Asmongold Update is Crazy, Diddy Revenge Scandal, New Election Law BLOCKED, Scientific Misconduct
PDS Published 10/16/2024
-
Asmon Apology Video
Asmongold says he has turned into an asshole.
I just feel like such a stupid belligerent fucking asshole. I really do, and I’m sorry.” (6:26-6:32)
That was one of the major statements he made in a video this morning apologizing for his comments about Palestine.
Right, we talked about this yesterday, he faced a ton of backlash for calling it an “inferior culture” and saying that they’re terrible people so he won’t “cry a river” over a genocide against them.
People were just outraged, equating those comments to Nazi rhetoric.[][][]
And while he issued a statement walking some of it back on Twitter, it didn't go over well, leading us to this morning’s video, where he thanked people for calling him out and said his remarks were disgusting. []
Noting that he still is against religious extremism and using it to oppress people, but what he was saying was just not fair:
“But whenever I categorize everybody in the area as this like group, then I’m the asshole – and I was the asshole.” (2:32-2:42)
“And I’m sorry. I really am. I think that it’s fair to criticize religious extremism and I think that it’s extremely unfair to categorize everybody in part of that group as religious extremists.I think it is and I’m really sorry for that.” (6:32-6:48)
Explaining that another moment that made him realize he needed to reflect on his beliefs came when he was getting death threats left and right yesterday, but:
“Do you know who reached out to me? And they wanted to talk and have a conversation and see if I was okay… People that were Islamic and people that had fucking family in Palestine. And I– How humiliating is that? How absolutely humiliating was that? And these were the people that I was trying to say were bad.” (4:37-4:59)
Noting this was just not an isolated incident of assholery, right, he feels that he has kind of been going down a spiral for the past two years, especially since streaming has taken over his whole life.
And he said that has just become unhealthy for him, so he actually felt relieved when he got suspended because he wants to dial his streaming time back to work on self improvement.
“I think that I’ve been slowly devolving into the most mean-spirited – just, like I don’t even really know what the word is for it – just like the most mean-spirited, rude, like nasty, just callous psychopathic version of myself. (2:54-3:16)
“And I’ve had, again, everybody in the world telling me this, including my own dad. And I’ve just ignored them. And, finally, it’s like, you know what? Maybe I’m an asshole. Maybe - maybe this is too far. Maybe I need to - a course correction. Which is why I think, like, getting suspended and this uh - I hope that it’s one of the best things that has ever happened to me.” (10:37-10:59)
“I need to get myself in check. I need to get my mind under control. I need to like, just, get my life – I need to fix my fucking life.” (12:46-12:55)
On top of all this, he also said he is stepping back from his leadership role at OTK while he takes time to work on himself because he just does not want to be a mean person anymore.
And I would just love to know your thoughts on this, does it feel like the standard creator backlash apology, do you buy where he is coming from?
-
Diddy Asks Feds to Name Victims, Macy’s Accused of Staging Coverup
Specifically, he wants them to name the names of his alleged victims.
With his lawyers writing a letter to a New York judge yesterday claiming that Diddy needs to know their identities in order to prepare for trial.[]
And this is all tied to the massive sex trafficking case he is facing.
But while that case plays out, there are also over a dozen lawsuits alleging sexual assault, rape, and claims similar to those in the federal case.
So his lawyers wrote a letter arguing that this case is very unique because there is so much public interest in it, and they claim this interest has resulted in a torrent of anonymous allegations, which they say range from false to outright absurd.[]
With the letter going on to say:
“These swirling allegations have created a hysterical media circus that, if left unchecked, will irreparably deprive Mr. Combs of a fair trial, if they haven’t already.”
“Without clarity from the government, Mr. Combs has no way of knowing which allegations the government is relying on for purposes of the Indictment. Other than Victim-1, there is no way for Mr. Combs to determine who the other unidentified alleged victims are.”
Per USA Today, the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has so far been opposed to disclosing alleged victims’ names. []
But they did not give a comment on this latest request.
And so we will have to see what comes of this, but that is not the only Diddy related news coming out today.
Because the department store Macy’s is now being accused of covering up a sexual assault allegation against Diddy.
In a lawsuit filed this week, a John Doe claimed he was orally raped by Diddy while working in the stockroom of the flagship Macy’s in New York.
For some background, Diddy’s clothing line, Sean John, was previously sold at Macy’s and was such a big brand at the store that the two eventually inked an exclusive deal.
And the John Doe in this suit said he was working for Ecko, a rival brand that was also sold at Macy’s at the time.
And he alleged that in 2008, Diddy entered the stockroom with armed bodyguards while he was working, claiming the guards struck him and threatened to kill him.
Then alleging that after this, Diddy demanded he perform oral sex on him in a two minute attack.
After this, the lawsuit claims that Diddy then grabbed armfuls of his Sean John merch and went to the store floor to pass it out "to an adoring crowd, as if nothing had happened."
With the suit then accusing Macy’s of covering this incident up, because even though the John Doe says he quickly reported the alleged assault to security, there was no follow up, and he was eventually barred from the store.
The lawsuit even saying that the CEO of Macy’s actually pressured the Ecko brand to fire him from the store because Macy’s had just signed a major deal with Diddy.
And that’s just one of several disturbing suits filed this week.
Another was filed in California accusing him of “revenge rape” in 2018.
This coming from a woman who said she met one of Diddy’s friends at a bar, and in an effort to impress people, that friend made a video call to Diddy.
That woman, however, did not want to engage because she believed that Diddy had something to do with the murder of Tupac.
Which is a theory that has existed for a long time, though we obviously won’t get into the details there.
But according to the suit, Diddy wanted to make her “pay” after hearing her suggest he was involved in the murder.
Claiming that about a month later, that friend invited the woman to his house, and Diddy unexpectedly showed up, and held a knife to her face.
Further alleging that Diddy then ripped off her clothes and raped her with a TV remote, telling her that her life was in his hands and if he wanted, she would never be seen again.
With the suit claiming that after this, she was then raped by multiple people until she could not even move her body.
The woman said she reported the incident to police but that no action was taken, and now she is suing Diddy and six other people.
And these are just the latest stories, right, every other day it feels like there are new disturbing allegations.
And so I would love to know any and all thoughts you have here, on the case in general, on Diddy wanting the victims to be named, or on these new assault and coverup claims.
Especially since, it feels like so far, we are getting just the tip of the iceberg in terms of all these allegations, and if this is what we know, it’s just wild to think there is likely even more.
-
New footage shows police punching and tasing deaf Black man with cerebral palsy but the man is the one being charged with resisting arrest and aggravated assault on a police officer
We gotta talk about this horrific case of police beating the shit out of a deaf Black man with cerebral palsy and then accusing him of being the aggressor.
Right, meet Tyron McAlpin (Tyrone Mick-Alp-in - LISTEN)
On August 19th, he had the misfortune of meeting Phoenix police officers Ben Harris and Kyle Sue (BROLL: 2:21-2:24).
With his attorney now sharing bodycam and surveillance footage of that encounter with the media.
Right, it all started when police received a call from a nearby convenience store about a white man acting aggressively.
After police arrived, this guy, whose name is Derek Stevens, claimed he’d been attacked by a Black man who had stolen his phone.
And with that, he pointed out Tyrone, who had just left and was reportedly walking home while on a video call with his wife using sign language.
With Harris later saying this in court:
“And, you didn’t confirm Derek’s story with any of the witnesses inside.”
“No.” (BYTE: 2:55-3:00)
Right, they took the white guy’s word, and they drove after the Black guy.
And then, this happened.
“Hey buddy, stop where you’re at. Have a seat.” (BYTE: 0:11-0:17).
Right, take another look.
This police truck pulls up in front of Tyrone, he doesn’t seem to hear the officer, you know, because he’s deaf, and he moves out of the way and starts walking around the back (BROLL: 0:26-0:30)
But before the truck even comes to a complete stop, Harris is out the door.
We can’t show it all, but he grabs Tyrone, pushes him, punches him, and eventually brings him to the ground.
Tyrone, of course, was backing away.
He put his hands up in defense, and yes, it looks like he may have even thrown a couple punches back.
Right, keeping in mind, it’s not clear that he even had time to register the fact that it was a police officer attacking him.
But in any case, with Tyrone now face down on the ground, Harris is repeatedly barking the same order at him.
“Put your hands behind your back! Put your hands behind your back! Hands behind your back! Put your hands behind your back!” (AUDIO: 0:29-0:39)
Right, and then we see Tyrone being punched again and again, and then tasered at least once or twice.
And then, with his body contorted in agony, him yelling in pain, the officer just keeps shouting:
“Hands behind your back! Hands behind your back!” (AUDIO: 0:51-53)
Now, Tyrone’s attorney says he didn’t obey the officers’ commands because he’s deaf and couldn’t hear.
The officers claim Tyrone also bit one of them on the hand.
With the other reporting an injury on his left hand from delivering “as many closed-fist strikes” as he could to Tyrone’s “head area.”
And so, with that, we first heard their version of events when Tryon’s wife walked over and saw her husband being held down on the ground:
“That’s my husband. He was on the phone with me.”
“Really?”
“Yeah”Well, he’s under arrest for assault on a police officer.”
“What happened?”
He assaulted somebody at the Circle K. If you can wait over there, I’ll tell you right about it, in a little bit.”
“I’ve been on the phone with him the entire time, he didn’t assault nobody.”
“Well, he did now.”
“He did now.” (BYTE: 1:54-2:13)
That’s right.
Apparently, Tyrone attacked them.
With Officer Harris’s police report saying he instructed Tyrone to stop, and Tyrone “communicated his intent to avoid contact” by changing direction.
And then saying, he approached Tyrone to detain him and that Tyrone immediately began “swinging punches” at his head in a “fighting stance” and “engaging in assaults to cause [him] harm and injury.”
And with that, Tyrone is now being charged with felony counts of resisting arrest and two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer.
He was initially also charged with theft seemingly based on the word of Derek alone.
Also, notably, neither of the officers’ incident reports mentions that Tyrone is deaf and has cerebral palsy, which police were told immediately after the arrest.
Police also reportedly failed to mention Tyrone’s disabilities in materials provided for his bail hearing.
With that ending with Tyrone spending 24 days in jail, with his attorney saying it was the first time he had been incarcerated
And so, with all this, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell said in a statement that the case “merits additional scrutiny” and that she will review the file including the body-camera video.
A Phoenix Police Department spokesperson said the case had been assigned to its Professional Standards Bureau and was under internal investigation.
Right, because we know nobody investigates police misconduct better than police themselves.
And with that, it’s also worth noting that all this happened just a couple months after the Justice Department released the findings of a massive investigation into civil rights violations by the Phoenix Police Department and City of Phoenix
With them finding, among other things, that the city’s police routinely use excessive force and discriminate against Black, Hispanic and Native American people.
Right, so Tyrone Mick-Alp-in? He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.
And we’ll just have to wait and see if all the outrage ends with his charges getting dropped at least.
Go to Ground News to stay fully informed, think critically about the news you consume and get all sides of every story. Subscribe for 40% off unlimited access through my link.
Beam’s Dream is clinically shown to improve sleep. Click https://shopbeam.com/defranco and use code DEFRANCO to get up to 35% off.
-
Election news round-up: GA judge blocks hand-counting ballot rule, NE Supreme Court rules felons can vote, VA election officials say they’ll refuse to certify election, DOJ monitoring OH county for voter intimidation
Then, next up, we have a bunch of important election news.
Starting in Georgia, where a county judge dealt a major blow to Republican efforts to fuck with the election.
Specifically, Judge Robert C.I. McBurney blocked a rule passed last month by the GOP-led State Election Board that would have required poll workers to hand count all ballots.
A move that could have upended the ENTIRE election process because it would take for fucking ever and risk delaying the reporting of results in a state that will help determine the outcome of the election.
Right, and that rule received almost universal opposition from local election officials and even top Republicans like the secretary of state and the attorney general, who all argued that the decision was made too close to the election.
And in his ruling, McBurney agreed, saying that the rule was “too much, too late.”
Now, very notably here, the judge’s decision doesn’t shut down the rule entirely — it just stops it from taking effect in this election while he considers the legal arguments.
So it’s possible that this could be implemented in future elections, but for now, Georgia has dodged a major bullet.
And when I say major I mean it, because the election here is already shaping up to have a historic turnout.
Right, early voting in the state kicked off just yesterday with a record number of people casting ballots.[]
With a spokesperson for the secretary of state said that voters broke the previous record for first-day early voting by a mile with over 328,000 total votes.
That’s WAY more than double the previous first-day record of 136,000 in 2020.
Beyond that, McBurney’s decision on the hand-count rule also comes just one day after he made another very significant judgment.
With him ruling that local officials can’t just refuse to certify the results of an election regardless of any concerns about accuracy or fraud.
Striking down a lawsuit from a far-right member of the Fulton County Board of Elections, who had done exactly that and argued it was her right to do so.
And there, McBurney wrote that there is literally nothing in state law that gives county election leaders the power “to declare fraud (or, more importantly, determine the consequences for it, if it in fact occurs).”
Noting that there are numerous other bodies in Georgia that are explicitly given the power to investigate suspected fraud and determine what should happen.
And McBurney’s decision is also super significant because, like his ruling yesterday, this one has the potential to go way beyond just Georgia.
With The Washington Post explaining that the judgment “adds to a body of judicial precedent” that Democrats hope will undermine Republican attempts to sow chaos or undermine the election.
Right, experts widely predict that Trump allies nationwide will attempt to block election results by refusing to certify results in key swing state counties.
And it’s not like they’re hiding it — this is something that has literally already happened in multiple elections since 2020.
In fact, that’s at the center of our second election story today, which comes out of Virginia.
With two Republican election officials in Waynesboro County filing a lawsuit saying that they won’t certify the general election unless the state allows them to hand-count ballots.
And specifically, the two Republicans allege — without any evidence — that voting machines in the county could be programmed to rig the outcome of the election.
And arguing that by using voting machines to tabulate ballots, the state is effectively counting votes in “secret,” which violates a provision in the state Constitution.
But that’s not the end of the election news today — we also had an important story coming out of Nebraska, where the State Supreme Court just ruled that felons can vote in the election.
Upholding a long-standing policy the Republican officials had tried to undermine.
Right, since 2005, Nebraska has had a law on the books that allows former felons to vote two years after finishing their sentences.
And earlier this year, the state’s unicameral legislature passed a measure with overwhelming bipartisan support that would remove the two-year waiting period.
And while the state’s Republican governor neither signed nor vetoed the bill, he still allowed it to become a law because apparently Nebraska’s Constitution allows that??
But just days before the new law was set to take effect, the Republican State Attorney General Mike Hilgers wrote an opinion arguing that BOTH the new law AND the 2005 policy violated the separation of powers laid out under the state Constitution.[]
Claiming that only the state Board of Pardons — which he sits on — had the power to restore the voting rights of people with felony convictions by issuing pardons, which it rarely does.
So, as a result, the Republican Secretary of State — who ALSO sits on the Board of Pardons — told election officials to stop registering people with felony convictions.
But now, the state’s high court has ordered the Secretary of State to allow felons who have finished their sentences to vote.
And that decision is actually super consequential because while Nebraska isn’t a swing state, it is one of the only states that allows its presidential electoral votes to be split between its three districts.
And the district that covers Omaha could go either red or blue — it’s voted Democrat twice before, including in 2020.
But Nebraska is a small state in terms of population, so denying hundreds of thousands of people the right to vote could actually sway the election there.
But every single electoral vote counts in an election that will be determined by how the math breaks down in a handful of states, and there are scenarios where the actions of these Republicans could actually sway the outcome of the election.
Okay, so that’s Nebraska, and the final piece of election news I want to touch on today takes us over to Ohio.
And specifically, Portage County, where the Justice Department has just announced that it will be monitoring the election due to voter intimidation concerns.
Right, and this decision comes after the county sheriff wrote Facebook posts urging citizens to write down the addresses of people who displayed yard signs supporting Harris.
Which sparked concerns about voter intimidation and resulted in the county’s election board banning the sheriff’s office from providing security during early voting.
And while the DOJ didn’t explicitly say what prompted this decision, in a statement explaining the move, it agency did cite concerns about “intimidation resulting from the surveillance and the collection of personal information regarding voters.”
-
From 2009 to 2013, tens of millions of heart surgeries were conducted following guidelines based on falsified data, leading to as many as 800,000 extra deaths. The man who faked the data never faced consequences. Fast forward to today, the number of papers being retracted is breaking records, and many experts say there’s as much, if not more, scientific fraud as ever. And no one can agree on what to do about it.
And then, I want you to imagine, for a second, that you or someone you know has to have surgery.
The doctor does everything right, they follow the latest guidance…
But still, somehow, something goes wrong.
And then, maybe a few years later, you find out that that guidance? It was wrong.
And in fact, it was based on research that’s now not only been debunked, but that never should’ve been published in the first place.
I’m here to tell you that that just might happen more than you think.
And that’s because scientific misconduct – from carelessness to outright fraud – happens way more than most people realize.
In fact, it’s not only tolerated, it’s arguably incentivized by the nature of academic publishing today.
And wrongdoers are rarely held accountable.
And with that, let me start this whole thing by telling you about Don Poldermans (Don Pole-der-mans - LISTEN).
Ok, he was a medical researcher at Erasmus (Uh-raz-miss) Medical Center in the Netherlands.
He spent years analyzing the risk of complications during cardiovascular surgery – publishing hundreds of papers, accumulating thousands of citations, and making a name for himself as one of the most influential researchers in the field.
And he was especially well-known for his work on what are known as beta-blockers.
They’re a type of medicine that limits the effects of certain hormones in the body in order to slow down someone’s heart beat and lower their blood pressure (BROLL: 0:28-0:35).
Poldermans published dozens of papers on that topic alone (1, 2, 3, 4)
One of the big questions he looked at was basically whether it’d be a good idea to give patients a beta blocker before certain surgeries.
His research said yes.
So, not long after, European medical guidelines – and to a lesser extent American guidelines – recommended the practice.
The problem? Poldermans’s data was fudged.
Or at least, in 2011, Erasmus Medical Center fired Poldermans for scientific misconduct
And in a statement, the center said that “Research carried out under his leadership was not always performed in accordance with current scientific standards.”
And specifically, it claimed that in his influential beta-blocker study:
“...it was found that he used patient data without written permission, used fictitious data and that two reports were submitted to conferences which included knowingly unreliable data.”
And finally, with that, it said that “There were no medical implications for the patients who took part in the studies.”
But here’s the thing…
While that may be true, there were almost certainly medical implications for patients who didn’t take part in the studies.
Right, in 2014, a new meta-analysis came out evaluating whether to use beta blockers before non-cardiac surgery.
It found that beta blockers made it 27 percent more likely that someone would die within 30 days of their surgery.
In other words, the policy Poldermans had recommended on the basis of falsified data – and that had been subsequently adopted by the European medical establishment – was actually dramatically increasing the chances of people dying.
In fact, in 2014, two of the people behind that meta-analysis estimated that there may have been as many 800,000 extra deaths that could have otherwise been avoided.
And to be clear, that’s a rough estimate, and that number is still hotly debated.
And beyond that, Poldermans – while accepting that mistakes were made – has denied that he intentionally faked any data.
But intentional or not, there’s no doubt that if you’re faking medical research, you’re playing with peoples’ lives.
And to give an example everyone can relate to, let’s talk about COVID-19.
In 2020, near the start of the pandemic, there was a paper published in The Lancet.
If you don’t know, that’s one of the most prestigious and well-regarded scientific journals in the world.
And this study that it published? It claimed to have looked at more than 96,000 coronavirus patients across the world.
And — after controlling for age, sex, and how sick the subjects were — to have found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine (hi-drox-uh-clor-uh-quinn) or something similar were about twice as likely to die as those who did not.
And within days, the World Health Organization suspended its study of the drug due to safety concerns.
But at the same time, people looking closely at the study begin seeing problems.
For one, the study reported more Covid-19 deaths of enrolled patients in the Australia portion than there were Covid-19 deaths in the entire country.
And then, the hospitals supposedly enrolled in the study revealed they’d never heard of the company that conducted it.
And so, the paper was quickly retracted.
And luckily, hydroxychloroquine is not, in fact, an effective Covid-19 treatment.
So, as far as these things go, no harm done.
But of course, that’s not always the case.
Right, more than one bogus study helped perpetuate the myth that ivermectin was some sort of Covid-19 miracle drug.
And with that, it actually became a focal point for the anti-vax movement.
And God only knows the damage that’s done.
But despite all that, holding people accountable is often impossible.
Right, if you’re a surgeon, a patient dies on your table and there’s evidence of malpractice, you can bet there’ll be lawsuits, and you could even face criminal charges.
But if you conduct research on surgery, a patient dies on the table of a surgeon following your advice, and there’s evidence of misconduct or fraud?
You might get fired.
I mean, Poldermans?
He lost his job, but most of his papers weren’t even retracted, and he faced no further consequences.
And that’s not unusual.
Right, take it from Elizabeth Bik (Bick).
She studies scientific fraud and has personally discovered dozens of cases of altered images in medical journals and she says “It’s very rare that people lose jobs over it.”
And with that, you have her saying to Vox:
“If the most serious consequence for speeding was a police officer saying ‘Don’t do that again,’ everyone would be speeding.”
And with that, I should say, these cases we’ve talked about so far?
They’re of course just a fraction of the overall problem.
In 2023, the number of papers retracted by scientific research journals topped 10,000 for the first time.
And of course, some of that is due to increased awareness of the issue, new tools for detecting fraud, as well as a growing army of volunteer sleuths who analyze academic literature for anomalies.
But with that said, Ivan Oransky (Oh-ran-ski) and Adam Marcus – who founded a group called Retraction Watch?
They say the number of retractions is almost definitely a vast undercount of how much misconduct and fraud exists.
Right, they estimate that there should be at least 100,000 retractions every year.
And some people think the number should be even higher.
And a lot of this has to do with what are known as “paper-mills.”
Right, these are sketchy companies that sell entire papers, authorship slots, or citations to a researcher’s work to make it seem more important.
And notably, in some cases, journal editors have been bribed to accept articles, and paper mills have also managed to plant their own agents on editorial boards who then allow falsified work to be published.
In fact, one investigation identified several paper mills and more than 30 editors of reputable journals who appear to have been involved in this type of activity
And just last May, major scientific publisher Wiley basically had no choice but to shut down 19 scientific journals after retracting more than 11,000 sham papers.
And with that, people are worried that all this fraud will have a domino effect.
Right, you have people like Dorothy Bishop of Oxford Universitysaying:
“ In many fields it is becoming difficult to build up a cumulative approach to a subject, because we lack a solid foundation of trustworthy findings. And it’s getting worse and worse.”[]
And adding: “People are building careers on the back of this tidal wave of fraudulent science and could end up running scientific institutes and eventually be used by mainstream journals as reviewers and editors.”
And then, you have Malcolm MacLeod (Muh-cloud) of Edinburgh Universitysaying:
“Scientific knowledge is being polluted by made-up material. We are facing a crisis.”
But with all that, you have Oransky, one of those guys who co-founded Retraction Watch, saying paper mills “are not the problem” but “a symptom of the actual problem.”
And with that, going on to say:
“The problems in scientific literature are long-standing, and they’re an incentive problem. And the metrics that people use to measure research feed a business model — a ravenous sort of insatiable business model.”
And there, people like him point to the fact that university rankings rely heavily on the number of citations gained by work produced by the institution’s researchers.
When universities move up the rankings, the more top-tier students and faculty they attract — along with more funding.
And of course, the journals are making money too.
Right, authors and universities pay journals anywhere from hundreds of dollars to more than $10,000 to publish their papers and make them available without a subscription
And with that, researchers are often required – either explicitly or by implication – to publish papers in order to earn and keep jobs or to be promoted.
Right, as explained by Marcus Munafo (Muh-naf-oh - Listen) of Bristol University:
“If you have growing numbers of researchers who are being strongly incentivised to publish just for the sake of publishing, while we have a growing number of journals making money from publishing the resulting articles, you have a perfect storm.”
And with that, forgetting trying to reform the whole system, even trying to hold individual wrongdoers accountable faces major obstacles.
Right, because they fight back.
In one shocking case from back in 2006, a Bangladeshi researcher had his colleague murdered when he discovered the researcher’s academic fraud.
That researcher, along with his accomplice, was hanged last year.
And of course, that’s an extreme example.
More often, we see scientists accused of faking it filing frivolous lawsuits against the people who point it out, with the concern being that it makes others afraid to speak out.
Take, for example, Francesca Gino (G-no), a Harvard Business School professor famous for her research on the subject of – wait for it – dishonesty.
In 2023, questions about her work surfaced in an article appearing in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Not long after, a blog run by three behavioral scientists published a four-part series finding evidence of fraud in four academic papers co-authored by Gino (1, 2, 3, 4)
So, she was placed on administrative leave.
And, this year, Harvard Business School released a report finding her responsible for the alleged misconduct and recommending that she be fired.
But notably, throughout all of this, Gino has maintained her innocence.
And, in fact, she’s filed a defamation lawsuit against both Harvard and the bloggers who first published the allegations.
And that’s an issue.
Right, because Gino doesn’t have to win her lawsuit for it to have an impact.
As Vox explains, she doesn’t even need to propose a credible theory of how the data manipulation could have happened without her involvement.
In the words of defamation lawyer Ken White: “The process is the punishment.”
And with that, people like C.K. Gunsalus (Gun-sale-es), an expert in research ethics, says institutions often just stop investigating someone after they leave, meaning potential future employers are totally unaware of the person’s history of allegations.
And notably, she said one of the main reasons why is that the institution is afraid a researcher will sue them for defamation if anything leaks out.
Though, that said, some say we have to give people the benefit of the doubt as well.
Right, honest mistakes DO happen.
And in some cases, it's hard to distinguish misconduct from someone just fucking up.
Right, last January, a molecular biologist by the name of Sholto Daviduncovered evidence of widespread data manipulation in various cancer studies.
And notably, this included leading researchers at the Harvard-affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a leading cancer research hospital in Boston, among them the Institute’s CEO and COO.
This led to the retraction of six papers and an investigation, with the Institute's Research Integrity Officer Barrett J. Rollinssaying:
The “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.”
And that’s true.
Right, like I said, mistakes happen.
But you have people like David also saying:
“...the expectation is that the scientists who do this research have high standards and are very careful in what they do.”
““How many errors are acceptable before we think something more worrying is happening?”
And of course, with that whole incentive structure we talked about before, some people argue that mistakes are more likely
Right, because even if someone doesn’t commit fraud, they might rush things or cut corners to get publishable results.
And with that, talking about cancer research, in 2021, a $2-million, 8-year attempt to replicate influential cancer research papers ended with the realization that fewer than half of the experiments could be reproduced.
But all that, of course, brings us to the question of what should be done.
I mean, for the more extreme cases, with clear-cut cases of intentional fraud, people have talked about criminalizing it.
Right, they say, “A new statute, narrowly tailored to scientific fakery, could make it clearer where to draw the line between carelessness and fraud.”
But of course, that has problems too.
In complex cases like these, courts can take years to deliver justice.
And in any case, most judges and juries aren’t well-equipped to analyze the data themselves.
So, besides that, people like the founders of Retraction Watch have offered other recommendations for how this could be handled outside of the courtroom.
Right, one thing would be to give government agencies such as the Office of Research Integrity, more teeth and better funding.
Another would be to stop relying so much on citations as a metric of quality.
And finally, they say, scientific journals get rid of the so-called “pay-for-play” business model that, quote, “by charging researchers to publish their work, has the effect of putting the veneer of legitimacy up for sale.
But with that, I’d love to know your thoughts on this, especially if any of you have worked in research or academia.
And I will just say, one caveat with this whole thing, this isn’t all to say we shouldn’t trust scientists.
Right, this is a big problem, but there are also countless qualified, well-meaning researchers putting out high-quality work that could very well save any of our lives one day.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(760x360:762x362)/sean-diddy-combs-pre-grammy-gala-052924-1-1b160e265c374696881d1493f07b19a6.jpg){kind=link}
