Slight correction. Her lawsuit against Data Colada has been dismissed. However, some causes of action in the lawsuit remain against Harvard. Per the Crimson: “Still, Joun allowed one key plank of the lawsuit to proceed: Gino’s claim that Harvard breached its contract with her by subjecting her to disciplinary measures in violation of its own disciplinary and tenure policies.” Also, Harvard did not move to dismiss the Title IX claims of gender discrimination, so those will proceed for now as well. Thank you to Todd on LinkedIn for pointing that out.
i wish you'd cover peter singer's wacko "the journal of controversial ideas", it literally promotes eugenic policies around unaliving already born children with conditions most healthcare professionals consider manageable and publishes articles on transracialism and other wacko stuff. as a vegan, adolf and peter are the two I'm least proud to call fellow vegans. never let a vegan take a holier than though attitude, anybody for that matter.
well of course look at their dean of college as she was also found guilty of plagiarism. Claudine Gray i think he name was. Probably a study to show that networking is a male activity and since we know all patriarchal activities make you feel dirty there you go. Feminism ay its finest.
Ok so Haaaarvaaard, hired a women, just to treat them vexatiously? Ya ok. Pull out the Title 9 woke card. What a piece of shit. Second, fuck Harvard. These U.S. Ivey's are a crock of shit at the undergraduate level. I know some employer's who will not even hire from Harrrrrrrrrvaaaard.
That is what happens when you ostracize anyone from critizising women. Women like her live in a world of toxic positivity and label any criticism some sort of phobia.
We need more people like her! Fun fact: "colada" in Spanish as in "¡vaya colada!" means "What a lie!" or "What a con!". The verb "colar" has 2 relevant meanings, to make someone believe something (informal for when you swallow a lie) or to filter or strain a liquid / flour. I don't know if Data Colada's name makes reference to any of that but if it does it's a great name 😂
The Judge's ruling made an important point. Science needs to be freely debated in public, and lawsuits that try to shut down that debate need to pass an extremely high bar. Which was not even close here. The Data Colada people did a great job of being fair and through.
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. Have they since been dismissed? Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
FYI The lawsuit is not completely dismissed. It's still going forward against Harvard for breach of contract. Having said that people have a right to the courts and if they feel defamed, wrong or not, they have a right to sue and a judge or jury will decide.
@@jvanek8512 anyone with a legitimate grievance has the right to seek relief in court. When you know you're wrong, and try to game the courts to profit from it/blacken the names of those who have identified your calumny - that's malicious manipulation of the system that results in **legitimate cases having to wait longer for access to the justice system. While one is not lawfully enjoined from maliciously abusing the public system, and therefore has the legal privilege of doing so, one has no moral "right" to do so... :(
I clicked on this video, knowing nothing about the case, the personalities involved, or the background to it. I am not a scientist or an academic, just an ordinary guy who was curious about this story. Thank you for setting out the saga in such a clear way, without hyperbole or clickbaiting. If only all UA-cam could be so clearly, fairly and concisely presented..... Thank you.
I strongly recommend to go and read a peer reviewed study or thesis on a subject that picks your interest. They are supposedly understandable by anyone able to read. During the lockdowns we got "contradictory" information. I started reading studies cited as sources. I learned two things, studies are accessible and understandable for non experts and news outlets lie more often than not 😂
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 As soon as I started listening to this I was thinking the same thing. Main stream media relentlessly pushed ONE sided views on science, data, research etc. It didn’t seem right to me. I was sceptical and waited for more clarity and the release of the trials. Then the hit pieces on very renowned doctors and scientists. Then I knew. How heartbreaking that the people we trusted the most, thought would never do anything to harm us all got on board. From trusting to sceptic was quite a leap, but hey, maybe we all needed that.
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 Intellectuals with bad intentions and their own agenda sounds like a horrible person. I despise people that miss represent data to out fit their agenda. And the verbal gymnastics they play.
I hope there are criminal charges. She showed she was willing to have innocent people take the fall and be ruined. Imagine the number of papers and grants she was on committee for that challenged her work and her influence denied the funding or publication. So many people affected.
Agree 100%. Given the outsize harm to others that a cornered sociopath causes, our legal code based on uniform treatment under the law is not fair. A handicap system of some kind, say via judicial discretion, might address the uneven field. Very glad the speaker emphasizes Data Coloda have lost even while winning.
The impression that "science" has somehow ever lost its integrity is a fiction of the media to begin with. it has no more, and most certainly LESS corruption than any other human endeavor.
4:30 "Fraud of this magnitude is quite rare" if it's even being committed by a 'superstar' Harvard professor, then I guarantee you it isn't. If Gino had attempted to cover her tracks even a little bit, then this would never have been detected. Since fraud this obvious took this long to catch, I will bet that the rest of Academia is absolutely riddled with it.
It is a broader problem with perverse incentives in academia. For many tenure-track folks, it is publish or perish. And the peer-reviewed journals will NOT publish a non-result. So, you somehow have to find something "novel" to study. Then, you have to get data for it. And if your data doesn't find p < 0.05, then you've wasted a year of your tenure clock because the academic peer-review journals won't publish it. So you're strongly incentivized to "massage" the data. Get rid of certain data points to make your results statistically significant and get that publication. You'll justify it by calling those points "anomalies" or "outliers" in the data. So yes, she screwed up. But this data massaging, and even data fraud, is MUCH more common than people realize. More retractions are being issued for researchers and academics, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The journals and universities need to absorb some of the blame for the bad incentives they've created.
Yeah it’s a real shame there isn’t more funding/credit for showing things that don’t exist. Everyone wants to uncover some new link, more attention needs to be given for discrediting potential links too. The gall of her filing suit is rich. The analysis is by those who uncovered the data manipulation was pretty solid and well documented.
@@gregoryf9299 There are some cases like studying the link between video games and violent crimes where the lack of corelation is the point of the study.
History in academia is just completely cooked because of this. There’s hardly ever any new information that’s going to completely change what’s known about, oh, say, Abraham Lincoln. New discoveries tend to just add detail to what is already known. Thus, history is “boring” and most modern historians are critical theorists with wild hot takes, looking at history through different “lenses.”
The second edge of the knife is that people are brainwashed into thinking "peer-reviewed" must mean the research is incontrovertible, when all too often, it's all corrupt and full of lies.
@@AbsentMinded619 I could give you hundreds of hours of video to watch that would prove to you the truth about a particular time in history. The problem is people have been absolutely BRAINWASHED to reject anything that contradicts the taught (fraudulent) narrative. Most of what the West learns about WW2 is - lies, deception, war propaganda, Hollywood fakery. There's even more that's simply left out of the record, rather than lied about, yet they'll try to bury you for mentioning it. Remember this phrase. Winners write history. NOWHERE in there does it say they write it truthfully, accurately, etc.
To be more factual, the case was only partially dismissed. The case against Harvard will still go to trial on counts related to breach of contract. But Harvard has resources to fight it, unlike Data Colada.
@@UncleKennysPlace When I was an undergrad at Trinity College, Cambridge in the '70s, our oldest don passed away. As a young historian, he had written a brilliant book and was offered life tenure. At which point he never did another stroke of work, living it up in College rooms and eating at High Table. By all accounts he flew around the country in an autogyro giving hellfire sermons at public schools and buggering the choirboys. And his contract was such that there wasn't a thing the College could do about it. Apparently this became an infamous case amongst university administrations, and the idea of tenure being built on honour and trust has given way to tighter arrangements. My guess is that Harvard will have given themselves an exit route for situations such as this.
She's also suing because the dean did not give her a chance to respond to the report before the dismissal. There is an outlined process for these types of issues and are was supposed to have the ability to defend her case at Harvard. So that's why she might be successful in her suit against Harvard. We'll see.
@@AndyJarman This was LONG before the 70s. That's when he died, in his late 90s. So we're talking 1920s and 30s. Even in the benighted 70s buggering choirboys was seen as bad form, old chap...
Excellent outcome. As a former academic I have always been puzzled by the frequency and brazen nature of plagiarism especially because it is often times so easy to detect. Full marks to Harvard for its thorough investigation.
I went to school with someone who found that a large scale, multi-year, study was not following certain laws around privacy and were ignoring rules about using participants who were minors. They met so much resistance that the school finally found a reason to kick him out, and on the very last term of his master's program. The lawsuit that resulted also resulted in six core faculty getting fired and they were ultimately allowed to graduate with 2 fewer courses than were required by their program. I can't believe this sort of stuff happens either, but it does. This is why I try to warn folks not to mythologize their professors, regardless of the work they've done. They are doing a job, you are a student, and they are human. Thinking of people who have power over you as heroes has a very poor history to it. I would advise against it.
@@theorenhobart people who believe in religion's tend to believe in them without checking the Bible can be easily debunked like the person who faked their work
The peer review system is broken and will remain that way as long as the following exists. 1. "Publish or Perish" Colleges using people's bibliographies as the main metric for tenure In most Universities it's basically irrelevant how good you are at teaching or how knowledgeable you are in your field, the only thing that matters is how many times you've been published. This provides a very strong motivation to fake research. 2. Treating published research as "proven". That's not how the process works. The peer review is mainly aimed at checking to see if the submitted paper is written well enough to be understandable and contains enough information to REPEAT the experiment. Peer review journals do not , and have never validated research. That happens *after* the paper is published and even though the large majority of published papers are eventually proven wrong the academic world keeps acting like "published" = "proven". These two attitudes in the academic world have left the door wide open for fraud.
Completely agreed, especially on #2. Laypeople acting as if the conclusions of a peer reviewed article are a proven fact is facepalm-worthy, but academics doing the same is plainly laughable. And the more surprising the conclusions, the more they should be scrutinized. Knudging data programmatically in order to support a pre-existing hypothesis in a way that won't be detected is very easy if you know a little bit of programming and statistics. I bet it is quite common, because there is a massive incentive for researchers to publish positive results and a very low likelihood that they will get caught if they cheat.
@@Frostbiker Nobody gets tenured for repeating an experiment to prove/disprove a paper. So in some fields only a tiny percentage of experiments are ever repeated. In Behavioral Economics it's almost never.
@@FrostbikerThe biggest issue for lay people is without personal expertise they are presented studies as factual information by our MSM. I have yet to see a disclaimer in MSM that a study is only preliminary and has not been confirmed by rigorous independent confirmation. These studies are presented as truth and people wonder why you have movements like MAGA who believe nothing but what they choose to believe.
💯 Bingo! I fully agree. But further more, I would add, even the peer review itself and publishing is mostly fake and based on connections, politics and the like.
I feel like science is fundamentally flawed because of how much we glorify new results. We need to celebrate stuides that find no connection. And studies which replicate previous studies
oh, the scientists do. but the layperson who doesn't understand how science works will not understand why money is being spent on reinforcing old ideas when new, potentially groundbreaking studies catch the media, catch the news, and can be politicised and monetised
Indeed. When the target becomes the goal, the goal becomes the target. People have an incentive to fabricate research to obtain prestige and money. Hence, research inflation
@@Goldfox2112scientists don’t celebrate those types of studies lmao! At best they view it as necessary drudgery that should be done by someone else. Money and recognition is only in new, groundbreaking studies.
@@GunvaldtheoneandonlyScientists do. It's rare and extremely important to replicate protocols, it can save your lab a lot of money when you know you're not wasting resources. And using funds effectively makes a lab more efficent and productive.
Well said. We live in a stoopid era where we were told everything had to be 'disruptive' and all it has done is wrecked society. Modern academia is very broken.
Hey Pete, awesome video. I had no knowledge of this issue/case - I'm a retired builder - far from academia and PhD theses. But your articulate and logical presentation of background and current resolution held my attention to the very end. Thanks.
I don't care if a study is conducted in a community college, a researcher's personal integrity should prevent fabrication of the results. How much did Gino earn from speaking fees and status as a result of the fabrication. Charlie Munger said, "Show me the incentive structure and I give you the outcome".
@@afterthesmash Some people would have the opinion that not taking a beneficial incentive is idiotic. A majority of people dont care about integrity when it comes to lining their wallet.
In theory, they can sue to recover their costs -- but they won't get the costs of suing to recover their costs (unless they sue to recover the costs of suing to recover their costs...)
I hope Gino can never find another teaching position. But, perhaps, maybe she can learn honesty if allowed to teach a kindergarten or first-grade science or social studies class? 🤔
Harvard Business School had no choice but to thoroughly investigate. Their credibility completely rested on an accurate inquiry and transparency. Huge kudos to all the researchers who did a stellar job. Great video also 👌
I have a friend who was the chief librarian at a major university. As part of her job she published the PhD thesis of professors who worked there. After Prof X's thesis was published, it was roundly criticized for self-plagiarism (something I'd never heard of) and several other issues. As a result, Prof X was terminated, but she had come from a rich family and was not going to accept that result. She sued the university, the top administration, the librarian, and anyone else she could name, demanding millions from them for lost salary and lost income from consulting. Prof X's case got dismissed from lower court, so she appealed two more times. It took years, and created lots of stress for those she was suing, but it was finally dismissed. They considered counter-suing, but decided to end the whole embarrassing mess.
Professors do not publish PhD theses - the gap between acceptance of a PhD and being offered a chair is usually measured in decades. Even Andrew Wiles had reached his early 30s before he was offered a professorship. Wrt to self-plagiarism. A PhD MUST consist entirely of original research conducted only by the author - self-plagiarism i.e repetition of one's earlier work is thus strictly verboten.
@@hb1338really? You can’t use your own work for your PhD thesis? That sounds incredibly petty and nitpicking. It could be argued that using items from one of the submitter’s previous works is still their original idea/s.
No, it's a risk they take by publishing. Do you know how many books right wing extremists have written that contain outright lies? Too many to name. It's majority opinion and not facts. This case is rare compared to the amount of publications that go unchecked. This has been occurring all through history.
@@bilpletz9020 Really? Tell that to Bernie Madoff, P Diddy (Shawn Combs), Harvey Weinstein, Sam Bankman-Fried and more. Only trump has been given extremely special treatment and the dispicable right wing SCROTUS giving him nearly complete immunity. Every case has been manipulated and stopped by federalist society creatures that sold their soles.
While the statement that "fraud on this magnitude is quite rare" is on the surface true, a more accurate version might be "finding fraud of this magnitude is quite rare". Who knows what hasn't been discovered ...
From personal experience I can say that PhD candidates finding 'untenable data' in research, is far more common than not. That also true of the pressure applied to those candidates to not follow up on that evidence. 'Don't rock the (academic grants) boat' is a faculty mantra.
It's super common. The reproducibility crisis is real, and it's been known for decades. It's why venture capital factors in a 50% chance that any medical discovery they invest in is completely made up. The number of made up nonsense can go up drastically, towards the 80-90% range in the psychology/sociology fields. It's nothing new. I'm actually a little disappointed the courts didn't affirm all of her claims so we can finally put to rest the myth of science being unbiased truth. (Hypothetically it _should_ be unbiased, but hypotheses that turn out to not be reflective of reality are false, so back to the drawing board lol)
When cases like these happen, people wonder if it is a sign of decline or breaking of the system. The fact is, fraud has always happened and always will happen. The real sign of decline is when you are not seeing cases like these pop up, because that means the fraud that is happening is not being caught. Personally, I agree with you. I think there’s even more fraud out there. But this case is a good sign, not a bad one.
Thanks for being concise and straight to the point. Nothing but pure info, unsullied by useless peripheral content. I will certainly be watching more of your presentations.
Hi, did the supervisors of the original PHD candidates who tried to get her to drop it face any consequences? Same for the ‘peers’ who reviewed the papers based on the fraudulent data?
@@pierrecurie hi, given that their reputation is on the line along with the author perhaps they should. I certainly would look at any historical reviews they have done with askance and any future papers they put their stamp of approval to should be looked at as suspect. A PHD candidate discovered the issue initially, not a much more experienced researcher. My more cynical side wonders if it had been discovered/suspected by others who wouldn’t take it any further. After all look at the PHD candidates supervisors response when she brought it to them. Shameful behaviour.
I met her at Harvard and she was presented to us professors from other research unis as THE best researcher. I saw a used car saleswoman and in that she was the typical colleague at "elite" universities. A number cruncher playing a game and not caring about content at all.
Well, Harvard has defended Claudine Gay to no end…and she is will with them, making $800k a year when she is…free of any rigorous or original scholarship…
Rather than being rare, I suspect that it's just been ignored, unrecognized, under-reported. We've seen so many scandals like this in everything from psychology to physics, that I don't even think it can be described as uncommon.
@@somethingelse9228 Can't link any thing because... UA-cam. There was something similar with Columbia and there was some German wunderkind a few years ago also caught by Data Colada doing materials research on novel substrates for semiconductors. Then there was the Theranos debacle, the Korean room temp superconductor scandal... Three or four new cold fusion scandals... And the beer virus controversies that YT still treats as conspiracy theories.l and the safety/efficacy claims for the mRNA protocols associated with it... Then, there have been a half dozen claims in cosmology/astrophysics made in popular media publications prior to being torn apart in peer review. One suggesting that dark matter was responsible for infrared emissions from Jupiter. And, while I can't recall anything much about it I vaguely recall someone in NC being accused of plagiarism. I'm not suggesting that the proportion of published works has been significant just that there appears to be a growing trend of increasing reports of ethical concerns within science, medical and tech.
@@somethingelse9228 I forget the channel, but there are videos on scandals with finding new elements and another physics scandal. There's also one about (I think) stem cells in S. Korea
Maybe not scandal, but I think of all the studies done on say, food and how over a period of my lifetime 40-50 years how things are bad for you, are discovered to be good for you then bad for you...etc. etc. ad nauseum. eggs, coffee, steak... and it makes me wonder if this just hasn't been some sort of game all along, none of these studies were thorough, or a narrow conclusion got expanded into a more headline worthy conclusion "Don't eat eggs"!!! 50 years ago they gave you salt tablets working in a hot environment, salt became bad for you but now you consume salt again under the name electrolytes. Maybe our knowledge has expanded, I dunno, but people knew to take cod liver oil and here we are these many years later eating fish for fatty acids all the while funding entire careers that really didn't matter at all and it just seems like a lifetlme of make-work for the academic industry.
I wonder how common this is in science where big money/prestige is involved. I was all bright eyed and full of dreams when I went to grad school for biochemistry at UCD, full boat for a lab doing 'groundbreaking' research for a biotech company. When I started my first set of experiments that would be my first paper, I was told that I should find a way to make the data suggest a certain thing- in a full lab meeting, deception meant nothing. I should have known, I asked about if a paper they wrote was right about a suggested signaling method- they said, "We knew that wasn't the case when we wrote the paper, we just wanted to throw the other labs off". How much of our science is polluted? I was only in that lab for one year. edit: First time viewer, and needed the full story. Thanks!
@@greatcondor8678 There never was! Scientists have always been human, and thus always subject to the kinds of corruption and venality that plague any other field. But there are certainly differences in degree, and better and worse practitioners. I think the work being done by Data Colada, Elizabeth Bik, and others is really exemplary, and evidence that science *as a whole* remains something to look up to. Few other human endeavors invite the same degree of self-scrutiny.
My wife was a professor of statistics. At her college, many social scientists came to her for help with papers. She found that virtually none of these PhDs had the ability to do their own stats. This is different from cheating, but still is a huge problem
Academic research in social sciences is riddled with issues regarding objectivity. This starts with the fundamentals of data collection and proper sampling, and the related monitoring to ensure that bias is not introduced. Suspect that none of these disciplines are taught (or only superficially taught) to social scientists.
@@scottlaplantelaplante990they are taught to be biased, actually. Everyone knows that leftists are incapable of differing cause from correlation, specially when convenient.
@@Zerradable absolutely would not lump economics with those social science "lunatics"!!! You have real, objective data...not that garbage that social scientists create on their own.
It’s not like the student raised claims against Einstein.. The initial paper in the video has a topic that could not be of any use to anyone, private, public and third sectors included.. Feeling dirty after networking? Where are we? In a South Park episode?
How much are you willing to bet that the reason the supervisors pressured Zoé Ziani to stop her inquiry was because they were themselves engaging in that kind of fraud?
It’s of course possible, but I think the most likely explanations are a lot more banal - they didn’t want to risk professional backlash from criticizing a big shot in the field (perhaps they knew Gino wouldn’t go down without a fight), they didn’t want to take the time to understand Zoe’s concerns and evidence and it was easier to just brush her off, or maybe they just didn’t want to spend a lot of time and resources following up on something that wouldn’t benefit their own careers very much. Not a defense of the advisors, just saying that brazen careerism is common enough in the academy that there doesn’t have to be any deeper reason behind it.
@@pbriffy You make a good point. I am probably jaded by my own experiences. Just so you have an idea of where I come from, while I was a PhD student, pretty much everyone of my colleagues in the university thought it was perfectly normal to "improve" their data (and don't get me started with plagiarism problems).While writing my PhD thesis, I was aghast to discover that my supervisor had actually manipulated my raw data behind my back to make it more publishable. But this was only the tip of the iceberg. I was expected to regularly do 48+-hour sessions in the lab mixing dangerous products and solvents in an underground room with absolutely no ventilation. When I brought this up to my "pastoral advisor" he dismissed it, suggesting that personal minor sacrifices were expected in academia and I should focus on climbing the totem pole if I wanted my situation to improve. I would later learn that he and my supervisor were business associates. Later on, my supervisor tried to blackmail me (and no, this isn't an exaggeration: it is the legal textbook definition of blackmail) into working on his pet projects on my free time. Also, the University made a few clerical errors during my registration that would turn my life into an absolute administrative and financial nightmare for a couple of years. Once I returned to my country to write my thesis, my doctor said that my bloodwork results made no sense as they suggested I had the liver of a terminal alcoholic (I barely drink). I guess three years breathing solvents and volatile chemicals in a lab without any ventilation were finally catching up. At that point I thought, "You know what? F*** all this". Even though I had almost finished writing my PhD, I destroyed all my samples, erased all my data, refused handing any of my notebooks and lab books, and ghosted everyone from the University. I didn't even bother to inform my supervisor about the breakthroughs I had made throughout my final year and my latest publishable (and even patentable) results.
@@pbriffy Shhhhh don't go popping the conspiratorial bubble with your simple pragmatics, it doesn't serve the script. Righteous flaming swords are required, maybe a few pitchforks, not Occam's razor.
So I'm a physician here in Los Angeles and I give probably two to three lectures a week and when I'm putting up medical studies I always Make a point to mention one or two Harvard studies and then put a big x through them and say that well since it's from Harvard it's probably plagiarized lol And I get a good laugh from most of the students and professors but they all know it's half true. Harvard has fallen so far.. by the way Stanford Yale and UCLA have also turned into crap
Many years ago a friend of mine got accepted to a graduate program at Cornell. I congratulated and told him it was a big deal. He said the best line I have ever heard regarding academia "It's not that big of a deal, the Ivy League is just where privilege is laundered into merit."
My graduate program was far from Ivy but demanded passing 10 out of 10 exams to even be accepted into the program. Those 10 exams covered every facet of my discipline that should have been learned as an undergraduate. All students so accepted then were required, no matter their chosen area of specialty, to take 15 credit hours in experimental design and statistics. My non-mathematical brain (some of us have them) never understood the most advanced math, but I memorized the heck out of everything. What I learned was: 1. To leave actual research to the math nerds. 2. How to read, interpret, and evaluate all scientific research and sort the wheat from the tares. It was 100% worth it. My professors were right.
It's been months since the original video came out, but I think she blamed the men for sexism and the woman for sabotage, but I wouldn't be surprised if she blamed _all_ of them for sexism and her assistant for sabotage. The funny thing is, from what I've seen, is these errors were found *early on,* but Gina _ignored_ them. Money was probably too good for her.
i.e. she's not the only one at fault here, her thesis professor, the peer reviewers and on and on. academia is as corrupt as the companies it sells research to
In this case, it is more credible science. The scientific method involves forming a hypothesis and drawing conclusions based on that hypothesis. Science must prevail over Science™.
More generally speaking, I'd like to live in a world in which if you file a lawsuit for defamation and you lose you _automatically_ pay a certain percentage of what you asked for to the defendant (plus expenses of course).
Yeah, many countries already have "losing party pays". Otherwise, you can sue someone into oblivion (especially in a David/Goliath situation). Lately, anti-SLAPP laws have helped.
@@UncleKennysPlace they do? I mean not only expenses and not only the _possibility_ of a counter lawsuit, which the "David" party would rarely dare to start...more like an automatic percentage so that you already know what you're going to pay if you file & lose (for defamation! Not in general) I didn't know about your anti slapp law, interesting.. I'm from Europe, where freedom of speech is more disregarded in general, and defamations and libel can already be very wide and arbitrary. One of the problems is, the judiciary system is clogged with people getting offended - and rightly accused.
@@nefaristo That would be a very dumb rule as it would discourage meritorious defamation cases from being brought in the first place, especially when the plaintiff does not have deep pockets.
In medicine, this type of law actually WAS put into the books, but then it was struck down by the courts. The argument was that such laws would serve to scare people away from filing legitimate lawsuits against powerful entities. Either way, there's a scenario you can imagine where something unfair happens. I'm a physician and think you're right. But that's the reason that law doesn't exist.
Tell us, please - how is Gino ultimately being held accountable beyond [finally] being dismissed from Harvard?!! Is her fraud criminal; can she be held criminally liable? Shouldn’t she have to REPAY every dollar 💰 of profit she ever earned from all book sales, bc they were sold as non-fiction, yet were totally misleading and inaccurate, etc/&, &…
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She can proceed on those. So, this video is misleading as well. Sigh. When people talk about a case, look up the case.
@@l.w.paradis2108 The video isn't misleading on the essential points of her academic fraud. And before you made your comment, Pete pinned a note about part of her lawsuit against Harvard being sustained even though that's a procedural argument and does not dispute her actual misconduct.
@dlxmarks The title is "It's Over - Gino v. Harvard. Yes, I saw the correction to the misleading impression this title and the video obviously gave. (When non-lawyers talk about a case, look up the case. And no, she cannot be held criminally liable.) What is merely procedural? We accord due process to the Manson Family, much less to corrupt academics . . . .
@dlxmarks The case isn't far enough along for _the court_ to have made any determination about her actual misconduct. Motions to dismiss a complaint take all allegations in the complaint as _true,_ as long as they are logically and pragmatically possible.
@dlxmarks The defamation counts were dismissed not because the court disbelieved Gino but for a technical reason: she is a public figure (and she herself sought to be) for purposes of defamation, and something known as the "New York Times malice" standard for defamation applies. There is no way she could meet that standard. This judge is really good, and Gino has good lawyers, too. It's worth reading the opinion.
Good for him, but I wish he gave more credit to the original creators he takes material from, especially given his brand of content. There is a video that is a ripoff from Bobby Broccoli and he barely acknowledges him.
Thank you for reporting - it's extremely important to expose any lack of integrity in scientific work - the last bastion of truth nowadays, glad to hear the case was dismissed.
Those colleagues who said they didn't believe that she was the kind of person who would do something like this...has anyone done any digging into THEIR published studies and articles?
I had a friend who was doing their PhD as part of a group engaged in lab research. She discovered her boss, and his employee (her direct colleague) who he was sleeping with, were fabricating the data. Not by much, but still. To make it more appealing and conclusive when published. She had a choice of going public with it, and having to start her PhD from scratch, throwing away all her own research for the group, and be associated with the boss engaged with data fraud, or stay silent and hope for the best. She kept her mouth shut, and now has a job, and a doctorate. Not a lot of people are willing to risk their own livelihood to stand up for corruption. And this stuff happens, ALL THE TIME. It's a well known 'industry secret'.
It amazes me how many so-called scientists and researchers publish “research” that any experimental research and statistics graduate student could tell you is neither valid nor reliable. And tell you so before finishing their read of the article presenting the research. The quality of Ph.D. programs must be mightily eroding with courses in experimental research design, methodology, and statistics no longer mandated. If you don’t know the difference between anova and chi square or what .01 and .05 mean, you should not be plaguing society with pseudo-research. Or you get this fiasco. Besides, on its face when did “feeling dirty” become a scientific concept? In any discipline? Keep at it, Data Colada.
"Feeling dirty" is not an exact scientific concept, that is indeed a problem with the social sciences, there's a reason it's called a soft science. Still, studying these things do have value and even if it's not easy to quantify what exactly people are feeling, we have to use words to describe difficult concepts, as imprecise as it all is. The big thing is we should approach it all with more scientific rigour, as much as possible, despite it being a soft science. We've let through a lot of bad social science studies make it through, including famous ones like the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Gino's falsified papers are just another in a long line of papers we don't examine nearly as thoroughly as we should.
@@KrossfyreThey don't have value when done the way it's done today because it's not reproduceable. It makes you think we know things when we actually don't. It's very difficult to make these things reproduceable because it's so hard to control for all the variables at play in social situations, not to mention hard to even make the definitions. Imo it is worse to think we know things and be wrong than it is to admit we don't understand. Social issues have always been dealt with using philosophy, and those are effective tools. There is no reason it needs to be an experimental science.
The majority of scientific papers are written to be written not written to be read. The real change needed at the PhD level is to reduce the expectations that PhD students publish before graduation. The other change is that teaching posts at universities should be judged on the ability to teach at the point of comformation in post or tenure and a track for promotion within universities that allows promotion by doing teaching and admin work alone. The reason for doing so is to reduce the dependence of academics on publishing large amounts of utter tripe to progress in their careers and instead have the risks of publishing cr@p far out weight the risks of not publishing anything or not publishing enough. This doesn’t just happen in bullsh!t fields like business studies. There was a lot of research published on Covid19 biology and treatment during 2020 and 2021 most of it was total garbage. This very quickly came to light and most of it was corrected by additional and better papers but you still have people thinking that horse deworming tablets will protect them from coronavirus. This wasn’t anything new it was just that obscure papers from obscure labs were getting read for the first time. And the amount of total sh!t being published was revealed.
What is the responsibility of the peer reviewers? They aren’t there just to agree with the conclusions. They should be assessing the quality and data used. They share some of the blame for approving it.
You know it is unpaid, volunteer position where reviewers aren't necessarily full experts in the topic, right? And they don't have access to the data typically. I think you just invented a way to make sure that no paper will ever get a reviewer. Why would anyone ever review a paper then?
Peer review is often not double blind. The reviewer knows the name of the authors. So a lot of inferior papers gets published, because of the name and affiliation the reviewer sees. Other way round: newcomers will have to fight way harder in the review process than established researchers or those who belong to certain in-groups.
Some seem to think their job is to reject everything. Some seem to think their job is to approve everything. Some actually do provide good feedback, but are ignored in favor of one of the first two categories.
I speculate that she was tasked with massaging the field to suit other end goals and the means that she used were not important. You will find that people who rise to the top have skeletons because that makes them controllable and so those are the ones who are promoted. The right lapel pin, handshake or YGL status means you have friends in high places, they help you and you are expected to help them or you are toast. I do not know how she is connected but books full of plagiarism means that she was propped up to get to the position of influence that she held. Obviously if you have no skeletons yet but are driven with an ego and lacking in morals you will be offered a visit to Diddi's Rooms or Epstein Island to earn some skeletons.
Laughable proposition. If the Chicago Art Museum discovers and reveals a fake artwork, 99% of art lovers would not assume the other works are fraudulent.
Their collectiond should always be suspect. More than one art gallery has a fake. There was 60 Minute story on it years ago. A friend who works with medical studies says about a third of papers are poorly designed and/or fraudulent.
That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't know why Americans are so anti-education and anti-science. Pretty weird for a first-world country.
Guess who just got a 10 million dollar grant to stop free speech online = NZs ex PM ( I am the soul source of truth , All other news is fake news ) That one ? Ardern , WEFs head of "The world youth socialists movement"
@@lindsaywootten9127 How else do you think they come up with the data claiming that mutilating and chemically castrating children's healthy bodies due to a mental condition is beneficial?
The fact that you can sue somebody for 25 mil and just walk away with dismissal is criminal. If you accuse others of your own wrongdoings you should suffer consequences graver than those you willingly and knowingly try to inflict. It's the only deterrent for malicious actors against misuse of justice, otherwise justice becomes the most accessible and devastating lever for harming innocent which is the direct opposite of what it was meant to be in the first place. Incentives are paramount and in justice systems all around the world they are upside down.
I don't think she can really just take the L and move on. While it's possible she holds on to enough goodwill that she's able to get another job in the industry, I think (hope) that this has ruined her reputation so badly she can never come back. It's probably worth the risk for her to just gamble on the small chance she wins in court to retain her quality of life.
According to google, she’s got a net worth of $20M and 4 kids. The $ is more than enough to assure an excellent quality of life. And she can save face (somewhat) by using the same lame excuse that executives and politicians use when they get the boot: “I’ve decided to spend more time with my family.”
Nice job. Glad to see Harvard took the allegations seriously and mounted an investigation. You did an excellent presentation given the quantity of information. Regards
Criminals gotta criminal -- and it's always somehow amazing to me that they have the gall to be offended and try to hurt other people for outing them for being criminals.
One of many problems is that "science" likes new breakthrough results and geniuses...as many as possible. The actual work happens quietly with patience and a result of a teamwork, not one genius.
If a student approaches me with any concern of any kind, no matter how ridiculous, I always investigate it thoroughly. That’s one of the requirements to remaining intellectually honest.
She lost her desperate grab to salvage her career. Serves her right. But there should be some criminal consequences for using grant money (i.e., money elicited from government or private donors to conduct legitimate research) in a fraudulent manner.
Science = falsifiability and peer review. This scientist takes here peers to court when they question her results?! Just let that sink it. It's hilarious!
Thanks Pete for an extremely well constructed video - you did an excellent job of concisely presenting the facts and explaining important points. I'm not surprised you're collecting many followers
As an endocrinologist in my field i know that most of the publications from superstars is either fabricated or stolen....if industry sponcered almost always. The way i find better science is by reading the questions posted for authors and their responces .very few people read them ...please do read beacuse a theif can find theif.you will learn the art.
Right? Who thinks that psychology and "Behavioral Science" are really scientific? Don't they just sum up to interesting observations which may, or may not be true? Depends on the context and the culture? Is that valuable?
@@Redmenace96 Psychology is an extremely broad field. There are plenty of areas that are amenable to proper scientific treatment and plenty of areas that are not.
You do such an amazing job of presenting, laying out the information clearly, even with no interest in such matters, I have enjoyed learning from this video. EXCELLENT.
@@thebeatnumber only way to stop it is to get involved and push exclusively for the truth. The full truth. Don't trust bs, "believe the science" or accusations without proof
AI could make it much harder to detect data manipulation in scientific research, which is often caught through human errors like copy-pasting mistakes, duplicated graphs, or statistical inconsistencies. In some cases, researchers have even fabricated entire datasets to support their hypotheses. With AI, you could easily generate a dataset with any number of rows that perfectly fits a desired outcome, eliminating the typical signs of fraud. This would make it far more difficult to spot manipulations, such as those seen in the case of Professor Francesca Gino, where errors in data handling revealed the falsification. As AI advances, we need to be more vigilant about safeguarding scientific integrity
At the same time AI is already making it easier to find fraud because it can parse a person's entire lifetime of work for data inconsistencies faster then a human can finish a single paper.
Yup. Entire science around it already, without the need for AI. We call them Monte Carlo studies or simulations, but they actually are pretty easy to do in basic R. AI will mean that no one gets caught for plagiarism again due its paraphrasing capacity. To prevent science from effectively dying, we need to invest in data provenance with multiple sign offs. Otherwise, the noise will drown out the signal.
"perfectly fits". NO experimental data, especially in soft science, ever fits perfectly - one of the most obvious signs of fraud is data that matches the expected result too well.
It's the first time I heard about it and I can't help to wonder about the source data files. When we conduct clinical research there is always a huge paper / digital trail of data being collected on individual level, verified, then aggregated etc. I wonder if they tried to see the source documents.
And what of Zoe Ziani ? I'd love to hear how her academic endeavours turned out. As to the Streisand Effect, back in the 1970's here in Vancouver, we had an overly straight laced woman named Bernice Gerrard who publicly railed against the showing of the movie Caligula at a small local theatre. Few people had ever heard of this movie let alone the theatre. But, the story made the evening new several times as Gerrard's campaign continued and grew louder. Attendance at Caligula skyrocketed. Should perhaps this phenomenon be called the Caligula Effect instead ?
At 4:32, you say “fraud on this scale at this magnitude is quite rare.” You have no support for this statement. What you can say is that “allegations of fraud on this scale at this magnitude are quite rare.” For all we know, massive fraud by prominent academics may be common; we just are not uncovering it.
This is such a strange thing to bring up. It is along the lines that as I cannot disprove that you are a talking fungus so for all we know you just might be we just haven't found evidence of it. Neither yours nor his statements have great support, though his relies on what we know of and yours require there to be a great deal unknown.
Not true. You assert a fact, but all you can speak to are the frauds that have been uncovered, i.e., those that have been observed. I assert what has been stated - that is observable.
Harvard still needs more people looking into their information. It's an institution of education, that changes its own price whenever they wish based on being the best school. Every study and information coming out of Harvard should be scrutinized.
I would wager that sometime in the future, you will do another video on this lady. Since it is a fact that replication is a huge problem within the social sciences, why are so many educational institutions heavily reliant on social scientists? Edit: Added comment
"it is a fact that replication is a huge problem in science, why are so many educational institutions heavily reliant on science?" FIFY. The replication crisis does not discriminate
@@Creationweek It isn't a fact that replication is a problem in the hard sciences. It is a fact that replication is a huge problem in the social sciences.
@@charlie-qh2ll I would argue it's the most egregious in psychology and medicine it's also pretty bad in economics. the recent rash of physics retractions indicate it's bad everywhere
PUBLISH THE PROFESSORS NAMES! These clowns are CLEARLY not interested in accuracy and information, but "protecting a fellow colleague!" They should be fired and have any accreditation siezed!
Maybe she was clever on how she presented the data to them and they failed on being thorough enough, and they should have. Taking a student to discover the incongruencies shows that student is the real deal.
We are judging based on how he is telling the story. It could also be the case they were protective of the student, considering that a PhD student due to inexperience might be rolling false allegations which could harm her career in future. I'm not saying that it was necessary like that, but that's a possibility too.
Slight correction. Her lawsuit against Data Colada has been dismissed. However, some causes of action in the lawsuit remain against Harvard. Per the Crimson: “Still, Joun allowed one key plank of the lawsuit to proceed: Gino’s claim that Harvard breached its contract with her by subjecting her to disciplinary measures in violation of its own disciplinary and tenure policies.” Also, Harvard did not move to dismiss the Title IX claims of gender discrimination, so those will proceed for now as well. Thank you to Todd on LinkedIn for pointing that out.
all bs. she committed academic fraud. she has no ground , she should be fired!
i wish you'd cover peter singer's wacko "the journal of controversial ideas", it literally promotes eugenic policies around unaliving already born children with conditions most healthcare professionals consider manageable and publishes articles on transracialism and other wacko stuff.
as a vegan, adolf and peter are the two I'm least proud to call fellow vegans. never let a vegan take a holier than though attitude, anybody for that matter.
Unbelievable. Apparently screaming you fired me because I'm a woman is the last resort of an academic con artist.
well of course look at their dean of college as she was also found guilty of plagiarism. Claudine Gray i think he name was. Probably a study to show that networking is a male activity and since we know all patriarchal activities make you feel dirty there you go. Feminism ay its finest.
Ok so Haaaarvaaard, hired a women, just to treat them vexatiously? Ya ok. Pull out the Title 9 woke card. What a piece of shit. Second, fuck Harvard. These U.S. Ivey's are a crock of shit at the undergraduate level. I know some employer's who will not even hire from Harrrrrrrrrvaaaard.
Let me get this straight. She cheats, gets caught, then wants $25 million? What a piece of work.
And failed.
It was just a big number she pulled from thin air
@@SouthernIgthe fact that she had the audacity to file and even has fan girls cheering her
That is what happens when you ostracize anyone from critizising women. Women like her live in a world of toxic positivity and label any criticism some sort of phobia.
But she is woman and should not be held to account for anything. Anyone who says otherwise is a MISOGYNIST.
Massive props to that young PhD for doing the work of going through the data and finding the fraud.
We need more people like her! Fun fact: "colada" in Spanish as in "¡vaya colada!" means "What a lie!" or "What a con!". The verb "colar" has 2 relevant meanings, to make someone believe something (informal for when you swallow a lie) or to filter or strain a liquid / flour. I don't know if Data Colada's name makes reference to any of that but if it does it's a great name 😂
I want her name on a shirt. If anyone besides my daughter understands, they're my tribe
The Judge's ruling made an important point. Science needs to be freely debated in public, and lawsuits that try to shut down that debate need to pass an extremely high bar. Which was not even close here. The Data Colada people did a great job of being fair and through.
Thorough*
Do you know if she will have to pay Data Colada's legal costs.
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. Have they since been dismissed?
Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa.
FYI The lawsuit is not completely dismissed. It's still going forward against Harvard for breach of contract. Having said that people have a right to the courts and if they feel defamed, wrong or not, they have a right to sue and a judge or jury will decide.
@@jvanek8512 anyone with a legitimate grievance has the right to seek relief in court. When you know you're wrong, and try to game the courts to profit from it/blacken the names of those who have identified your calumny - that's malicious manipulation of the system that results in **legitimate cases having to wait longer for access to the justice system. While one is not lawfully enjoined from maliciously abusing the public system, and therefore has the legal privilege of doing so, one has no moral "right" to do so... :(
I clicked on this video, knowing nothing about the case, the personalities involved, or the background to it. I am not a scientist or an academic, just an ordinary guy who was curious about this story.
Thank you for setting out the saga in such a clear way, without hyperbole or clickbaiting. If only all UA-cam could be so clearly, fairly and concisely presented.....
Thank you.
Same here.
I strongly recommend to go and read a peer reviewed study or thesis on a subject that picks your interest. They are supposedly understandable by anyone able to read.
During the lockdowns we got "contradictory" information. I started reading studies cited as sources. I learned two things, studies are accessible and understandable for non experts and news outlets lie more often than not 😂
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 As soon as I started listening to this I was thinking the same thing. Main stream media relentlessly pushed ONE sided views on science, data, research etc. It didn’t seem right to me. I was sceptical and waited for more clarity and the release of the trials. Then the hit pieces on very renowned doctors and scientists. Then I knew. How heartbreaking that the people we trusted the most, thought would never do anything to harm us all got on board. From trusting to sceptic was quite a leap, but hey, maybe we all needed that.
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158
Intellectuals with bad intentions and their own agenda sounds like a horrible person. I despise people that miss represent data to out fit their agenda. And the verbal gymnastics they play.
Lol same
At least Gino provided a new case to study for Behavioral Science ... right?
Excellent point!
wasnt she awared the medal for Miss Behavioral Science 2024?
Intelligent comment.
@@IvarDaigon Just the gold medal for Mental Gymnastics, an offshoot.
Not just a new case... This is something else. I mean, who master-minded this in the first place, and what was their ultimate goal?
I hope there are criminal charges. She showed she was willing to have innocent people take the fall and be ruined. Imagine the number of papers and grants she was on committee for that challenged her work and her influence denied the funding or publication. So many people affected.
It would be hilarious if she herself were slapped with defamation for throwing that colleague under the bus.
Agree 100%. Given the outsize harm to others that a cornered sociopath causes, our legal code based on uniform treatment under the law is not fair. A handicap system of some kind, say via judicial discretion, might address the uneven field. Very glad the speaker emphasizes Data Coloda have lost even while winning.
Doubt it.
@@Anne_Onymousthere may be something due to grant money. Because she defrauded the American populous by fabricating data (this has happened before)
@@Anne_Onymous White collar crime. Complicated white collar crime. Court costs at the worst.
She can always go into politics. She’d be perfect
Already a crook.
Harris would give her a cabinet position for certain, as long as she agrees to change her gender that is.
@@bilpletz9020 She will make a perfect cop anywhere on this planet.
Too bad data colada can’t review our election data, especially when 105% of voters turn out
Please edit this so that the culprit doesn't understand what you are saying. We don't need any more like that one in politics.
Kudos to Data Colada! Supported by the decent nature of so many honest people - this is what will bring back integrity to Science.
The impression that "science" has somehow ever lost its integrity is a fiction of the media to begin with. it has no more, and most certainly LESS corruption than any other human endeavor.
Not only this, the extinction of woke madness. And that's undeniable.
4:30 "Fraud of this magnitude is quite rare" if it's even being committed by a 'superstar' Harvard professor, then I guarantee you it isn't. If Gino had attempted to cover her tracks even a little bit, then this would never have been detected.
Since fraud this obvious took this long to catch, I will bet that the rest of Academia is absolutely riddled with it.
Exactly - the only way you get to the top is by being outstanding and most people achieve this by cheating.
I would imagine frauds don't like to put in any effort whatsoever.
Spot on! You are very right. Only the most deliberate fraud is called to our attention.
Be easy to fix, tie the majority of the money to recreation.
And then make it a huge jail sentence if any manipulation happens
@passerby4507 Then I recommend you read up more on the topic. Fraudsters have put in some serious effort historically.
It is a broader problem with perverse incentives in academia. For many tenure-track folks, it is publish or perish. And the peer-reviewed journals will NOT publish a non-result. So, you somehow have to find something "novel" to study. Then, you have to get data for it. And if your data doesn't find p < 0.05, then you've wasted a year of your tenure clock because the academic peer-review journals won't publish it.
So you're strongly incentivized to "massage" the data. Get rid of certain data points to make your results statistically significant and get that publication. You'll justify it by calling those points "anomalies" or "outliers" in the data.
So yes, she screwed up. But this data massaging, and even data fraud, is MUCH more common than people realize. More retractions are being issued for researchers and academics, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The journals and universities need to absorb some of the blame for the bad incentives they've created.
Yeah it’s a real shame there isn’t more funding/credit for showing things that don’t exist. Everyone wants to uncover some new link, more attention needs to be given for discrediting potential links too.
The gall of her filing suit is rich. The analysis is by those who uncovered the data manipulation was pretty solid and well documented.
@@gregoryf9299 There are some cases like studying the link between video games and violent crimes where the lack of corelation is the point of the study.
History in academia is just completely cooked because of this. There’s hardly ever any new information that’s going to completely change what’s known about, oh, say, Abraham Lincoln. New discoveries tend to just add detail to what is already known. Thus, history is “boring” and most modern historians are critical theorists with wild hot takes, looking at history through different “lenses.”
The second edge of the knife is that people are brainwashed into thinking "peer-reviewed" must mean the research is incontrovertible, when all too often, it's all corrupt and full of lies.
@@AbsentMinded619 I could give you hundreds of hours of video to watch that would prove to you the truth about a particular time in history. The problem is people have been absolutely BRAINWASHED to reject anything that contradicts the taught (fraudulent) narrative.
Most of what the West learns about WW2 is - lies, deception, war propaganda, Hollywood fakery. There's even more that's simply left out of the record, rather than lied about, yet they'll try to bury you for mentioning it.
Remember this phrase. Winners write history. NOWHERE in there does it say they write it truthfully, accurately, etc.
To be more factual, the case was only partially dismissed. The case against Harvard will still go to trial on counts related to breach of contract. But Harvard has resources to fight it, unlike Data Colada.
And even if not written into any contract, misconduct can often negate same.
@@UncleKennysPlace When I was an undergrad at Trinity College, Cambridge in the '70s, our oldest don passed away. As a young historian, he had written a brilliant book and was offered life tenure. At which point he never did another stroke of work, living it up in College rooms and eating at High Table. By all accounts he flew around the country in an autogyro giving hellfire sermons at public schools and buggering the choirboys. And his contract was such that there wasn't a thing the College could do about it. Apparently this became an infamous case amongst university administrations, and the idea of tenure being built on honour and trust has given way to tighter arrangements. My guess is that Harvard will have given themselves an exit route for situations such as this.
She's also suing because the dean did not give her a chance to respond to the report before the dismissal. There is an outlined process for these types of issues and are was supposed to have the ability to defend her case at Harvard. So that's why she might be successful in her suit against Harvard. We'll see.
@@tullochgorum6323"he flew around the country in an autogyro giving hellfire sermons and buggering choirboys" - ah the 1970s, that golden era!
@@AndyJarman This was LONG before the 70s. That's when he died, in his late 90s. So we're talking 1920s and 30s. Even in the benighted 70s buggering choirboys was seen as bad form, old chap...
Excellent outcome. As a former academic I have always been puzzled by the frequency and brazen nature of plagiarism especially because it is often times so easy to detect. Full marks to Harvard for its thorough investigation.
I went to school with someone who found that a large scale, multi-year, study was not following certain laws around privacy and were ignoring rules about using participants who were minors. They met so much resistance that the school finally found a reason to kick him out, and on the very last term of his master's program. The lawsuit that resulted also resulted in six core faculty getting fired and they were ultimately allowed to graduate with 2 fewer courses than were required by their program.
I can't believe this sort of stuff happens either, but it does. This is why I try to warn folks not to mythologize their professors, regardless of the work they've done. They are doing a job, you are a student, and they are human. Thinking of people who have power over you as heroes has a very poor history to it. I would advise against it.
you can honestly compare this to church
they're acting like it's a religion in someways do not question us
@@beatyoubeachyt8303 when you are in the academia world, the professor is god
@@theorenhobart if you go to Harvard the professor is if you go to community college you're not spending a shit load of money for a God
@@theorenhobart people who believe in religion's tend to believe in them without checking the Bible can be easily debunked like the person who faked their work
The peer review system is broken and will remain that way as long as the following exists.
1. "Publish or Perish"
Colleges using people's bibliographies as the main metric for tenure
In most Universities it's basically irrelevant how good you are at teaching or how knowledgeable you are in your field, the only thing that matters is how many times you've been published.
This provides a very strong motivation to fake research.
2. Treating published research as "proven".
That's not how the process works.
The peer review is mainly aimed at checking to see if the submitted paper is written well enough to be understandable and contains enough information to REPEAT the experiment.
Peer review journals do not , and have never validated research.
That happens *after* the paper is published and even though the large majority of published papers are eventually proven wrong the academic world keeps acting like
"published" = "proven".
These two attitudes in the academic world have left the door wide open for fraud.
Completely agreed, especially on #2. Laypeople acting as if the conclusions of a peer reviewed article are a proven fact is facepalm-worthy, but academics doing the same is plainly laughable. And the more surprising the conclusions, the more they should be scrutinized.
Knudging data programmatically in order to support a pre-existing hypothesis in a way that won't be detected is very easy if you know a little bit of programming and statistics. I bet it is quite common, because there is a massive incentive for researchers to publish positive results and a very low likelihood that they will get caught if they cheat.
@@Frostbiker Nobody gets tenured for repeating an experiment to prove/disprove a paper.
So in some fields only a tiny percentage of experiments are ever repeated.
In Behavioral Economics it's almost never.
@@FrostbikerThe biggest issue for lay people is without personal expertise they are presented studies as factual information by our MSM. I have yet to see a disclaimer in MSM that a study is only preliminary and has not been confirmed by rigorous independent confirmation. These studies are presented as truth and people wonder why you have movements like MAGA who believe nothing but what they choose to believe.
💯 Bingo! I fully agree. But further more, I would add, even the peer review itself and publishing is mostly fake and based on connections, politics and the like.
Nailed it!
I feel like science is fundamentally flawed because of how much we glorify new results.
We need to celebrate stuides that find no connection. And studies which replicate previous studies
oh, the scientists do. but the layperson who doesn't understand how science works will not understand why money is being spent on reinforcing old ideas when new, potentially groundbreaking studies catch the media, catch the news, and can be politicised and monetised
Indeed. When the target becomes the goal, the goal becomes the target. People have an incentive to fabricate research to obtain prestige and money. Hence, research inflation
@@Goldfox2112scientists don’t celebrate those types of studies lmao! At best they view it as necessary drudgery that should be done by someone else. Money and recognition is only in new, groundbreaking studies.
@@GunvaldtheoneandonlyScientists do. It's rare and extremely important to replicate protocols, it can save your lab a lot of money when you know you're not wasting resources. And using funds effectively makes a lab more efficent and productive.
Well said. We live in a stoopid era where we were told everything had to be 'disruptive' and all it has done is wrecked society. Modern academia is very broken.
Hey Pete, awesome video. I had no knowledge of this issue/case - I'm a retired builder - far from academia and PhD theses. But your articulate and logical presentation of background and current resolution held my attention to the very end. Thanks.
Agreed
I don't care if a study is conducted in a community college, a researcher's personal integrity should prevent fabrication of the results. How much did Gino earn from speaking fees and status as a result of the fabrication. Charlie Munger said, "Show me the incentive structure and I give you the outcome".
Mugner defines people who don't comply with the incentive structure as idiots not worth thinking about, which makes his observation a tautology.
@@afterthesmash Some people would have the opinion that not taking a beneficial incentive is idiotic. A majority of people dont care about integrity when it comes to lining their wallet.
The whole DEI industry is based on a falsified report. Maybe we can fire the people making bank off that as well.
She will probably become a conspiracy theorist and will rack millions of dollars.
Fraud and plagiarism is the EPO of science!
I hope Data Colada is able to recover costs from Gino.
THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF ALL: the US is the only developed country without "loser pays".
ALL TV lawyer ads would disappear overnight
They won't. But not having to waste even more money on the stupid suit is already a big win.
In theory, they can sue to recover their costs -- but they won't get the costs of suing to recover their costs (unless they sue to recover the costs of suing to recover their costs...)
I hope Gino can never find another teaching position. But, perhaps, maybe she can learn honesty if allowed to teach a kindergarten or first-grade science or social studies class? 🤔
@@WayneLynch69 Loser pays has its own downsides. I prefer system when judge can award the payment, rather than automatic loser pays
I AM STEALING THIS! "She was already scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point, but this really took the barrel away...." Very good!!
shes terrible just like that lying daniel ariely LOL
Harvard Business School had no choice but to thoroughly investigate. Their credibility completely rested on an accurate inquiry and transparency. Huge kudos to all the researchers who did a stellar job. Great video also 👌
I have a friend who was the chief librarian at a major university. As part of her job she published the PhD thesis of professors who worked there. After Prof X's thesis was published, it was roundly criticized for self-plagiarism (something I'd never heard of) and several other issues. As a result, Prof X was terminated, but she had come from a rich family and was not going to accept that result. She sued the university, the top administration, the librarian, and anyone else she could name, demanding millions from them for lost salary and lost income from consulting. Prof X's case got dismissed from lower court, so she appealed two more times. It took years, and created lots of stress for those she was suing, but it was finally dismissed. They considered counter-suing, but decided to end the whole embarrassing mess.
all for vanity. i see a bad future for humanity
sounds about right
Professors do not publish PhD theses - the gap between acceptance of a PhD and being offered a chair is usually measured in decades. Even Andrew Wiles had reached his early 30s before he was offered a professorship.
Wrt to self-plagiarism. A PhD MUST consist entirely of original research conducted only by the author - self-plagiarism i.e repetition of one's earlier work is thus strictly verboten.
@@hb1338really? You can’t use your own work for your PhD thesis? That sounds incredibly petty and nitpicking. It could be argued that using items from one of the submitter’s previous works is still their original idea/s.
@@panzerlieb That's the way it's always been. No one had any issues until now.
Can Gino be sued by Harvard or anyone else to recoup wages etc? Book publishers for example, can they sue her for deceiving them? I certainly hope so.
I was thinking the same thing. It’s not right that she would be able to walk away from this and still be a millionaire from fraud
I think you could, but the legal fees would probably eat up all the money you would get back and then some.
No, it's a risk they take by publishing. Do you know how many books right wing extremists have written that contain outright lies? Too many to name. It's majority opinion and not facts. This case is rare compared to the amount of publications that go unchecked. This has been occurring all through history.
It's not who is tight or wrong (justice), it's who can afford the lawyer(s).
@@bilpletz9020 Really? Tell that to Bernie Madoff, P Diddy (Shawn Combs), Harvey Weinstein, Sam Bankman-Fried and more. Only trump has been given extremely special treatment and the dispicable right wing SCROTUS giving him nearly complete immunity. Every case has been manipulated and stopped by federalist society creatures that sold their soles.
While the statement that "fraud on this magnitude is quite rare" is on the surface true, a more accurate version might be "finding fraud of this magnitude is quite rare". Who knows what hasn't been discovered ...
From personal experience I can say that PhD candidates finding 'untenable data' in research, is far more common than not. That also true of the pressure applied to those candidates to not follow up on that evidence.
'Don't rock the (academic grants) boat' is a faculty mantra.
It's super common. The reproducibility crisis is real, and it's been known for decades. It's why venture capital factors in a 50% chance that any medical discovery they invest in is completely made up. The number of made up nonsense can go up drastically, towards the 80-90% range in the psychology/sociology fields. It's nothing new.
I'm actually a little disappointed the courts didn't affirm all of her claims so we can finally put to rest the myth of science being unbiased truth. (Hypothetically it _should_ be unbiased, but hypotheses that turn out to not be reflective of reality are false, so back to the drawing board lol)
When cases like these happen, people wonder if it is a sign of decline or breaking of the system. The fact is, fraud has always happened and always will happen. The real sign of decline is when you are not seeing cases like these pop up, because that means the fraud that is happening is not being caught. Personally, I agree with you. I think there’s even more fraud out there. But this case is a good sign, not a bad one.
all religions.....
@@peterk2455 seems like part of the issue is the bureaucracy around academics that force people to put out data too often just to put out data.
Thanks for being concise and straight to the point. Nothing but pure info, unsullied by useless peripheral content. I will certainly be watching more of your presentations.
Hi, did the supervisors of the original PHD candidates who tried to get her to drop it face any consequences? Same for the ‘peers’ who reviewed the papers based on the fraudulent data?
peer reviewing is just another way to gain some notoriety.
Does that tell you something about peer-reviewed science. It's all a scam.
The peer reviewers are almost certainly shielded from penalty. Most people don't go into peer review assuming fraud.
@@pierrecurie hi, given that their reputation is on the line along with the author perhaps they should. I certainly would look at any historical reviews they have done with askance and any future papers they put their stamp of approval to should be looked at as suspect. A PHD candidate discovered the issue initially, not a much more experienced researcher. My more cynical side wonders if it had been discovered/suspected by others who wouldn’t take it any further. After all look at the PHD candidates supervisors response when she brought it to them. Shameful behaviour.
@@H2Dwoat Oh, are we all finally admitting the emperor has no clothes then? Yes, academia is a farce. Fin.
I love how in her arrogance of thinking she would win she was proven to be completely fraudulent.
Nah, she's just stretching out things, maybe they'll give up who knows, did she have to pay for it. nope, cost her nothing.
Her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. That part of the case can proceed.
it's US justice. The results depend largely on how much power you have. Trump is still free.
harvard is completely fraudulent
@@l.w.paradis2108 yeah, I’m sure that’ll make up for her reputation and career being permanently destroyed.
Weird, a professional cheater cheats, gets caught, comes up with another cheat scheme, finally gets stopped. For now.
I met her at Harvard and she was presented to us professors from other research unis as THE best researcher. I saw a used car saleswoman and in that she was the typical colleague at "elite" universities. A number cruncher playing a game and not caring about content at all.
Well, Harvard has defended Claudine Gay to no end…and she is will with them, making $800k a year when she is…free of any rigorous or original scholarship…
@@donaldist7321 So much for that label. Duplicitous cunt is what they call her now.
She wants $25M? Because she's embarrassed and humiliated by her own wrong doing? What a sense of entitlement.
She's not entitled, she's a con artist, which is all the difference between a Karen and a burglar.
It's narcissism. It's pretty standard for them to claim they are a victim while committing fraud.
Narcissism
She's jewish by the way.
Strong and independent oppressed victim
At least she is consistent. Commits fraud and sues when exposed. Consistently despicable.
Rather than being rare, I suspect that it's just been ignored, unrecognized, under-reported.
We've seen so many scandals like this in everything from psychology to physics, that I don't even think it can be described as uncommon.
Can you link any other scandals?
@@somethingelse9228 start with Hwang Affair in S. KOREA on genetic stem research! There are many others.
@@somethingelse9228
Can't link any thing because... UA-cam.
There was something similar with Columbia and there was some German wunderkind a few years ago also caught by Data Colada doing materials research on novel substrates for semiconductors.
Then there was the Theranos debacle, the Korean room temp superconductor scandal... Three or four new cold fusion scandals...
And the beer virus controversies that YT still treats as conspiracy theories.l and the safety/efficacy claims for the mRNA protocols associated with it...
Then, there have been a half dozen claims in cosmology/astrophysics made in popular media publications prior to being torn apart in peer review. One suggesting that dark matter was responsible for infrared emissions from Jupiter.
And, while I can't recall anything much about it I vaguely recall someone in NC being accused of plagiarism.
I'm not suggesting that the proportion of published works has been significant just that there appears to be a growing trend of increasing reports of ethical concerns within science, medical and tech.
@@somethingelse9228 I forget the channel, but there are videos on scandals with finding new elements and another physics scandal. There's also one about (I think) stem cells in S. Korea
Maybe not scandal, but I think of all the studies done on say, food and how over a period of my lifetime 40-50 years how things are bad for you, are discovered to be good for you then bad for you...etc. etc. ad nauseum. eggs, coffee, steak... and it makes me wonder if this just hasn't been some sort of game all along, none of these studies were thorough, or a narrow conclusion got expanded into a more headline worthy conclusion "Don't eat eggs"!!! 50 years ago they gave you salt tablets working in a hot environment, salt became bad for you but now you consume salt again under the name electrolytes. Maybe our knowledge has expanded, I dunno, but people knew to take cod liver oil and here we are these many years later eating fish for fatty acids all the while funding entire careers that really didn't matter at all and it just seems like a lifetlme of make-work for the academic industry.
I wonder how common this is in science where big money/prestige is involved. I was all bright eyed and full of dreams when I went to grad school for biochemistry at UCD, full boat for a lab doing 'groundbreaking' research for a biotech company. When I started my first set of experiments that would be my first paper, I was told that I should find a way to make the data suggest a certain thing- in a full lab meeting, deception meant nothing. I should have known, I asked about if a paper they wrote was right about a suggested signaling method- they said, "We knew that wasn't the case when we wrote the paper, we just wanted to throw the other labs off". How much of our science is polluted? I was only in that lab for one year. edit: First time viewer, and needed the full story. Thanks!
Far as I'm concerned, there is no unbiased honeest research anymore.
@@greatcondor8678 There never was! Scientists have always been human, and thus always subject to the kinds of corruption and venality that plague any other field.
But there are certainly differences in degree, and better and worse practitioners. I think the work being done by Data Colada, Elizabeth Bik, and others is really exemplary, and evidence that science *as a whole* remains something to look up to. Few other human endeavors invite the same degree of self-scrutiny.
@@greatcondor8678There are some independent labs that supposedly try to counter that
Weather data
My wife was a professor of statistics. At her college, many social scientists came to her for help with papers. She found that virtually none of these PhDs had the ability to do their own stats. This is different from cheating, but still is a huge problem
Not surprising, when most social scientists lack anything above a basic understanding of algebra.
Academic research in social sciences is riddled with issues regarding objectivity. This starts with the fundamentals of data collection and proper sampling, and the related monitoring to ensure that bias is not introduced. Suspect that none of these disciplines are taught (or only superficially taught) to social scientists.
@@scottlaplantelaplante990they are taught to be biased, actually. Everyone knows that leftists are incapable of differing cause from correlation, specially when convenient.
@@scottlaplantelaplante990 except in economics. Don't put us in the same category of lunatics from sociology and anthropology.
@@Zerradable absolutely would not lump economics with those social science "lunatics"!!! You have real, objective data...not that garbage that social scientists create on their own.
It’s not like the student raised claims against Einstein.. The initial paper in the video has a topic that could not be of any use to anyone, private, public and third sectors included.. Feeling dirty after networking? Where are we? In a South Park episode?
I feel dirty after looking at Ms. Gino's face, and not the good kind of "dirty".
The clarification was needed
(@RavenMobile)
Well, as long as its "new"... American Education is a fucking joke
Well put! Who really gives a hot crap! This sort of ‘breaking news’ in the field of social science is just academics acting as influencers.
How much are you willing to bet that the reason the supervisors pressured Zoé Ziani to stop her inquiry was because they were themselves engaging in that kind of fraud?
Heck yeah, probably 1 of the peer reviewers
Scintillating premise.
It’s of course possible, but I think the most likely explanations are a lot more banal - they didn’t want to risk professional backlash from criticizing a big shot in the field (perhaps they knew Gino wouldn’t go down without a fight), they didn’t want to take the time to understand Zoe’s concerns and evidence and it was easier to just brush her off, or maybe they just didn’t want to spend a lot of time and resources following up on something that wouldn’t benefit their own careers very much. Not a defense of the advisors, just saying that brazen careerism is common enough in the academy that there doesn’t have to be any deeper reason behind it.
@@pbriffy You make a good point. I am probably jaded by my own experiences.
Just so you have an idea of where I come from, while I was a PhD student, pretty much everyone of my colleagues in the university thought it was perfectly normal to "improve" their data (and don't get me started with plagiarism problems).While writing my PhD thesis, I was aghast to discover that my supervisor had actually manipulated my raw data behind my back to make it more publishable.
But this was only the tip of the iceberg. I was expected to regularly do 48+-hour sessions in the lab mixing dangerous products and solvents in an underground room with absolutely no ventilation. When I brought this up to my "pastoral advisor" he dismissed it, suggesting that personal minor sacrifices were expected in academia and I should focus on climbing the totem pole if I wanted my situation to improve. I would later learn that he and my supervisor were business associates.
Later on, my supervisor tried to blackmail me (and no, this isn't an exaggeration: it is the legal textbook definition of blackmail) into working on his pet projects on my free time.
Also, the University made a few clerical errors during my registration that would turn my life into an absolute administrative and financial nightmare for a couple of years.
Once I returned to my country to write my thesis, my doctor said that my bloodwork results made no sense as they suggested I had the liver of a terminal alcoholic (I barely drink). I guess three years breathing solvents and volatile chemicals in a lab without any ventilation were finally catching up.
At that point I thought, "You know what? F*** all this". Even though I had almost finished writing my PhD, I destroyed all my samples, erased all my data, refused handing any of my notebooks and lab books, and ghosted everyone from the University. I didn't even bother to inform my supervisor about the breakthroughs I had made throughout my final year and my latest publishable (and even patentable) results.
@@pbriffy Shhhhh don't go popping the conspiratorial bubble with your simple pragmatics, it doesn't serve the script. Righteous flaming swords are required, maybe a few pitchforks, not Occam's razor.
We need about 100 Data Coladas. To start with.
That sounds a bit ambitious. How about we start with 100 pina coladas.
@@drmodestoesq that's the joke
And getting caught in the rain. 🎶
Let us remember that there was a student who found the error,
& she informed dad colata to support her fine.
So I'm a physician here in Los Angeles and I give probably two to three lectures a week and when I'm putting up medical studies I always Make a point to mention one or two Harvard studies and then put a big x through them and say that well since it's from Harvard it's probably plagiarized lol And I get a good laugh from most of the students and professors but they all know it's half true. Harvard has fallen so far.. by the way Stanford Yale and UCLA have also turned into crap
Many years ago a friend of mine got accepted to a graduate program at Cornell. I congratulated and told him it was a big deal.
He said the best line I have ever heard regarding academia
"It's not that big of a deal, the Ivy League is just where privilege is laundered into merit."
My graduate program was far from Ivy but demanded passing 10 out of 10 exams to even be accepted into the program. Those 10 exams covered every facet of my discipline that should have been learned as an undergraduate. All students so accepted then were required, no matter their chosen area of specialty, to take 15 credit hours in experimental design and statistics. My non-mathematical brain (some of us have them) never understood the most advanced math, but I memorized the heck out of everything. What I learned was: 1. To leave actual research to the math nerds. 2. How to read, interpret, and evaluate all scientific research and sort the wheat from the tares. It was 100% worth it. My professors were right.
Ivybridge is all about connections/networking aka nepotism over the academic rigour
If you want pure rigour you don't pic Ivybridge
Diversity is our strength.
that godawful huberman has single handedly rubbished stanfords already dubious name
7:53
The lawsuit mentioned "sex-based discrimination".
Holy cow 😂 of all the cards she could play, she played the woman card so badly lol.
It was women that uncovered the fraud right?
For her own gain, she is willing to set back other women
It's been months since the original video came out, but I think she blamed the men for sexism and the woman for sabotage, but I wouldn't be surprised if she blamed _all_ of them for sexism and her assistant for sabotage. The funny thing is, from what I've seen, is these errors were found *early on,* but Gina _ignored_ them. Money was probably too good for her.
Agreed, it's really bad, especially when they try to use that as a cover
Racism ?
Finding fraudsters is science too:
She had a theory.
Did research.
Underwent peer review.
FUBAR from start to finish.
i.e. she's not the only one at fault here, her thesis professor, the peer reviewers and on and on. academia is as corrupt as the companies it sells research to
In this case, it is more credible science. The scientific method involves forming a hypothesis and drawing conclusions based on that hypothesis. Science must prevail over Science™.
she had a concept of a theory
@@DSAK55Hypothesis.
Thanks!
Thanks sooooo much for creating this wrap up video!! Truly appreciate it!!
More generally speaking, I'd like to live in a world in which if you file a lawsuit for defamation and you lose you _automatically_ pay a certain percentage of what you asked for to the defendant (plus expenses of course).
Yeah, many countries already have "losing party pays". Otherwise, you can sue someone into oblivion (especially in a David/Goliath situation). Lately, anti-SLAPP laws have helped.
@@UncleKennysPlace they do? I mean not only expenses and not only the _possibility_ of a counter lawsuit, which the "David" party would rarely dare to start...more like an automatic percentage so that you already know what you're going to pay if you file & lose (for defamation! Not in general)
I didn't know about your anti slapp law, interesting.. I'm from Europe, where freedom of speech is more disregarded in general, and defamations and libel can already be very wide and arbitrary.
One of the problems is, the judiciary system is clogged with people getting offended - and rightly accused.
@@nefaristo That would be a very dumb rule as it would discourage meritorious defamation cases from being brought in the first place, especially when the plaintiff does not have deep pockets.
@@andrewb8235 that's a dumb reply, if your case is good its good: maybe don't make false cases based on feelings.
In medicine, this type of law actually WAS put into the books, but then it was struck down by the courts. The argument was that such laws would serve to scare people away from filing legitimate lawsuits against powerful entities. Either way, there's a scenario you can imagine where something unfair happens. I'm a physician and think you're right. But that's the reason that law doesn't exist.
Superb analysis Pete. Great work!
Tell us, please - how is Gino ultimately being held accountable beyond [finally] being dismissed from Harvard?!! Is her fraud criminal; can she be held criminally liable?
Shouldn’t she have to REPAY every dollar 💰 of profit she ever earned from all book sales, bc they were sold as non-fiction, yet were totally misleading and inaccurate, etc/&, &…
The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She can proceed on those. So, this video is misleading as well.
Sigh.
When people talk about a case, look up the case.
@@l.w.paradis2108 The video isn't misleading on the essential points of her academic fraud. And before you made your comment, Pete pinned a note about part of her lawsuit against Harvard being sustained even though that's a procedural argument and does not dispute her actual misconduct.
@dlxmarks The title is "It's Over - Gino v. Harvard. Yes, I saw the correction to the misleading impression this title and the video obviously gave.
(When non-lawyers talk about a case, look up the case. And no, she cannot be held criminally liable.)
What is merely procedural? We accord due process to the Manson Family, much less to corrupt academics . . . .
@dlxmarks The case isn't far enough along for _the court_ to have made any determination about her actual misconduct. Motions to dismiss a complaint take all allegations in the complaint as _true,_ as long as they are logically and pragmatically possible.
@dlxmarks The defamation counts were dismissed not because the court disbelieved Gino but for a technical reason: she is a public figure (and she herself sought to be) for purposes of defamation, and something known as the "New York Times malice" standard for defamation applies. There is no way she could meet that standard.
This judge is really good, and Gino has good lawyers, too. It's worth reading the opinion.
Pete Judo with 100k+ subscribers. Special thanks to: Ms. Francesca Gino.
He got his silver play button real quick.
@@MakerInMotion
I was looking at that thinking, '"they must have an automatic door with that button"
Good for him, but I wish he gave more credit to the original creators he takes material from, especially given his brand of content. There is a video that is a ripoff from Bobby Broccoli and he barely acknowledges him.
@@ingGS Which video? Post a link please.
@@stephenmcinerney9457 I think they're referring to Pete's video on Jan Hendrik Schön.
Keep them coming! These videos are of monumental importance. Truth is the bedrock of all human endeavor. Without it, well… without truth we are f’d.
Thank you for reporting - it's extremely important to expose any lack of integrity in scientific work - the last bastion of truth nowadays, glad to hear the case was dismissed.
Those colleagues who said they didn't believe that she was the kind of person who would do something like this...has anyone done any digging into THEIR published studies and articles?
A dishonest Harvard professor?
Shocking!
The sarcasm is strong with this one.
Harvard B-school professor? Shocking!😅
LOL
The third (?) recent female at Harvard guilty of plagiarism? Wow. Just shows how bad DEI has become.
What, is this a thing? You say this like it's a common occurrence.
I suspect this is far more prevalent than anybody is willing to talk about.
Yeap. I suggest watching a video by Upper Echelon called Gamers Versus Scientists. It is quiet interesting on the topic.
I had a friend who was doing their PhD as part of a group engaged in lab research. She discovered her boss, and his employee (her direct colleague) who he was sleeping with, were fabricating the data. Not by much, but still. To make it more appealing and conclusive when published.
She had a choice of going public with it, and having to start her PhD from scratch, throwing away all her own research for the group, and be associated with the boss engaged with data fraud, or stay silent and hope for the best. She kept her mouth shut, and now has a job, and a doctorate.
Not a lot of people are willing to risk their own livelihood to stand up for corruption. And this stuff happens, ALL THE TIME. It's a well known 'industry secret'.
we got half the population believing genders don't matter and they can participate on women's olympics
Excellent summation, Sir. Bravo. And thank you.
It amazes me how many so-called scientists and researchers publish “research” that any experimental research and statistics graduate student could tell you is neither valid nor reliable. And tell you so before finishing their read of the article presenting the research. The quality of Ph.D. programs must be mightily eroding with courses in experimental research design, methodology, and statistics no longer mandated. If you don’t know the difference between anova and chi square or what .01 and .05 mean, you should not be plaguing society with pseudo-research. Or you get this fiasco. Besides, on its face when did “feeling dirty” become a scientific concept? In any discipline? Keep at it, Data Colada.
"Feeling dirty" is not an exact scientific concept, that is indeed a problem with the social sciences, there's a reason it's called a soft science. Still, studying these things do have value and even if it's not easy to quantify what exactly people are feeling, we have to use words to describe difficult concepts, as imprecise as it all is. The big thing is we should approach it all with more scientific rigour, as much as possible, despite it being a soft science. We've let through a lot of bad social science studies make it through, including famous ones like the Stanford Prison Experiment, and Gino's falsified papers are just another in a long line of papers we don't examine nearly as thoroughly as we should.
@@Krossfyre I think most "soft science" has zero value to society. This entire world is just fake through and through.
The entire field of social psychology would fall apart if you required rigorous, reproduceable studies. It's not really a science.
@@KrossfyreThey don't have value when done the way it's done today because it's not reproduceable. It makes you think we know things when we actually don't.
It's very difficult to make these things reproduceable because it's so hard to control for all the variables at play in social situations, not to mention hard to even make the definitions. Imo it is worse to think we know things and be wrong than it is to admit we don't understand.
Social issues have always been dealt with using philosophy, and those are effective tools. There is no reason it needs to be an experimental science.
The majority of scientific papers are written to be written not written to be read. The real change needed at the PhD level is to reduce the expectations that PhD students publish before graduation. The other change is that teaching posts at universities should be judged on the ability to teach at the point of comformation in post or tenure and a track for promotion within universities that allows promotion by doing teaching and admin work alone.
The reason for doing so is to reduce the dependence of academics on publishing large amounts of utter tripe to progress in their careers and instead have the risks of publishing cr@p far out weight the risks of not publishing anything or not publishing enough.
This doesn’t just happen in bullsh!t fields like business studies. There was a lot of research published on Covid19 biology and treatment during 2020 and 2021 most of it was total garbage. This very quickly came to light and most of it was corrected by additional and better papers but you still have people thinking that horse deworming tablets will protect them from coronavirus.
This wasn’t anything new it was just that obscure papers from obscure labs were getting read for the first time. And the amount of total sh!t being published was revealed.
What is the responsibility of the peer reviewers? They aren’t there just to agree with the conclusions. They should be assessing the quality and data used. They share some of the blame for approving it.
Good point.
You know it is unpaid, volunteer position where reviewers aren't necessarily full experts in the topic, right? And they don't have access to the data typically. I think you just invented a way to make sure that no paper will ever get a reviewer. Why would anyone ever review a paper then?
Peer review is often not double blind. The reviewer knows the name of the authors. So a lot of inferior papers gets published, because of the name and affiliation the reviewer sees. Other way round: newcomers will have to fight way harder in the review process than established researchers or those who belong to certain in-groups.
Some seem to think their job is to reject everything. Some seem to think their job is to approve everything. Some actually do provide good feedback, but are ignored in favor of one of the first two categories.
Data isn't peer-reviewed.
Gino tried to blame her fellow researchers for the fraud and alleged it was a deliberate attempt to ruin her reputation.
"It is everybody else's fault but my own."
@@RavenMobile That sounds so very 'Donald'.
@@DrakeN-ow1im He is certainly the only person currently running for president to do so.
/s
She must be a democrat.
@@DrakeN-ow1im Actually, sounds so very "Kamala"
thank you for covering this. i have not heard anything about this issue at any point anywhere besides your channel here.
The thing that irritates me is that doing the work correctly would have been easy. Her work was not in a field that requires intense grind.
I speculate that she was tasked with massaging the field to suit other end goals and the means that she used were not important.
You will find that people who rise to the top have skeletons because that makes them controllable and so those are the ones who are promoted. The right lapel pin, handshake or YGL status means you have friends in high places, they help you and you are expected to help them or you are toast. I do not know how she is connected but books full of plagiarism means that she was propped up to get to the position of influence that she held.
Obviously if you have no skeletons yet but are driven with an ego and lacking in morals you will be offered a visit to Diddi's Rooms or Epstein Island to earn some skeletons.
Doing the work correctly presumably wouldn't have gotten published.
@@stargazer7644 wouldn't have found the effects she wanted.
Doing it correcty would have revealed no statistically significant result, which is unpublishable.
If an art museum admits to having a fake painting, it calls into question their entire collection. Academia may have the same problem.
Laughable proposition. If the Chicago Art Museum discovers and reveals a fake artwork, 99% of art lovers would not assume the other works are fraudulent.
Their collectiond should always be suspect. More than one art gallery has a fake. There was 60 Minute story on it years ago. A friend who works with medical studies says about a third of papers are poorly designed and/or fraudulent.
That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't know why Americans are so anti-education and anti-science. Pretty weird for a first-world country.
@@I-Have-The-Cuckoo $100 bills are made to be identical, whereas almost all works of art in museum collection are expected to be unique.
... believe it - there are a THOUSAND more Francesca Gino's out there near YOU
And this is based on your opinion presumably...or have you 'done your research' 🥱
You sound like one @@lindsaywootten9127
Guess who just got a 10 million dollar grant to stop free speech online = NZs ex PM ( I am the soul source of truth , All other news is fake news ) That one ? Ardern , WEFs head of "The world youth socialists movement"
@@lindsaywootten9127 How else do you think they come up with the data claiming that mutilating and chemically castrating children's healthy bodies due to a mental condition is beneficial?
Oh Brother.... that's a vaxxed and boosted comment if I've ever heard one@@lindsaywootten9127
The fact that you can sue somebody for 25 mil and just walk away with dismissal is criminal. If you accuse others of your own wrongdoings you should suffer consequences graver than those you willingly and knowingly try to inflict. It's the only deterrent for malicious actors against misuse of justice, otherwise justice becomes the most accessible and devastating lever for harming innocent which is the direct opposite of what it was meant to be in the first place. Incentives are paramount and in justice systems all around the world they are upside down.
In France I think it's "loser pays." Easy way to prevent all these frivolous lawsuits in the States.
I don't think she can really just take the L and move on. While it's possible she holds on to enough goodwill that she's able to get another job in the industry, I think (hope) that this has ruined her reputation so badly she can never come back. It's probably worth the risk for her to just gamble on the small chance she wins in court to retain her quality of life.
She's done in academia.
@@g00nther She has a pretty good chance to move into grievance studies and grift off of that for a while.
According to google, she’s got a net worth of $20M and 4 kids. The $ is more than enough to assure an excellent quality of life.
And she can save face (somewhat) by using the same lame excuse that executives and politicians use when they get the boot: “I’ve decided to spend more time with my family.”
still, she's got some bucks saved up. It was all worth it.
@@tedjohnson64 exactly, she's won.
Nice job. Glad to see Harvard took the allegations seriously and mounted an investigation. You did an excellent presentation given the quantity of information. Regards
Criminals gotta criminal -- and it's always somehow amazing to me that they have the gall to be offended and try to hurt other people for outing them for being criminals.
Interesting... Very thoughtful and comprehensive. Kudos!!
Kudos to honest researchers
One of many problems is that "science" likes new breakthrough results and geniuses...as many as possible. The actual work happens quietly with patience and a result of a teamwork, not one genius.
... except for Einstein lol (the exception proves the rule is what i always say )
If a student approaches me with any concern of any kind, no matter how ridiculous, I always investigate it thoroughly. That’s one of the requirements to remaining intellectually honest.
I only found out about this through your videos and they were amazing. So sincerely thank you for informing the public about this massive issue.
She lost her desperate grab to salvage her career. Serves her right. But there should be some criminal consequences for using grant money (i.e., money elicited from government or private donors to conduct legitimate research) in a fraudulent manner.
Unfortunately for Gino (and very fortunately for everyone else), truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation.
Depends on the country.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus True. Fortunately, none of the countries where truth isn't an absolute defense had jurisdiction in this case.
Science = falsifiability and peer review. This scientist takes here peers to court when they question her results?! Just let that sink it. It's hilarious!
Thanks Pete for an extremely well constructed video - you did an excellent job of concisely presenting the facts and explaining important points. I'm not surprised you're collecting many followers
How Data Fraud Makes Me Feel Dirty - author Dra. Francesca Gino
Talk data fraud to me...
She's a "doctor" alright. I bet her "doctoral dissertation" is full of data fraud and plagiarism too 😂
As an endocrinologist in my field i know that most of the publications from superstars is either fabricated or stolen....if industry sponcered almost always.
The way i find better science is by reading the questions posted for authors and their responces .very few people read them ...please do read beacuse a theif can find theif.you will learn the art.
BS.
Excellent vid… thanks. You took a complicated incident and brought into rigorous focus. Well done.
I love the way you organized this whole video…very good!!
I’m so sick of people like her
"Behavioral" and "science" are a dangerous mix. Thank you for your work in the Gino case.
The only rule is any metric used to measure human behavior is bull because humans will game the metric.
As a “behavioral scientist” I concur.
Right? Who thinks that psychology and "Behavioral Science" are really scientific? Don't they just sum up to interesting observations which may, or may not be true? Depends on the context and the culture? Is that valuable?
@@Redmenace96 Psychology is an extremely broad field. There are plenty of areas that are amenable to proper scientific treatment and plenty of areas that are not.
Would love to hear your opinion of Stanford's "Top 2% Scientists" list
I know without looking. Rich chumps, DEI appointees, frauds, nepo babies, and any combination thereof
You do such an amazing job of presenting, laying out the information clearly, even with no interest in such matters, I have enjoyed learning from this video.
EXCELLENT.
how is that peer review system working out ?? smh.. This is probly the tip of a very large iceburg..
It definitely is.
What was it that caught her in the end?
@@m3chanist Failing to hide her tracks was the proximal cause. Her modifications to the experimental data were very obvious.
I love one of the people investigating the data was called Datar.
So what happens to public policies and legislation which was passed on the basis of such fraudulent research?
Nothing. Politicians don't care if it's true, just if it looks good or gives more power
@@User-y9t7u And that's a huge problem because people may have to live with the consequences of such legislation for generations.
@@thebeatnumber only way to stop it is to get involved and push exclusively for the truth. The full truth.
Don't trust bs, "believe the science" or accusations without proof
The same thing that happens to temporary laws put in place during times of emergency, once the emergency passes...
People die.
Thanks for covering this story. It's been super interesting watching this play out.
Her lack of integrity was her ultimate undoing.
Ethics do matter.
The only difference between Fransesca Gino and any pathological liar is sophistication.
AI could make it much harder to detect data manipulation in scientific research, which is often caught through human errors like copy-pasting mistakes, duplicated graphs, or statistical inconsistencies. In some cases, researchers have even fabricated entire datasets to support their hypotheses. With AI, you could easily generate a dataset with any number of rows that perfectly fits a desired outcome, eliminating the typical signs of fraud. This would make it far more difficult to spot manipulations, such as those seen in the case of Professor Francesca Gino, where errors in data handling revealed the falsification. As AI advances, we need to be more vigilant about safeguarding scientific integrity
At the same time AI is already making it easier to find fraud because it can parse a person's entire lifetime of work for data inconsistencies faster then a human can finish a single paper.
@@williamjenkins4913 I was going to say, we'll probably end up with AI wars.
Yup. Entire science around it already, without the need for AI. We call them Monte Carlo studies or simulations, but they actually are pretty easy to do in basic R. AI will mean that no one gets caught for plagiarism again due its paraphrasing capacity. To prevent science from effectively dying, we need to invest in data provenance with multiple sign offs. Otherwise, the noise will drown out the signal.
"perfectly fits". NO experimental data, especially in soft science, ever fits perfectly - one of the most obvious signs of fraud is data that matches the expected result too well.
It's the first time I heard about it and I can't help to wonder about the source data files. When we conduct clinical research there is always a huge paper / digital trail of data being collected on individual level, verified, then aggregated etc. I wonder if they tried to see the source documents.
And what of Zoe Ziani ? I'd love to hear how her academic endeavours turned out.
As to the Streisand Effect, back in the 1970's here in Vancouver, we had an overly straight laced woman named Bernice Gerrard who publicly railed against the showing of the movie Caligula at a small local theatre. Few people had ever heard of this movie let alone the theatre. But, the story made the evening new several times as Gerrard's campaign continued and grew louder. Attendance at Caligula skyrocketed. Should perhaps this phenomenon be called the Caligula Effect instead ?
This is excellent. How many more academic grifters need to be exposed and removed, a thousand? 10,000?
9,000
At 4:32, you say “fraud on this scale at this magnitude is quite rare.” You have no support for this statement. What you can say is that “allegations of fraud on this scale at this magnitude are quite rare.” For all we know, massive fraud by prominent academics may be common; we just are not uncovering it.
This is such a strange thing to bring up. It is along the lines that as I cannot disprove that you are a talking fungus so for all we know you just might be we just haven't found evidence of it. Neither yours nor his statements have great support, though his relies on what we know of and yours require there to be a great deal unknown.
@@Demortra You have it backwards. My statement relies on what is observable; his (and yours) do not.
0
Not true. You assert a fact, but all you can speak to are the frauds that have been uncovered, i.e., those that have been observed. I assert what has been stated - that is observable.
Harvard still needs more people looking into their information. It's an institution of education, that changes its own price whenever they wish based on being the best school. Every study and information coming out of Harvard should be scrutinized.
I would wager that sometime in the future, you will do another video on this lady.
Since it is a fact that replication is a huge problem within the social sciences, why are so many educational institutions heavily reliant on social scientists?
Edit: Added comment
"it is a fact that replication is a huge problem in science, why are so many educational institutions heavily reliant on science?" FIFY. The replication crisis does not discriminate
@@Creationweek It isn't a fact that replication is a problem in the hard sciences. It is a fact that replication is a huge problem in the social sciences.
Because it says what we want to hear
@@samsonsoturian6013 More accurately "Because it _can be made_ to say what we want to hear." (Just a quibble.)
@@charlie-qh2ll I would argue it's the most egregious in psychology and medicine it's also pretty bad in economics. the recent rash of physics retractions indicate it's bad everywhere
Behavioral psychology hardly counts as science.
I consider the 1% parasites that continue to be hugely sucessful with social conditioning the 99% working class, would appreciate your opinion on BP.
Except their tools work, so.....
@@d.thorpe2046 sometimes even as much as a quarter as often as they fail.
Sociopaths abound on all walks of life...
...as do frauds, cheats, rentiers, market manipulators, pastors, preachers, priests, etc.
Really well done video with the storyboarding and organization of summary/context discussion, followed by details. Nice job indeed, thank you.
PUBLISH THE PROFESSORS NAMES! These clowns are CLEARLY not interested in accuracy and information, but "protecting a fellow colleague!" They should be fired and have any accreditation siezed!
Maybe she was clever on how she presented the data to them and they failed on being thorough enough, and they should have. Taking a student to discover the incongruencies shows that student is the real deal.
We are judging based on how he is telling the story. It could also be the case they were protective of the student, considering that a PhD student due to inexperience might be rolling false allegations which could harm her career in future.
I'm not saying that it was necessary like that, but that's a possibility too.
Let’s not pretend she set up the support website. Her lawyers did.
4:29 "After all, fraud on this scale and of this magnitude is quite rare".
I laughed out loud.
Kind of is. Most researchers know it's really easier to just do the work and use real data.
"After all, fraud on this scale and of this magnitude is quite rarely punished"
Fixed that for you..
Me too! Couldn't help it-just my intuition of human behavior.
Yep, it's literally all fraud these days...😅
@@kirklarson4536 You misunderstand. Most of what is considered accepted factual data is all fraudulent these days. It is the norm, not the exception.
Well done! Good story and well presented.
Maybe she lost, but imagine her potential in the private sector...you know, proving things like how cigarettes are safe, sugar is healthy, etc.
Or the vaccine is actually safe and effective ;)
@@g.i.520 Vaccines are safe and effective. Unless you actually wanted to have smallpox...
@@fredygump5578Survival of the fittest demonstrated perfectly...