Harvard Fake Data Scandal - HUGE NEW DEVELOPMENT 

Go to www.piavpn.com/PeteJudo to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!

Wonder if they made her sign her testimony at the top.

Lol she's crying sexism, then turns around and blames another woman... yup.

"One of the best things about going to Harvard is that, for the rest of your life, you are neither intimidated nor impressed by people who went to Harvard." - Thomas Sowell I'm doubting her integrity by the way she responded, blaming sexism and 'sabotage' by a female co-author. I wonder if the research money made them cut corners or present this instead of redoing the entire study, considering they found discrepancies early on?

People somehow have the impression Harvard will always be a highly prestigious university, when we can see its reputation crumble in real time.

I'm a lawyer. Saying "we're excited to present her defense in court" means they don't have shit. Because if there were really something to it, they would already put it out there.

So the female co-author can now sue Gino $25 million for defamation and being sexist

If they started screening out the professors with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, not only would there hardly be any professors left, but all of the drama would go away and everyone could get a real education again.

"The only reason they're accusing me of this is SEXISM" **Proceeds to throw female colleague under the bus**

My father was a Harvard professor of psychology. Let me tell you, as a person who grew up meeting many eminent psychologists, this is a field which is a magnet for cheats, fakes and nuts. Not to mention the egotistical maniacs. The body of knowledge consists mainly of people's opinions. We call that a 'soft' science. To my father's credit he tried to elevate the field by applying statistical analysis. But compared to chemist they know almost nothing. That's why they get away with murder. She was just dumb enough to fake data. Many of them just make naked assertions. They are never caught.

Harvard's "Veritas" has become rather ironic.

If a research assistant made a mistake, and the research staff did not vet through the data before submitting it, whose fault is it?

Harvard… they actually Wrote The BOOKS on how to manipulate everything!!! From Law to Phycology -science, business, …. A 1,300 page report 😂😂😂.. suing Harvard 😂😂.. the Fact that 700+ professors signed a letter saying Not to fire the president Gay after her congressional testimony, pretty much sums it all up… beautiful buildings filled with snakes 🐍

"A 1,300 pages report". By Harvard on this blatant fraud case. There's a subject for some serious behavioral studies right there!

Personally, I don't care if it was one of her co-authors or not. To publish a scientific paper, you have to sign your name saying you agree to all the claims and that you read it over. Clearly, she didn't do her duty reading it over.

This childish behavior of cheating your way and playing the victim when you get caught needs to have real consequences or it will continue to grow. Harvard itself needs to suffer real consequences for allowing such nonsense while raking in donations and extraordinary tuitions

This is a frivolous lawsuit. She should be forced to pay everyone’s attorney’s fees, fired, and deported.

I'm pretty old. Old enough that I remember that when I was young, being caught in a lie meant the end of a scientific, academic, journalistic, or even political career. It was such a hard principle, that I remember Walter Cronkite freaking out on the air when he realized that he had just reported something that was passed on to him that had not been verified and might not be true. He looked terrified. Today, it's no big deal.

“Their accusations are sexist! I didn’t lie. It was my female co-author!” What the fuck…?

Major red flag: calling for sexism when there was no hint of it - a typical trait of a dark triad personality.

At this rate, by 2040 Harvard will be known as "a mediocre Junior College".

As a former research scientist in an adjacent field, this YT game me flashbacks. I have personally seen/read papers were I knew for sure data was tampered with. However as being a lowly PhD student at the time, I was advised to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to have a career in my field.

Good god, Harvard. You can't redact just the names and leave all the obvious other identifiers like jobs. In medical research, we'd first be laughed at and then face charges for that.

"Behavior" and "Science" don't belong together.

So, her co-author sabotaged her research, but then didn't point that out to anybody? Why sabotage without desiring negative results against your victim? Why would an attacker keep it all secret?

Here is another defense she can try: "Hey, come on, at Harvard not just me but everyone is a charlatan!"

I'm actually impressed that Harvard followed through with a real investigation, not just a cover-up!

What did we learn from this? Sometimes when you protest your innocence, you just make this much, much worse.

Really depressing to me are the HUGE petcentages of cheating among study participants: 79% among those asked for an affirmation at form bottom, but still 37% among those asked for an affirmation at form top! (And 64% cheaters in control group with no affirmation to sign.) This is really disgusting. Where have morals gone? Something is very wrong. - And if those liars later are working as lawyers, engineers, inspectors, technicians, doctors, bankers, researchers, etc., there are so many dangers.

Maybe Gina should have had her colleages fill out an honesty pledge before joining the team, rather than after.

Ah yes, back in the day when "Harvard" and "research" equaled "honesty"...now it means "lie through your teeth" and "blame everyone else"

Good thing they caught this. I'm sure it has never happened before and will never happen again. 😂

On a very basic level, I think putting your name to a document means you must accept the consequences of its publication, both good and bad.

"She claims their accusations are biased, sexist and false" - tell me you are guilty without telling me that you are guilty.

Thank you for presenting this info in a very clear and exciting who done it manner. I look forward to viewing some of your other videos. I also appreciate that you have provided some info abt yourself.

TY for the update. Keep posting.

It must be emotional to have your personal heroes suspected/revealed as frauds. I wish you the best and thank you for your integrity Pete.

let just be blunt, Harvard isn't better at teaching students or is a better school. It is has more prestige, but that's not directly related to learning. Harvard is a gate keeper of power and wealth. Go there if you want to get stinking rich and rub shoulders with rich kids. if you want to learn, go to a state school that focuses on teaching and not prestige or research.

Why are they excited to present information in court as part of her DEFENSE when she is the PLAINTIFF?

I don’t understand why these people have jobs. They don’t contribute anything to society. Hard STEM like physics, CS, and engineering should receive vastly more resources.

She's lying through her teeth and I was never very impressed with Dan Aierly's intellect either.

I want to know more about the resume of the consultant who gets paid to spend 11 months and 1300 pages investigating this 🤔

Gino: (Massaging forehead in mock exasperation) “Sometimes I think you WANT to fail!!”

This video taught me how to create a fraudulant work in a way that wouldn’t raise these red flags. And then if caught, how not to put blame. Time to produce original research papers.

Tbh, I have no faith in the integrity of any of them.

How do I get one of these enemies who sabotages my career by helping me become one of the most famous people in my field, allows me to make a couple million in public speaking fees & book deals, and lets it go on for a decade before getting to the actual negative part of their plan?

What a great channel you have. I didn’t know anything about this case and you spoke clearly about it. I’m hooked!

The internal investigation report: names are redacted.. Pete: we don’t do that here.

As someone who worked as a Direct of Data Analytics for like 10 years now... This is called Normal. Cheat then Lie. It works every time.

Dan Ariely was accused of fraud on the very same topic. Now he's a co-author on this paper with strong evidence of fraud. His friend is taking the hit and blames Dan's assistant. Why aren't we talking about the elephant in the room?

I had initially planned to retire at 62, work part-time, and save money, but the impact of high prices on various goods and services has significantly disrupted my retirement plan. I'm worried about whether those who experienced the 2008 financial crisis had it easier than I currently am. The volatility of the stock market is a concern as my income has decreased, and I fear that I won't be able to contribute as much as before, potentially jeopardizing my retirement savings.

Thank you for the summary in the beginning. Very helpful! 🙏

This reminds me so much of a study I had to do in my masters together with other students. The results of our survey were non-conclusive to the extent that because of badly participants filling out the survey incompletely or wrong, our sample sizes became too small and they didn't even prove any hypothesis. We were a group of 5 people and we split the paper up by steps. One person wrote the theory part, another the methods part, I wrote the data assembly and the data processing and yet another person the evaluation of the data and the conclusion. The person writing the theory part insisted that we fake our data to get the results we need. The person doing the methodological part insisted that we portray the correct results but omit that our sample sizes were too small. So that we pretend the study is conclusive and valid. The person writing the conclusion and evaluation started writing their part before I even finished compiling the data. As it was a survey taken before and after an intervention as well as a third survey at the end, raw data had 3x the entries than there were participants. They used that 3x data to evaluate the study, wish was crazy. It ended up with me insisting that I will not lie and that i will do the data processing correctly, which will show that we have too little entries and that even if using statistics for small sample sizes, none of our hypothesis were valid. Secondly I went to the professor and told him that I wanted his insight into the data collected as it was too bad to produce valid results. So that the others couldn't fudge the data anymore as I provided him everything. Lastly I asked him that the paper to be graded separately by the parts we contributed, not as an overall group grade. Then I told the others that they can write whatever they want in their parts, I will not even read it as I don't want any part in it. The end result was that the person who did the evaluation from using descriptive statistics on the wrong (3x) data set got a grade not much worse than mine. I went and asked the professor as to why my grade was so low and if I did errors in my statistical approach. He explained that in the contrary, I was more diligent than I had needed and that I put extreme efforts into finding a way to process the data in a valid way despite the collected data itself being questionable. I was transparent and did the best I could with the data we had and even produced some interesting insights despite the quality of the data being so bad. However he could not grade me very highly because my presentation was hard to read. Think of him wanting "p=.58" and me writing ".58 (p)". I understand that there are conventions on how to write things, but it is telling that I could present perfectly fine and correct data in a still readable way and get graded the same as someone who falsifies data, evaluates the wrong data and even in doing so never does more than descriptive statistics on a data set that needed multivariate analysis to even answer the research question. But their presentation was flawless. This sends the wrong signals to students if you can get the same or even better grades by writing total bullshit but making it sound good as someone actually putting in effort to get things correctly but failing to write it down in the conventional way.

These types of studies already seem total nonsense to me anyway. Like, you have a bunch of people in a room who have signed up for a study and know they are being studied. That already basically makes the study questionable. On top of that you're only doing it on like 100 people? Why are papers like this even considered valid science in the first place?

The irony. Plot twist: the real honesty experiment is on whether or not Harvard, the lawyers, the accused, and the defendants, as well as the public and the media, can all be honest about the dishonest data regarding an experiment on honesty and the characters involved, much like the math test and shredder experiment, just on a bigger scale. Now if we see half the defendants and half the claimants signing at the top, it might be a sign.

Harvard: VE RI DEI Who thinks this is a more accurate motto?

Had her as a lecturer before - clear Narcissist, hence no surprise lies exist and glad they're now revealed.

Did she not proof read her own paper before she published it? The mistakes are so obvious. Imagine your career being ruined, not simply by Academic dishonesty, but by an utter lack of attention to detail in a field that attention to detail is Paramount? Even if the numbers weren't fabricated, shame on her. She got an *F* on that one and it ruined her career. Better to not publish anything.

Thanks so much for staying on top of this. We know the mainstream media won’t

The most shocking element of this story is how top HBS professors and high-level assistants play high school-level games of jealousy and cheating against one another; and then the time and resources it takes for ONE case to be disentangled! No wonder plagiarism and dishonesty is also rampant the top of Academia, as recent events have revealed in Congress.

So the defense theory is : 1) someone else went to extreme lengths to insert incriminating manipulated data into four different paper, probably committing several crimes in the process 2) this person, by the way, is a co-author on a study into which she inserted fake data, therefore she deliberately made herself EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA FRAUD (because all authors are responsible for the integrity of the data and are all guilty of misconduct if there is fraud, regardless of which author actually committed the fraud itself) 3) this incriminating data, which of course strongly supported the central hypothesis of each paper, was not noticed by any of the other authors 4) having carried out this ingenious plot to frame both Gino and herself for fraud, she waited twelve years to spring the trap, allowing Gino to remain at the pinnacle of academia and make a fortune in the meantime Orrrrrrrr... Gino committed the data fraud herself to promote her career. Hmmm this is a real toss-up 😂

"Anyone on the same wifi as you can access your browsing data, etc", please stop spreading false information about VPNs. I understand you need the money from the VPN sponsor and there's a way to advertise its legitimate use cases without spreading false information about computer security.

Thanks for this breakdown. People drowning will grab anything to stay afloat. People who see their lifelong career going down the drain will grasp at any scapegoat to stop them from suffering the consequences. I feel sorry that an otherwise intelligent and devoted educator has fallen so far. I hope she can right her ship. The world is better if someone like this does it right.

Why does any of this matter? All co-authors' reputations are smerched. Surely all 5 of them would be fired if the university took having false data published with your name on it seriously.

Gino claiming ignorance and blaming a co-author is analogous to being angry because you checked "yes" to the terms of agreement without reading them. Every reputable journal ever requires a sign-off from ALL authors when publishing a manuscript. If she didn't check the data, that's on her.

A pox on all their houses. A silly experiment. A silly field of study. Silly conclusion. Not replicated. No peer review. Everybody associated with this should find something useful to do.

After watching the Veritaserum video on 37, it's hilarious they chose to make it 37%. "Its a random looking number! Choose it"

Once she clamed she was discriminated against, because of gender, it was all over. Just one of many academics getting held accountable. The status of being faculty at an Ivy League school is no longer so prestigious.

If she admits there were "issues" how can she sue the guys for pointing out said issues??

When I was a medical student, there was a piece of graffiti over the toilet paper dispenser, which said “psychology degrees, please, help yourself“. Seems that was correct and prescient.

my NPD ex would often claim, "I was educated by the smartest professors in the world at Harvard and you have no idea what you are talking about!" This concept that she leaned into so often makes a lot more sense now ! LOL

Thanks for the reporting Pete!

So they were 'dishpnest' about the shredder, all while testing honesty in people? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

They sign articles, then you ask about their data and they don't know what to reply. A house of cards.

Does it all even matter? Her name is on a paper that is obviously scientifically worthless, if not an outright scam and even if she had nothing to do with the manipulation (which is already very unlikely), she still must have seen that it's not a paper that should be released. So she either didn't care at all about the content of the paper or she knew and signed off on it because she knew it would make for great headlines. Either way there is a massive misconduct on her part.

The number of cheats reduced from 79% to 37%..? If those numbers were divided by ten I'd STILL lose faith in humanity 😥

As you may have heard, whoever gets their story out first is the story that sticks in the mind. Professor Gino did not get her story out first. Plus, her version has issues. I find it interesting that this gets big play in the same year that other academic integrity stories show up, and other, seemingly unrelated conflicts related to geopolitical issues also hit major news story status. "In war, the first casuality is the truth." - Philip Snowden, 1916. "Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped." Edward Snowden, 2013. History does not repeat, but it often rhymes.

It's little SQL or Excel work, they can remove these anomalies but these Harvard professors don't have good experience with cheating or with Excel

I'd be suspicious of the paper just because it claims 79% of people cheated if not prompted with the honesty question before starting. Assuming they weren't aware that others were cheating, that seems crazy high for adults.

After 17 + miutes of listening to this gossip blog, I haven't heard a thing that would matter in my nor 99.9% of the earth's population. I did however give you a thumbs up for learning how to gossio like a real woman.

Crazy that Harvard still has her on the faculty roll and hasn’t revoked tenure

Someone that sues the accuser on the grounds of misogynistic behaviour, only to implicate a female fellow in an Agatha Christie plot, cannot be taken seriously…

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low"

Honestly, if I was ever accused of something like this I would HOPE there would be a 1300 page report. That shows how seriously they take it and how they were utterly meticulous in trying to determine the truth.

PNAS is NOT a peer-reviewed journal; a paper merely has to submitted by a member of the National Academy, or endorsed by such, to be published. Which is why so much that is published in PNAS is crap.

As someone with no connection to Harvard or academia, these videos are very interesting and entertaining. Great work!

The absolute balooney that was in that VPN ad segment feels really out of place considering the topic of the video. Not using a VPN does not mean your computer has a keylogger installed!

I guess she wasn’t valuable enough for Harvard to report she did nothing wrong when essentially investigating themselves.

13:53 This is why every time I have to censor a document for privacy, I replace all censored information with an exact amount of blank space. Each piece is replaced by an amount that is significantly longer than the longest section, and all are the exact same length. People for some reason consistently think length of words is not information, but it is so so ridiculously easy to uncensor text from length alone.

It would be interesting to investigate what kind of research is more likely to be fraudulent. I think I noticed a correlation between fraud and high media publicity, but this might be due to availability bias.

I have to admit I'm enjoying this is happening at Harvard,; and then has to go institutionally deeper whether Harvard successfully covers it up or not

These findings never get awards but is arguably the most important aspect of science communication. Great content. Thank you so much for sharing. Keep up the great work.

I read that Harvard has 57 studies that are under investigation!

this cannot be repaired. it must be dismantled and rebuilt, with the guilty paying for their crimes.

I know that your sponsor segment was just an ad read, but the info you gave about VPNs is incredibly misleading. Ironic considering the topic of the video is about failures of academic integrity and misconduct in honesty studies.

Not proof reading her own paper before publishing it is grounds for firing her all by itself.

According to IRS data 100% failure of reporting the income.

It's not true that being on the same WiFi can allow someone to access your browsing data, keystrokes, passwords or photos! Your device would have to been hacked. The admin, however, can see what devices are using the WiFi and the sites they are requesting. But the passwords and data transmitted are protected by hashing and encryption even without a VPN. Stop scaring people for sponsorship!!

Criticized by 3 males --> sue // fully blame fellow female co-author --> this is fine. Hypocrisy runs wild in these institutions.

This is my favorite science telenovela ever. Just get your popcorn and enjoy! 🍿