TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Internal review finds falsified data in Stanford President’s Alzheimer research

374 点作者 haltingproblem超过 2 年前

17 条评论

fidgewidge超过 2 年前
Totally unsurprising. Bet Stanford&#x27;s not the only one with a president like that.<p>Something that became really clear during COVID is the sheer extent to which universities seem to lack basic research ethics. The ivermectin debate could be summed up as &quot;once we exclude obviously fraudulent papers, what do we have left&quot; which is why it was so rancorous. Disease prediction as a field is pure fraud: they cannot predict epidemics, never could, aren&#x27;t on track to be able to, don&#x27;t use the scientific method and yet routinely make predictions with absolute confidence whilst claiming to be scientists. Microbiology is flooded with papers that are quite obviously being manufactured by professional fraudsters, logical fallacies and false statements are easy to find across many fields, every other paper falls apart the moment you poke it yet <i>nobody cares about any of this</i>. Universities don&#x27;t care, journals don&#x27;t care, peers don&#x27;t care, nobody within the academic system cares.<p>Why don&#x27;t they care? Why don&#x27;t universities actually fire professors who are found to have been writing BS papers? The only viable explanation is that the people at the top know full well that this behavior is at saturation levels and trying to clean it up would destroy their institutions. How could they know that? If they got to the top by doing it themselves, that would definitely be one explanation.
评论 #34855555 未加载
评论 #34855281 未加载
评论 #34853003 未加载
评论 #34853042 未加载
kickaha超过 2 年前
Boy. There’s a lot to say about this story.<p>But the most remarkable thing is the incredibly high quality of the journalism. Unbelievably thorough investigative reporting, outstanding exposition of highly technical items. From a college newspaper!
评论 #34849521 未加载
评论 #34849898 未加载
评论 #34851553 未加载
评论 #34849870 未加载
评论 #34851396 未加载
stanford_labrat超过 2 年前
To give some perspective, nowadays all PhD students generally take something called “Responsible Conduct of Research”. This is an ethics class and it specifically covers things like falsifying data, plagiarism, how to ethically work in animal models etc. At my institution we actually had two whole lectures related to this, one was specifically about image manipulation and the other was about falsifying data.<p>Another very high profile article related to Alzheimer’s and plaque formation was also recently retracted…weird. I’ve become very skeptical these days, of my fellow scientists, which is both a good and a bad thing.
评论 #34852201 未加载
评论 #34850313 未加载
评论 #34849558 未加载
评论 #34851126 未加载
wolverine876超过 2 年前
The problem, or a problem, is us. We overlook lies of certain forms, almost without thinking.<p>For example, look at the claims that the Genentech internal review was routine. I don&#x27;t believe it at all; I read it as &#x27;we believe this claim will stand because you can&#x27;t prove otherwise&#x27;. That is not honesty at all, but a normalized protocol for lying. I&#x27;ll bet you didn&#x27;t think twice about the integrity of doing that.<p>But my key point is that, if that claim is disproven, what is the result? Do we say Genentech and the individuals making these claims are liars, and not to be trusted? Are they shamed and shunned, their reputations damaged? No, we&#x27;ve normalized accepting these lies; it will just be viewed as losing a game, as the normal result of the protocol - it was disproven so the claim falls. Honesty is not implicated.<p>We are lied to because we accept it, we normalize it, we don&#x27;t even notice it.
评论 #34852563 未加载
bluecalm超过 2 年前
Let&#x27;s see how many of his current positions (Stanford president, boards of directors, advisory boards) he is going to keep.<p>It seems to me lying is a great strategy in today&#x27;s society as you rarely face harsh consequences and you about never lose more than you have already gained thanks to it.
评论 #34852163 未加载
评论 #34849669 未加载
zetazzed超过 2 年前
Still not the most controversial Stanford president... The first pres there, David Starr Jordan, has long been accused of covering up the murder of Jane Stanford: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;David_Starr_Jordan" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;David_Starr_Jordan</a>. Oh, he was a eugenicist too, but I guess that&#x27;s less surprising?<p>(Covered at length in the book &quot;Why Fish Don&#x27;t Exist&quot;)
ilamont超过 2 年前
He’s gone.<p>Remember Joi Ito at MIT Media Lab? You can deny and claim ignorance and shift responsibility but once multiple real witnesses start coming forward your position is untenable and you’re out. See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20905905" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=20905905</a><p>Kudos to the Stanford Daily editorial team for following the story despite the official denials and probable warnings. Good journalism matters.
evrydayhustling超过 2 年前
The denial quotes throughout the article are suspiciously narrow. In particular, they are always specific to the Nature paper, whick leaves plenty of opportunity for investigation and discussion of internal documents that preceded it.
评论 #34849424 未加载
wolverine876超过 2 年前
&gt; Each of the four senior Genentech scientists was contacted individually by The Daily and was unaware of the others’ accounts. Their independent accounts, given over several hours of interviews, were highly consistent with each other, and also consistent with publicly available information about the research.<p>It doesn&#x27;t invalidate the entire story in any significant way, but after all these years, even after an hour or a day or two, wouldn&#x27;t they all have been aware of each other&#x27;s accounts and points of view? They may have explicitly reconciled them years ago - &#x27;holy cow, what are we going to say?&#x27; Genentech may have coached them - in fact, I would almost expect it.
IncRnd超过 2 年前
From Nikolaev in the article: &quot;I can only speak for myself…and say I did not do anything wrong when I was at Genentech.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s practically the canonical form of saying, &quot;I did it, but I&#x27;m going to demur and blame it on other unspecified people.&quot;<p>People who test the veracity of others call this an &quot;exclusion qualifier.&quot; [1]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jacksonzheng.com&#x2F;the-cia-uses-these-methods-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying-56e84793398c?gi=3c453f173ebc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jacksonzheng.com&#x2F;the-cia-uses-these-methods-to-tell-...</a>
neilv超过 2 年前
&gt; <i>Feb. 17, 2023, 12:17 a.m.</i><p>Did they <i>Friday news dump</i> (before a 3-day weekend) their own big story?
lapcat超过 2 年前
I&#x27;ve always had the impression that we don&#x27;t live in a meritocracy but rather a mendacracy, where the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top.
评论 #34849118 未加载
评论 #34848492 未加载
评论 #34853264 未加载
评论 #34848540 未加载
评论 #34848990 未加载
评论 #34849550 未加载
评论 #34848602 未加载
评论 #34849281 未加载
评论 #34849491 未加载
zaroth超过 2 年前
&gt; <i>Genentech, in a written statement to The Daily, confirmed that an internal review took place in 2011, a fact that was not previously public. The company characterized the review as “routine.” When asked whether this was accurate, the scientist whom The Daily confirmed belonged to the research review committee said, “no no no no no no.”</i><p>So wild reading that. Would be very funny if it wasn’t so deadly serious.
评论 #34849501 未加载
JumpCrisscross超过 2 年前
Stanford seems to have a deep and recurring corruption problem. The admissions scandal. SBF. This.<p>Is it just availability bias on my part?
评论 #34848410 未加载
评论 #34850268 未加载
评论 #34851324 未加载
评论 #34848287 未加载
评论 #34851101 未加载
评论 #34852451 未加载
评论 #34849507 未加载
fuckHNtho超过 2 年前
see his rebuttal here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;false-allegations-stanford-daily" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;false-allegati...</a>
评论 #34849315 未加载
fredsmith219超过 2 年前
Canceling all fun on campus is just inviting any and all negative press and reviews that the students can dig up.
评论 #34850794 未加载
norwalkbear超过 2 年前
The universities need be audited.