviewed.

@@scottjensen7555 I know! but tell that to regular people. and try to explain to them that the meaning of the word "evidence" can be stretched to suit particular interests, and that "peers" are simple fallible corruptible humans with power, and the weight that grants and donations play in the development of the current institution of Science. Many can't even grasp the concept of lobbying. People want to blindly trust something, so now they reject gods but embrace anything that can fill that void in them.

Stanford is owned and operated by the government. If you think they stopped MK Ultra, after getting in zero trouble, then you don’t understand criminal minds whatsoever.

My thoughts exactly. If he had been wrong his career would have been over before it started. Even now, if he were to switch careers to any form of medical research he’ll have problems.

​@@TheThirstyOtterwhy do you think that?

​@danielschein6845 Except that's why he went to Elizabeth because she knows what to do and how to handle academic fraud. I also don't think anyone else apart from them would know that they were investigating if there was no wrongdoing found and he never would have published his article exposing him. And why would you not want to hire him in the future because if the reason is he rated someone out for fraud, that sounds like whoever he is trying to get employed by is hiding something and also probably committing academic fraud themselves.

Oh yes a Journalism student career in Academia is over...but his Journalism career just took off. Nothing to loose and everything to gain.

@@maxb4085 everyone has something to hide so that commentor has a point hiring him in the future would be risky for any institution or company and i can assure you that they do background checks, in academic field you need to not be notorious with things like this or being sassy or disrespectful, if the case will be lost and it became clear that it was just a revenge or a show off to ruin someone reputation and this is very probable, he will pay a high price literaly (defamation suit) and figuratively.

I got rejected from Stanford a decade ago, and the impact it had on me was pretty significant. Thankfully I’ve got my own academic career now, and just like you this makes me feel much better that I didn’t get in!

Dodged a bullet if anything

I went to uiuc so I'm feeling big today.

When one lives in the most corrupted, warrior country in all of recorded history, one should be surprised to find institutions and leaders that have integrity.

go bears! boo trees!

Psychology isnt science at all, lol. Its groupthink on steroids.

I can easily believe that the peer reviewers were just lazy and inattentive, not necessarily complicit.

As a PhD student, I haven't experienced this myself with my supervisors but I've heard on the grapevine that with some journals, the name of the principal author sometimes makes all the difference. If the principal author is a big name in the field, their papers get published with very few revisions. I've even heard of a paper being submitted to a journal and the person whose desk that paper landed on deemed it so poor they immediately turned it down, but the head of the lab and principal author for that paper who knows the journal editor personally, contacted them directly after which point the paper was immediately back up in the review process.

You're right, he was a lazy cheater, and still it took decades to catch him. And when caught the university defended him. This just shows how easy it is to manipulate data, if he was better at photoshop he would never be caught. Obviously the peer review system doesn't work, but I don't see any solution to the problem. As science is based on trust and there is no "custody chain" for data, I could fabricate a dataset using AI in less than 10 minutes, and no one would be able to tell it didn't come from a legit experiment.

That's how it works, especially for the American journals. And they will desperately resist a good research on excuses such as minor grammatical mistakes.

@luszczi It is worse. They go by name and reputation. They know the names and, because the people who publish has some weight, they overlook or even mitigate the damages of the research. Anyone who publish a paper knows that reputation and prestige exists also in the Academia

No good deed goes unpunished.

I hope that he ends up in journalism, because a track record like this would make him look excellent to employers. God help him if he decides to pursue research:(

Well, this is why dishonesty is simply the fitter strategy in the society we've structured. You gain nothing by honesty - you can only lose. You gain a lot by dishonesty and in addition, you can ruin those who try to expose you.

@@Ghoulia17 A track record like this would make him radioactive. Journalists today aren't breaking the watergate scandal, they're helping perpetrate it and cover it up.

Some will favor Theo. Most will look to put him down. Such is life in America. 🇺🇸

It's like when they tell you, if you see one roach in your house it means you have hundreds.

When i read things like that, I wonder whether we should just stop this paper crap. there are 20.000 journals. no one can check out that much research. also, you might do outstanding research but not SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR. especially not in humanities. we should check the journal-practice for every field of study, and don't rate scientist's research output so highly. this focus on the quantity of research, combined with it's newness-factor, is ruining everything

We dont need your education, we dont need your thought control

lol

its not just academia. its everywhere, since the 70s. jfk was killed, the blacks got rigths, and the money became worthless. now there is no honor left in the world. when society ios a lie, dont be suprise science becomes a lie aswell

We are in a new dark age

I had a very good professor teaching Electromagnetic field theory. Then he was directed to cease teaching his area of expertise and teach circuit design instead. Obviously it was a case of insiders within the university backstabbing him. And the ones who grabbed control, sacrificed everyone in their way to do it; with student education being collateral damage. They just don’t care.

I hate this because I can't help but wonder if you simply entered a program that wasn't a good fit with a faculty that wasn't a good match.

I think the key thing here is not to limit your suspicion to just academia. There is a tremendous amount of fraud, especially data manipulation going on in "science" all the time. It all comes down to money, if you will get a lot more money in showing results that "prove" what the payers want to see, you will get "scientific" results showing those exact results. Doesn't matter if it's corporate (like the cigarette makers did), or political (like the man-made global warming hoax) or in academia... but yet time after time we are told to blindly "trust the science".

How many lies can they provide for him!

It seems like Stanford have made their bed, and he's in it

Nah, they had every opportunity to check the veracity of his work everything was available for them before they hired him and they still made the contract. This is as much on the community as it is the guy himself.

Big names are big for their marketing departments...

Nope. That's not how it works. They had the chance to vet him, and chose to be complicit in his BS. They deserve to lose that money.

I've seen some social science shenanigans in my career, but at least it "wasn't hurting" anyone. Medical research fraud is taking it one step further.

hmm the social media influencer doctor complaining about academics chasing clout. Sounds pretty rich coming from you if you ask me.

Bro I hated community college. But I trust it way more than racist Ivy League schools that float only upon their laurels.

⁠@@lordsneed9418 😂 lol your definition of social media influencer is…someone who is social media? I hate to break it to you, but academics have embraced social media wholeheartedly. And why do you think I wouldn’t make the assertion about social media doctors? They’re are even worse clout chasers, I’m just saying academics are not some special breed that is immune to it, and furthermore they have perverse incentives (as Pete and others have covered before) that force many into having to court publicity or falsify data. I have spent many years in academia and it wasn’t for me. Finally, in my above point I wasn’t directing my criticism at academics alone, but at their institutions.

What do you mean by "turning a blind eye on..."? What exactly have these two done?

You are wrong, they will be and are being punished

​@@FJCDapparently you didn't watch the video

@@LeutnantJoker if you are outside science you don't understand how it works. But, first he was removed as president, two he will probably have a hard time recruiting good students and three it is very likely that he will not receive funding. Once your reputation is destroyed it is very unlikely you comeback professionally from that

Have you heard the term “Maya” ?

Nicely composed and stated.

Nothing is going to happen and these people will get good jobs.

@@SevenTheMisgiven 🤷‍♂Yup, no surprises there🙄

Trust the science!

😂😂😂 The institutions are already gone.

You need to spell it "undermined" as in past tense.

It's time we question experts as if they were under cross examination

@@TheGreySage0 we try to do that about two years ago, but we were just conspiracy theorist

@@halogod0298you weren’t doing it out of interest in scientific integrity or actual expertise, so don’t try and lay claim to anything. Your fear, innate distrust, or whatever horseshit you started on was never grounds for any of the demands being made at that time. This goes without pointing out the deep lack of relevancy in most figureheads and primary arguments made in opposition during the period. Was there room for reasonable discussion about risk within the scope of the situation? Sure, most of that was already proposed, but there could have been more thorough discussion. Was any actually reasonable dissent presented that actually fit the urgency of the moment? Lol, no. You were conspiracy theorists begging to be relevant in a space rich with opportunity to grift, lie, obsfucate, and generally do nothing good for nobody except your own egos. So yeah, keep the branding. It still applies regardless of the outcome at this point.

@@halogod0298 Because your solution was to replace people who know what they are talking about, with people who couldn't finish a whole wikipedia article.

@@halogod0298No You guys didn’t

The best punishment is that we ALL KNOW THEY ARE SCAMMMERS NOW. Never let a scammer steal your money or Liberty. Academia is where the Commie/Fascist Left twists science to fits their POLITICAL narratives.

I can relate. I used to work in a wet lab with a highly prolific researcher (I was still an undergrad), and I was often shocked by the discrepancies between what I saw during the experiments and what I read in the published papers. The procedure, the results, etc. were all pretty much entirely unfamiliar to me, based on my daily experiences at the lab, but I just assumed that, as undergrads, I wasn’t privy to the details the star scholar and her postdocs were. Back then, it didn’t even cross my mind that they may have been engaging in data fraud-but, now, I am 120% certain that they were fudging data.

Name and shame bro. It’s the only way for the system to self correct

Not very specific. Why?

@@ssgg23 Probably because it's not entirely true.

@@nondescriptnyc Pony poop. No researcher - even a talented undergrad - should be silently tolerating discrepancies they don't understand. And I never met a researcher who wouldn't have been willing to explain to the most junior member of the team why something was valid. While I accept that there are bad researchers out there - I don't believe it's true of folks in general. It's just too damned hard to do that level of work - without loving it and wanting to do it right.

you explain A LOT, this was exactly my hypothesis of the origin of all these POORLY faked photos.

Leave the country, there are plenty of places abroad with the right credentials that will welcome you with warm arms.

Christ.. It's daunting down here in undergrad, looking up at the mess I intend to wade into... I hope Paleontology doesn't have it quite as bad.

@@callusklaus2413 can't say I know much about the academic circle in paleontology but best of luck to you. And take my comment with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded after all these years haha

Yup it sucks. I also wanted to go for PhD, cause I want to prove I can do it. But it just seemed more about politics than actual work. So I got a job instead. Maybe one day I'll go back to Uni.

You should be better off. Just like everything else, the more money that is involved the more corruption that follows. My stint in honey bee research was fine, my stint in "biomedical" and public health attached to hospitals was fraud city.@@callusklaus2413

Anyone surprised by this wasn't paying attention during COVID

Oh no, everyone in a position of authority is totally legit, nobody should ever question or doubt any of them in such prestigous and elite positions in society.. like anthony fauci, he just oozes with integrity and experience.. very charming and endearing man too.. 🙄😒

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 for real

Those with coin, connections, clout, crews, computer code, control, communities, and opportunities can do ANYTHING they wish. They're unstoppable. In fact, this Theo kid is really an anomaly: one rich family taking down another! 😂🤣😂 Very rare.

⁠@@marcodarko6941In fact, Anthony Fauci does exude integrity and has experience.

Opinions are like assholes. We all have one.@@beryllium1932

what's surprising is that he got away with it and didn't get slandered and thrown out of Stanford!

​@jwenting got away with what? Some pictures? Were the results of the data based on those doctored images? I really dont get it.

​@torunaga1927 Correct, the data was manipulated and therefore the conclusions are incorrect based on the experiments or the experiments were conducted incorrectly and manipulated to reach an expected outcome. I assume the investigation will reveal more about the specifics.

I don't think metaphorically, kicking one of the "brightest and best" in the nuts, won't win him any friends at Sanford.

"He had nothing to lose, . . "? He was putting his academic future at Stanford on the line AND now he has a target on his back.

I was talking to a guy who does research, and he says Photoshop isn't always necessary. There are other manipulations that can be done to get the results you want.

What was the field?

@@strikephorce Photocatalysis primarily, but our lab touched on most of the "broader" fields. We also worked a lot on MOFs. I'll leave it at that lol

Not an academic, but what's the solution to publish or perish ?

@@Paul-qe1jn Without getting into detail... create more incentives for publishing null results.

Removing financial incentives/dependencies

@@emmanuelalagbala9590 I wish it were that simple.

​@@Paul-qe1jnAs a PhD with over 1k citations, I think the problem isn't the system, but the people using the system. Publish or perish worked fine for decades. But a morally bankrupt populace will corrupt any system or institution. I think that's what we are seeing.

There's a huge need for skilled science reporters in journalism, however think about what kind of credentials you would need to have to catch this fraud. Big ups to Theo for putting in the work but he had to go to outside experts to help get the understanding of what he was looking at, and he only knew who to look at because of existing rumors. If you are operating without any understanding that this person might be sketchy, there's no way you'd ever put in that kind of time and effort. It's simply not feasible for science reporters to verify the accuracy of every research paper - that's what peer review is supposed to be for. What can improve is the ability to interpret what research papers are concluding and how strong the evidence actually is. It's a huge skillset to be a talented science reporter and it does not pay well at all so I don't anticipate the situation getting better.

@@estefencosta1835 "he had to go to outside experts to help get the understanding of what he was looking at, and he only knew who to look at because of existing rumors" This is what real reporters do, as in The Pentagon Papers. It isn't that the Paper of Record and Important News Sources did not break this specific important story, it is that they broke NONE of them. Vigilantes did all of the work for them. This is why the mass media has zero credibility, in fact, they are so suspect as to deserve no nothing but disrespect, and are useful only a hint of what the corrupt establishment is trying to hide. Remember, according to the "real news" we were wining in Afghanistan for 20+ years. How can anyone forgive that?

@@estefencosta1835 Such innocence as yours is a rarity!

@@megenberg8 That makes no sense. I explained the problem and stated I didn't think it would get better. Where's the innocence.

​@estefencosta1835 Thank you for bringing up the fact that while science and research get covered in media, even hyped to exaggeration, not all media teams include science writers and journalists.

It is amazing to me that anyone could think a peer review process would not be corrupt. Science by consensus is not science at all as it is nothing more than science by politics. Popularity has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is true or scientific. Such methodology can only lead to corruption.

The entire way academia is structured encourages and rewards corruption. And as we can see from there instances, there's little reason not to fake data, as at worst you'll get a slap on the wrist.

Integrity? LOL.

The "Peer Review Process" is based on the MOST ABSURD assumption, which is revealed by a study of the history of science. It assumes that every 'innovation', (every 'breakthrough' ) could have been created by the CREATOR'S PEERS. AND....the reason the innovation was a 'BREAKTHROUGH' is because the person HAD NO PEERS. He/she saw something that was NOT PART OF THE CURRENT PARADIGM. Read the book by Thomas Kuhn titled: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

It would be more correct to say that this =reveals= the (lack of) integrity of the entire peer review process.

This wouldn't normally pass peer review. Maybe the reviewers were easy on him because of his status or some other reason...

​@@shulamayhow do you know this doesn't happen all the time? It took years and years for this alone to be exposed. You are basing this on FAITH.

@@amentco8445 I just know what came back from reviewers when I was in a research lab.

What does that mean?

​@@yourunemployedfriendat2pmi think by "null results" they meant a sort of dead end, where nothing interesting has been found. Afaik it is still very good ! It tells other researchers that there is certainly nothing to be found there, and therefore finding dead ends is still research, maybe not as satisfying however as one would like it to be. And most importantly, dead ends are better than lies.

Unfortunately, it's considered a good practice for students but not so for mature researchers. One is supposed to plan the experiments in such a way that null results are actually positive, as in "this approach does not work because..." and not just "we tried X and Y and it didn't work, but maybe if we do Z it would help - alas, we ran out of time and money, maybe next year". The latter kind of stuff is being told exclusively at the workshops, it is super important, but you would almost see it in regular papers.

The home of the Hoover Institute? Heaven forfend! (The Reagan administration began allowing for-profit corporate/academic research partnerships about four decades ago.)

We've put up over a trillion dollars in tax payer money, so lazy kids can learn Marxism and be taught to bring down western civilization. It's disgusting

Hard agree! Each department has their stars, who are allowed to create their little kingdoms.

​@@anix670boohoo, "kingdom" haha

Yes. Retention rates, graduation rates, job placement rates, loan default rates…a subpar industry by most KPI’s

The report might actually be correct. Stealing the credit from your students' work is an old, well esablished practice in academia. It's quite possible Tessier-Lavigne didn't write - or even read - a single word in the articles that were published in his name. Not that it makes the situation any better of course, it's just another kind of fraud than what he is accused of.

@@tessjuel The report may indeed be true, and I would guess that a law firm would not commit fraud for a client by fabricating evidence. Nevertheless the purpose of the report is to exonerate their superstar in any way they can, so the law firm is using its knowledge of the situation and the law to protect the university and the superstar and throw the underlings under the bus. While though it may be important from an ethical standpoint he knew if the fraud was going on, the law firm is there to protect the university and the superstar from legal repercussions. If Stanford can claim that Tessier-Lavigne genuinely did not know about the fraud, that is a lot better for them than if he did know and perhaps even condoned it because then that is a conspiracy and was not simply incompetent.

If YOU hire experts, (legal, accounting, technical) YOU hire them to make YOU look good. You don’t hire them to point out your dishonesty, corrupting, and incompetence, and they know that.

This is what they are hiding from you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] ❤

You're word usage is that of a factory shop worker. - every time you mean "you're", you type "your". Yet, you use apostrophes in "it's" repeatedly. Fishy.

@@gregrice1354 So you get joy out of belittling people that might not have the level of education you do. You must really get off on public shaming someone who simply wanted to voice their opinion. I truly hope you can now spend the rest of your day walking proudly around feeling superior to someone you’ve never met because you were able to correct their spelling and grammar. Good for you! I simply wanted to state how people who can’t afford college or are unable to advance their education are treated like their lives and paychecks aren’t as important as the ones in charge. Your superiority complex kind of proves my point. By shaming my poor spelling and grammar your trying to show that I’m not worth listening to. I don’t have a high level of education so my opinion has no place in a public forum.

@@gregrice1354 doesnt take away from the point, you reek of reddit bruh

and if you're a student or lecturer, your career is just as much being a pawn until you can move up the ladder and become the boss... if you ever make it that far

fully agree.

This is what they are hiding from you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] ❤

Unfortunately although Lavigne may now be gone, his comrades and tribesmen still have a very tight hold over academia. This 18 year old is likely to suffer and be ostracized for exposing one of their own.

Too bad i think that his academic career (if he wanted one) might be over. Especially after seeing, stanford did not fire the professor

Gigachad

​@@PeteJudo1How do asian families deal with the fatherlessness, do they rely on welfare, or they substitute the fatherless parent with a relative like an uncle?

@@nssSmooge depends, in the world of academic research this is an absolute bombshell because of the position Marc Tessier was in. Considering Theo is only 18 years old and as an amateur 'reporter' has already brought to light such a huge scandal, it could be life changing lol.

@@PeteJudo1 There should be a study done on whether people who are named Chad are actually cool, and if they aren't cooler than other people on average, maybe the internet can stop giving the name Chad this free PR boost.

Absolutely true. It seems that many people here fail to grasp the magnitude of this problem. Ironically, blatant data fraud often grabs the headlines, exactly like big papers get all the attention. While undeniably sensational, it's the subtle data manipulations-resulting from laziness or selective cherry-picking-that truly poison scientific integrity. Science has unfortunately transitioned from a methodology to a form of storytelling.

She is pretty good at what she does! I loved to see her on Twitter haunting inconsistencies on papers. 😅

You know the scary thing? The cheaters might have a ton of dirt on others or the institution as a whole, therefore the institution does nothing.

A hard lesson for Institutional complacency is the Challenger exlosion.

I’m a layman. I think most things I hear about cancer are bs

No one photoshops a blot by mistake. It's just not done. They knew what they were doing.

@@shulamay I mean yeah but the argument was that it was one of the other researchers. I'm not saying that's what happened but it's possible it wasn't him. But yeah, either way it is his fault because he was either negligent or corrupt.

@@cofee2596 It sounds like it's the practice in his lab, not just done by one student. This makes it look like he instructs them to do it. But I guess we can't know for sure.

Incompetence IS worse than actually cheating. Cheating says the whole system needs oversight (People cheat, there should be one by default). Incompetence means you're a total waste of energy that shouldn't even be acknowledged. Colleges are businesses, this is NOT a Moral discussion, you can fire a cheater, but if their end of the system doesn't work, it's bigger than one guy.

@@cofee2596 If he wasn't actively complicit, then he just proved he'll put his name on just about anything passed in front of him. Everything he's put through before is now suspect.

"Fudgery"... Nice Euphemism for FRAUD and CORRUPTION.

I was wondering about that. Peer review comes across to me as less an exercise in guaranteeing integrity than in gatekeeping.

@@jrbleau It's supposed to. Just like we're SUPPOSED to have laws that work as checks and balances to stop people from doing things. Problem in both peer review and law enforcement is that if you just get enough of your friends around to help out, you get the result you want. But then you see this in the public's outrage, too. People call out the infractions that the other tribe/team/party/scientists make, and then instead of holding their own group to higher standards they'll say something like, "Eh, everyone's doing it." Instead of arbitrary tribes, can we get instead get tribalism to the point where we're on team fraud and team anti-fraud?

We keep seeing that peer review is no assurance of quality or integrity. Lots of other medical papers have also been found to be fraud at best, or infomercial based on who's paying.

Religion's capacity for deliberate deception is boundless as well.

Science can be trusted, it is in fact the only method of truthfinding we have. Material truth that is, human truth is another matter altogether. Going forward we should distinguish between those who take science (I.e. truth) seriously and those who do not.