Academia is BROKEN! - Harvard vs Gino Lawsuit Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 сер 2023
- Go to ground.news/Pete to get reliable information from every side. Sign up or subscribe through my link before Aug 31, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access.
Francesca Gino's lawsuit feels weak to me, and she now appears more guilty than before this was filed. Her only hope is that she can plead the "innocent until proven guilty" defence, as technically there is no smoking gun.
But what do you guys think? Let me know in the comments below!
My Website: petejudo.com
Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petejudoofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo
Good tools I actually use:
For great book summaries: www.Shortform.com/pete
![Things you don't say out loud in academia [9 open secrets]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sgAlFPMugWw/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to ground.news/Pete to get reliable information from every side. Sign up or subscribe through my link before Aug 31, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access.
Lmao
Youre part of the problem mate - these video titles are click-baity grifting. Calling Academia broken, confirms the suspicions of paranoid populists who spend too much time online, that all academia is therefore likely broken. Please be responsible with your platform
they good, but lackin, it's like a Beta version. 99% of Newspapers aren't even on there. Also they see billionaire media and business publications like CNBC as neutral, when they're clearly right leaning with their neo-liberal POV.
Funny how when I saw Pete using Ground in this video I thought: well if he's using it maybe it's valuable. Maybe I should consider buying it. The whole feeling vanished as soon as he said it was sponsoring the video. Any behavioural scientists want to explain the phenomenon?
I wouldn't trust Ground News if they captioned this lawsuit "Harvard vs. Gino". She's the plaintiff. Should be "Gino v. Harvard"
The sad thing is she only got caught because she was very lazy with her data manipulation. Honestly insulting how little effort a Harvard professor put into it. You got to wonder how many academics are out there that haven't been caught because they're more careful with their data manipulation.
I know! I could fake data way better than that. (Corrupt academics call me for my reasonable rates.)
Most people who get caught faking data are found out relatively easily. The problem that allows them to get away with it for years or even decades is that almost no one bothers to look because there is zero - and I mean absolutely zero - incentive structure in place to maintain the integrity of *other* people's work. The scientific community operating almost entirely on the honor system is kind of... bad. But if you were to make any suggestion to change how the scientific community operates, you'd get wailing and gnashing of teeth because some variation of "I don't fake the data, so why should I be punished by having to have my stuff scrutinized even harder and therefore take longer to be published."
I bet she didn't expect the research to be that exciting to anyone and to fade away like most papers. She's probably been gritting her teeth waiting for the day someone discovered it
Psychology is almost always fake. Even if they don’t fake their data, their sample is almost always students from their own university, which is not representative
yeah she literally went into her exceedingly simply excel spreadsheet and changed every outlying value that made no sense to a random value that fell in line with the other values. for those unaware, for example: if your data had the numbers 2 2 3 2 2 18 2 3 3 50 2 3 you can clearly see that 18 and 50 are outliers that disprove any theory that this data is consistent. so Gino just erased the real 18 and 50 values that were generated using scientific methods to 2 and 3 values that she just made up. that's basically what occured - that's why people are saying the data manipluation was so lazy.
There is no incentive for Harvard to conspire against her, their reputation was ruined because of the events, if they had been malicious they would have done their best to cover it up.
They did till now....no one is innocent....
How would covering it up be a malicious attack on her? They did try to cover it up, until her guilt was clearly undeniable. How much falsified data across the entire system of academia is required before it becomes undeniable that the entire system should be reexamined?
@@jswets5007 He meant malicious to us, not to her.
Why can’t they sue her for fraud, employment expenses and damage to reputation?
@@jswets5007until people riot in the streets or actually insight fear in those actively lying to the public for personal gain, political or monetary. I'm serious nothing else will actually make these people stop, they're addicted to the power, and its unbelievably obvious its corrupted them.
Harvard didn't fire her on a whim, they were 99.99% sure of what they were doing. The lawsuit is just her posturing and trying to hold on to her ill-gotten gains. She's toast!
Lawsuits aren't easy or cheap by any means. It takes some ridiculous hubris to play the victim in the courtroom for somebody in Gino's shoes. Ivy League, more like Ivory Tower League, etc.
@@WK-47For a grifter, 25m is a good gamble
What is crazy is that she didn't just walk away with the millions she already completely based on lies, she wanted 25 Million more. She really is one of the worst humans.
@@WK-47It's bc that scammer is rich from "upper society" and they tend to be more entitled to things they don't deserve/didn't earn. That's a fact of human nature. Somewhat paradoxically the poorer someone usually the less they feel entitled, even to things they earned.
Perhaps, but if they in anyway violated procedure, they can be held liable.
When you use sexism to try explain away obviously bad behaviors, it just makes it harder for people subject to real sexism to make their case. Female researchers should be especially upset about her tactic here.
One of my biggest pet peeves. You’re 100% correct when you say it makes it harder for people subject to real sexism. Hope it gets called out
Its understandable to use any weapon on your arsenal on a lawsuit of this calibre. Even if the weapon is just a stick.
@@DreamVikings No, it is not understandable; it is extremely selfish. But evidence suggests that's just how she is.
I agree but I realised that when women professors are either abusive or fraudulent, they get much more hate in general and are usually fired immediately. It's because people can finally let out their misogyny. Look at all the videos made about her, meanwhile there are none about for example Paolo Macchiarini who literally killed people with his fraudulent research 💀
I'd say it's not quite so cut & dry. & For a high profile case against Harvard, a claim of Sexism is probably one of the most rational claims to make in order to expedite the forthcoming settlement she will be awarded. Because Harvard will never ever make a counter-argument to allegations of Sexism whilst standing before a Jury in Civil Court so long as the allegation is legitimate (i.e., it's a real Court filing) & merely has the slightest face value hint of being true. Namely, because Harvard would be destroyed -- their history has burned into it as being that of an elite Men's only University that Women really did have to fight to even gain entrance into. & Yes, that was some time ago; but, I guarantee, an attorney given the opportunity to bite into that one...?! Holy s***!
For this reason, Harvard will be making a settlement with this Woman; this is her strongest play to indicate to Harvard she's willing to negotiate. She has other, more traditional & usually stronger arguments presented as well that almost guarantees her a sizeable settlement, but pressing on the wound that will not heal -- it is in their pain where the true guarantee sits. Harvard only needs to determine how much pain they are willing to tolerate before they break. & They will break; or, like I said, it will literally destroy Harvard to take this all the way to a Jury.
The contents of her legal defence are pretty revealing of her integrity.
And even showing more in her act of storming her way out of Harvard and Academia while trying to grab some cash. Not even trying to really defend herself, just the final maneuver on her career before most likely disappearing from the public.
@@Robert.101typical aristocrat, really.
@@Robert.101 I think she was trying to grasp at the same straws that had Stanford's now ex-president keep a job (he still has his lab).
@@Heyu7her3 What happened at Stanford with ex-pres?
@@Robert.101 By not sueing back you are basically declaring you're guilty. So I would assume she has a lot less to lose attempting to do so. Not sure. What do you think?
Its an ego lawsuit. If you don't fight it you look guilty. If you fight it and lose you can always say that the wrong decision was reached. Even more, if the case gets thrown out she can look even more like people are just against her without giving her side a chance. She is paying her lawyers a lot of money to save a little face, plus the slight chance that Harvard is willing to settle for some money to get this out of the news quicker.
I disagree. She has nothing to gain but money from this. She’s guilty, people know she’s guilty. Her dumbass lawsuit isn’t going to convince anyone with half a brain (everyone she knows) that she isn’t guilty.
You actually make sense!
The two opposing legal teams are like "we good? We get paid? Let's give them a show."
@@jamesboulger8705 You just described 85% of court cases. Our legal system is just as broken as academia.
I just graduated with my BS in Biology, and am currently applying for medical school. Up until relatively recently I was looking to get into academia. Now my plans have changed. I have had professors silently give me the 'run, and don't look back opinion' when I mention academia. Academics is corrupted right now. The drive to just publish, publish, publish because if you don't you risk your job is a disgusting way to run science. This has resulted in literally no body actually taking to time to re-run the experiments found in ground breaking papers, which is ridiculous. I think institutions need to push testing the findings of a third party in between your own papers.
Yes, this is so true! I can't duplicate experiments/results in many 'groundbreaking' published research!
I too, have a BS in biology lmao
I am interested in my feild and I would love to keep studying it for the rest of my life but, I too changed my mind about getting into academia after finding about "publish or perish" phenomena.
Modern academia is broken. It's all a roll of the dice whether you make it in to begin with, and once there the politics around publishing has driven the most groundbreaking research to ArXive, which drops peer review all together. And it's not even academia doing the research. It's all the cast of academics that went to industry that changed the world.
Congrats science, you played yourself.
I agree, and I am surprised a University like Stanford or Oxford, who have some reputational competition with Harvard don't re run all of their ground breaking experiments to try and disprove them to steal some of their prestige. Not in a malicious way, but in two students competing kind of way if that makes sense.
There needs to be a purge exercise, where a ton of fraud investigators go through the entirety of published research going back at least 30/40 years.
The results of it not only need to be published, but it should have its own website that not only is easily searchable for names and papers, but also a comprehensive list of work each fraudster has worked on and what other published works used their fraudulent data.
It'd be the Panama Papers of Academia.
This could be a good job for a future AI bot
@@privatename1250came here to say this 😂
Greater than 10,000 peer reviewed publications worldwide. Greater than 2.5 million published articles between them per annum. The problem is there is so much published work there is no way to read, let alone verify even a sliver of it. We have made being published the most important angle in a scientific career. Tenure is given to people who publish a lot and are cited even more. "Publish or Perish." The median download count for these 2.5 million articles is 10. Most of this work is never even read past the peer review. Nothing more then pure incentive to cheat as the likelyhood of getting caught is low.
As for the AI, I am looking forward to this. You know how individuals who committed heinous crimes in the decades past are being caught now due to DNA evidence that has caught up? The same will happen for academia. AI will actually be able to shake all that past published horse manure and hold these fraudsters accountable. Science has a lot more quackery in it these days then it has in a long time. Sad really.
For context, i am a Theoretical Physicist with 32 years of experience. I do not work in the academic system and chose to work on my research alone with private funding. When I publish my work, it will be impactful. I did not spend a career trying to make anything stick. Selling my soul for funding. Science isnt about fame, it is about answers.
Academia is to Science what Religion is to Faith, a structured organization to bring the massed to the least common denomonator. Great change and advancment doesnt come from these organizations. It never has. It always comes from ouside. A great read on these ideas is Thomas Kunz 1962 writing titled "Principals of Scientific Revolution." Worth a read or watch a lecture about it on you tube.
Great video, thanks!
@@privatename1250 seeing ideas like this makes me fairly convinced that to most people AI is basically a crystal ball. No, this is not something that any AI following currently existing AI development paradigms could reliably perform.
Good idea. Go ahead, do it.
Bro casually said “having read all 100 pages”
and thought we would let that god level commitment to serving quality information to his viewers slide😡😡🥺
As a woman who wants to go into academia, “playing the sexism card” makes me so mad. This woman was in a position of power and there is very strong evidence she cheated her way there or at least in part. I’m in physics and many women in my field struggle to even get positions and have to work extra hard to get slightly noticed. Some famous women physicists didn’t get credit for their own work such as Jocelyn Bell Burnell. I think reducing sexism in academia to this just to defend yourself from allegations like this is such an insult to other fellow women in academia who are actually struggling to get where she got without cheating.
Edit: lol y’all trying to deny sexism is a problem when you clearly haven’t experienced it. I never said you couldn’t make it far if you were a women, it’s just harder bc of underlying biases of ppl in positions of power and your own peers. It’s not a hard concept to understand and there is lot of literature about it aside from tons of people telling their experiences. I’m doing more than fine especially for my age and the specific field of physics I’m in, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to acknowledge the reality of these spaces.
I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by Jocelyn Bell Burnell a few years back. What a truly impressive, yet humble individual. She has rightly received a number of awards in recent years, but she should have shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for the discovery of pulsars. For that matter, IMHO, Lise Mitner should have shared the 1944 Nobel Prize for the discovery of Fission and Rosalind Franklin should have shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA.
I wish you the very best in your future career.
Right? This is such a meme.
And I hate the people who let these things slide....the whole system is flawed....I am telling ya...
Joclyn Bell Burnell was a grad student working on someone else's project. SHE said herself: "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them." The only reason you think she didn't "get credit for her work" is the exact same reason this lady thinks she can just play the sexism card. You're doing the exact same thing she did.
Idk man. There's sooooo much push for women going into STEM, literally just being a girl (where I am from) pays you to go into STEM.
Women who don't get noticed, don't get noticed because they're just not as good, simple as that. It has nothing to do with being a women. It would be even less fair to give notice just because they're women, even if they haven't done anything relevant
Take this from somebody who has generations of mothers/grandmother engineers who say the same.
I say this as one who speaks for his ancestors who claim there was not an issue.
We need to do away with this "it wasn't me, it was a research assistant" bullshit straight away.
Who, pray tell, is getting listed as "principal" author on these papers?
As if she shouldnt be fired, anyway, for not screening her assistants adequately or verifying the raw data.
Of course she's lying about that regardless. Wonder if she can have a civil suit filed against her for trying to frame someone?
ur mom HAH GOTTIM
Journals should require the lead authors to sign declaring that they have extensively reviewed the dataset and have made sure it is accurate and not tempered with.
@@ReyoVRyep. If people want to take credit - albeit in a socially sanctioned way - for other people's hard work, then they should be willing to take credit for any wrong doing that they failed to take reasonable measures to stop.
I worked as a research assistant and my principal didn't trust a damn thing I did, rightly so as I was just a grad student doing grunt work preparing data and coding simulations based on formulae he developed. He still basically did all of it on his own side-by-side to make sure what I was telling him was correct and true. Only later in the project did I earn a limited degree of trust and input, and I was still audited regularly.
I LOVE that they did digital forensics on the excel file that disproves her claims and shows the "odd" fields were added after the others.
It is pure and high grade irony that one of her main topics of interest is honesty. Sometimes I get the feeling like I'm really living in an ancestor simulation run by a future version of The Onion.
The _nerve._ Gino is nothing but self-serving and truly despicable.
Harvard will file a counter suit and Gino will get crushed if the case goes to court. Vigorous prosecution of episodes of academic dishonesty serve to bolster the reputation of Harvard. Not to mention the fact that they have one of the top law schools in the nation. She is toast.
Haha I didn’t even think about Harvard Law, Gino is so going to be toast
So glad she’s being called out on using RAs to do so much but not being included as co-authors! Total bullshit. She exposed herself. I’m following this story closely because I’ve had dealings with someone similar.
That is exceedingly common in labs, is it not?
@@lijohnyoutube101you don’t usually get first author if it was mostly an RA/grad RA project
@@lijohnyoutube101 not in the labs where I’ve worked, in a very related field to Gino’s. If you contribute significantly in the way Gino claims the RAs contributed, that warrants being added as a co-author. Or at least offered the opportunity.
That is very toxic
The $25 million figure in the lawsuit is low "IF" someone really believes they are innocent. Francesca Gina is probably hoping to negotiate a much smaller settlement under the pretext of allowing Harvard to avoid the embarrassing publicity a trial will bring, and for her to get a little more money from this fraud. If Harvard wants to maintain any credibility they better go to trial.
Low in your universe. For a normal person that's several lifetimes worth of earnings. Heck, it's several lifetimes worth of earnings even for the average university professor.
That number is incredibly high for a researcher. Depp sued heard for $50 million and he was a top tier celebrity with the data to back (lost contracts etc.). The arbitrarily high number posted is just so she can get in the news for the reasons you have mentioned. The other reason is to entice prior collaborators to come to her defence (none have wisely done so and have retracted most collaborated journals immediately)
@@freebornfloor1600she makes 1 mln from harvard per yeae, lost her job bc of this, had 25 years left of employment. That's my guess for the way the number was calculated using relevant data.
Thanks for your videos, Pete Judo. It's great to have someone prepare the story for "me". P.S. Isn't it odd that one guy alone in a video recorded at home with simple resources can feel more reliable to the viewer than large media corporations...
My pleasure! Glad you feel that way mate.
Academia needs to be purged. The top investigator in my country (as in, the person that publishes the most) only does so because he's head of a public institute and coerces his hundreds of investigators into putting his name on all the papers. People like this have no place in academia.
When you seek status than the actual truth that's what always happed.Not just in academia but everywhere in the world.
We live a world where criminals are without shame. And they sue people who uncover their crimes.
Best to counter sue.
‘Crime’ is a bit strong. She didn’t commit a crime, and she’s not a criminal. But Gino is definitely an academic fraud whose name deserves to be dragged through the mud.
She is clearly defaming these four men. Calling them sexist could cause material harm. I would counter sue with a quickness.
The DataColada guys also have a GoFundMe as they aren't as rich as Gino! Go help them out! I did! t.co/09MKhnMyFP
If anything good comes from this lawsuit, I hope it is that whatever remaining dirt that was swept under the rug by Harvard comes to light.
Ah yes, the Shaggy defense. “It wasn’t me”.
Can Harvard Bussiness School counter-sue her? For damages for the image of the institution for example?
That would be so based.
I am not sure what the legal standard would be to show that Gino did her job not just incompetently, but recklessly or even maliciously. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think being incompetent at one's job is sufficient grounds to be held liable, unless there is something like gross negligence involved and definite harm can be demonstrated from Gino's actions. Showing that the result of research did definite harm, in something as squirrely as the results of behavioral research, is probably going to be very difficult. The best they might be able to do is to show that funds or resources were misappropriated to do the fraudulent research.
If they cared so much about their reputation, they would have been the ones to uncover it. They did not care as long as she was reflecting well on the university as a noted authority.
@@stanwoody4988 I have been told by university administrators that they aren't policemen and if there's wrongdoing, they don't want to hear about it. Having to deal with the fallout from a scandal is the last thing an ambitious administrator wanting to climb the greasy pole wants to do.
@@profdc9501 Agreed. We all learned in kindergarten that you do not snitch/call out. But, knowing the university is made of kindergarten graduates, I would have hoped that they headed off this sort of thing with review boards etc. But even that becomes "peer review me and I will peer review you. "
If any "fraud" were being done by research assistants, you'd have to ask why/how it happened over such a period. I have a hard time believing that the research assistants on the 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2020 studies were all the same.
Very good argument! 8 years difference!
The title of your video, placing the Defendant's name (Harvard) before the Plaintiff's (Gino) makes it seem at first sight that Harvard is suing Gino. It isn't the correct way to caption a lawsuit, just thought you'd wanna update that so it's more accurate! It should be Gino v. Harvard.
Glad that a few people have taken notice.
Thanks for teaching me that.
Thanks Pete! Happy to be supporting the work you're doing here. If anyone has any questions, drop them below. Otherwise, you can go to the link above to learn more.
I've heard that you list the owners of news corporations alongside articles, and I think that's great! My question is, who owns Ground News?
Hi@@animesuxxxx, we understand that readership varies greatly between publications and we are looking at incorporating this data in the future. Our main goal is to gather as many related articles as possible so readers can compare coverage, while also providing context about the source of the information.
Hi@@Noreen_Ni_Riain, great question! We are an independent company supported by our subscribers and a small group of individual investors.
Well, if the allegation are proven, maybe she should reimbursed all the research grants she received, along with any grants from other researcher that were based on her work?
Because grants are in part used to pay other people and travel, that would be impossible. In principle I agree with you but I think it’s just going to have to be written off as a loss
Her paper - How evil genius can lead to greater creativity.....at least she is practicing what she preached
im not so sure about the "genius" part
You have covered this topic better than any journalist. Kudos to you. I also quoted her research in meetings and pitches. She's a stain on American research. I'm hoping for a dismissal. Thanks for calling this out.
I was a student of Gino, she came off as a very subtle, but definitive narcissist. Her research findings just didn't make sense in class. She was eccentrically self absorbed in her presentations. Her academics pre Harvard didn't make sense too (more doctoring?). Audiences would often be swayed by her energetic articulate demeanour, at the expense of questioning how legitimate her research was. No surprise the 5 excuses are typical narcissistic responses lacking substantial grounding.
This is such easy accusations to make w hindsight.
Telling she's "narcissist" is just ridiculous since you're not her psychologist.
I understand something might been "off" but saying she seemed "narcissistic" without any proof at all just your FeEliNg I'd just ridiculous
My dictum; we humans too easily mistake charisma for knowledge
@@shelterit👍🏻 x1000.
@ghostoflazlo Exactly. Narcissist or no, either the DATA is real or it is not. She might be a saint in a dozen ways, however unlikely that may be.
You really hit the nail on the head with the incentives to whistleblow in Academia is low. The lawsuit is indeed a tragedy.
Love the way you pack a good 17 minutes of clear information into this video. Most other UA-camrs would only get in about 10-12 minutes worth.
I can see it in court, "Gina, Do you swear to tell the truth...", the judge will have to hold back his laughter.
😂😂😂😂😂 👩⚖️
So much gratitude to you for covering this case in such details! 🙏
Nice video, and it is a crazy story overall. I'm a Ph.D. student in Germany, and I'm so glad Im finishing soon because I see so many similar cases in my research discipline, not on such a level, but rather questionable procedures with "blind reviews" and other stuff. These experiences and insights have robbed me of my motivation to stay in academia. Industry jobs seem more attractive, at least in my context (IT, AI, etc.).
I really appreciate the fact that you recapped the previous video instead of just telling people to go watch it! i still watched both btw👍🏾
Yeah, that was a relief, even though i also watched it. I forgot about the sort-crime and only the image manipulation, which didn't come up I guess. Maybe i'm wrong and it was someone else who was doing western-blot Ctrl-C/V and i'm mixed up.
When academia continuously and highly rewards outlandish findings, this will never stop. The incentive is just too good for these people to stop. Francesca just happened to be under more scrutiny, but I bet there's thousand more like her.
Meanwhile I'm conducting my own research and finishing my PhD in the social sciences (communication) and every single line of text I write has to be approved by 3 different people.
Academia is unfair when these people get everything by lying while honest research gets left behind because it isn't enough on the edge.
IMO the most hilarious part here is that she was so bad at doing fraud. She could have just sorted her excel sheet and looked at the data to make sure it wasn’t nonsense.
I love this channel just for following theae cases. Man you deserve all the money in the world for the job you're doing.❤
Just wanted to say thank you for keeping us updated.
Amazing! Great work! Keep us posted as new developments emerge.
Trust me, she’s going to have a hell of a time being rehired to anywhere near as lucrative or respectable.
I work at a much smaller research University than Harvard, and someone with an allegation of research misconduct is poison. These people scare away federal and industry sponsors - universities won’t put her before possible funding sources.
It doesn’t take being a rocket scientist to see that this is obviously the end of her academic career. It would actually be preposterous if it wasn’t. No half respectable institution can hire someone who has been charged with data fraud, that’s just not going to happen. What could happen after this would be her opening a UA-cam channel and going fringe. Writing a tone of books and selling pop psychology to the masses. I can easily see her do that. Lay people don’t care if there’s any truth to what she says, if she’s charismatic enough, with the title of Harvard Dr. before her name, she’ll make money. That’s all people care about, she’s a Harvard PhD and she gesticulates a lot while she talks, that’s good enough for the gullible masses. Look at Jordan Peterson, curiously enough another psychology grifter! 🤷🏽♀️
The fraud is suing? Wt heck?! They should sue her.
So glad this is finally being allowed to come to light..for the masses..and on YT. Brilliant work! Keep it up. There will be enough corruption from these schools and so called “peer reviewed” studies that it will fill a book if someone takes the time.
Thanks so much for the coverage of this story. It’s utterly compelling.
Unfortunately Gino is not an idiot and she will probably attempt to force an out of court settlement.
Harvard knows that the longer the story remains in the public eye, the more likely the damage to their reputation. So there is an incentive for Harvard to settle out of court even though the suit has no merit.
Actually in this case I'm not sure there is. The optics of a settlement , even if the details are kept secret, would cause additional reputational damage or even result in pressure for a truly independent inquiry with a wider scope.
On the other hand, this is a chance for Harvard to show that they are serious about fraud. Though I could completely believe they will take the easy way out.
Thanks for covering this! 😊
Whoop good for you putting this whole thing into perspective Pete!
Can't someone do a replication study on this? It seems relatively straight forward for a different institution to repeat this experiment.
Academia has had problems with replicating studies for years. Much more effort is put towards new research vs verifying existing research, which is ridiculous from a scientific viewpoint.
The replication crisis is a real shame....one of the prime tenants of the scientific method is pretty much ignored.@@cameronhoglan
A Uni of Ohio researcher found guilty of fraud tried to countersue recently and failed- his lawyers have now been allowed to seize his house in lieu of non-payments but I agree that this is worrying. If Gino is found guilty she needs to be punished beyond what has happened to her already.
Meh, harvard's fault for not checking on who's publishing in their name, and everyone else's for appealing to authority rather than verifying themselves.
The idea that academia is above cheating makes me smile at such a ridiculous notion. And I learned quickly in life trust no one not even yourself.
I’m sooooooo invested. Please keep making videos like this every time the plot thickens
Pete, you are one solid analyst. Keep up the good work.
I view this one a bit differently as someone with a PhD in ClinPsych and now as a practicing trial attorney: you have to hand it to Gino - she managed to insult the intelligence of both professions at once with this pleading.
Appreciate the continued coverage
They should broadcast the trial!
If Gino is found guilty of academic fraud, she should also be severely penalized for abusing the justice system.
Nah, frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time. Her career being permanently ruined will be punishment enough.
Moreover, her status as a multimillionaire will quickly evaporate once her salary and speaking fees drop to $0.
I would not be surprised if she spent money under the assumption that her income would never decrease.
Something about her suggests she indulges in the finer things life has to offer.
@@50PullUps Separate crimes are punished separately. Whether she will be broke is independent of her weaponizing frivolous lawsuits.
@@50PullUps WRONG. She literally has undermined society. She should be hvng. Do you not understand cause and effect? It is people like you that are also the problem.
Slapp suits are a Hallmark of the US justice system $$$
She's made too much money out of this lie. People should just drag her to court over and over, and bankrupt her.
Couldn't help but notice the Canada Goose patch on the coat she was wearing and then remembering the graphic showing her over $1M per year salary plus hearing the reference to her speaking and consulting fees.
I found this review to be fascinating and well-presented. Thank you.
And this person you had sympathy for, Pete? She was completely unworty of your sympathy, I said that in the original video already. Now confirmed.
true
I found that weird. What was there that was sympathetic about what she did? She lied and put out fraudulent data over the course of years. This wasn't an impulsive decision. It was deliberate and not an isolated incident.
Really?? She should get sued. How low is she going to get.
Unreal... can't wait to see this backfire even more.
The last point is also no-sustainable. It’s within six years of receiving the allegations, not within six years of the paper being published
Great coverage!
The guardian is a slight left leaning is the equivalent of saying that Lizzo has a slightly above average weight for supermodels.
Gino is slightly unethical... :D
When you reach a point where you claim the Guardian is not "slight left", you are probably reading too much right-wing media.
I'm about to start a research masters in behavioual science and I'm genuinely worried that my unrelenting allegiance to intellectual honesty will see me outcast and feeling disillusioned with this field and with academia in general. Academics do not seem to have the integrity they once did and are facilitating the change of universities from genuine places of learning and tackling ideas to factories of ideological conformity.
Just focus on the data. See what it says then move from there. Learn to quickly and effectively gather data then you'll have time to do it right.
@@shutout951 are you involved with the field? Would love to hear more about it.
@@SpinodoDragon I do chemistry research using a lot of data analysis, but we also have a temptation to look for what we seek in the data.
As for human problems, those are harder
Great job on covering this. Subscribed.
Fantastic summary as always!
Thank you for sharing! While I know that they do not apply in all research variations, in the field of business I love to write case studies from companies that have a name, are inspirational, and provide data to write exciting empirical and even conceptual articles. You can hardly be more transparent and genuine. However, many, many, many editors will frown upon these on the basis that they are not 'generalizable' and wish to publish studies that have this often wishful-thinking characteristic.
Should data fraud (i.e. deliberate data alteration to benefit an individual) be a criminal act in the academic sector as it is in the financial sector?
of course.
@DeclanMBrennan that's a very interesting question. Shouldn’t the laws around fraud and misrepresentation be a sufficient legal remedy?
If we were to criminalise such acts within the academic domain, the standard of the "Burden of Proof" has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt".
I'm sure that in itself that is difficult to prove as it would go further than just proving a data set wasn't used correctly. There has to be intent and that could be difficult to prove.
As such, I would hate to think that academics and more importantly, their researchers could potentially be criminals because of their poor understanding or use of statistical methods!
Still, this is a very valid and interesting question to ask.
Loved the video! But for next time, the title should be “Gino vs. Harvard” since she’s the plaintiff
Agreed. I noticed that too.
An out of court settlement with a gag order will complete act III of the play with working title "Nothing To See Here"
Great presentation thanks!
she's lucky she only loses her job...she ought to go to prison for fraud -- she's literally the SBF of academic research
Don't the six years start when HBS was informed of the fraud? That's how I read it, so the actual date of publishing wouldn't relevant. But English is my 2nd language, so I might be missing something here.
The Harvard "interim policy" stating that the paper should not be more than 6 year after the university being aware of the allegation of the data fraud does not make her argument strong in anyway. It appears that Harvard learnt of this fraud less than 6 years before they commenced their investigation. She will not succeed on this score.
Excellent work Pete! Subscribed!
As long as I show those videos to my friends, they told me more and more cases of academia fraud here in Brazil. So sad.
With mega ties to big business: I'm not surprised. Or it got the keys to their pocket books. I think both. Those are some stiff talking fees.
Me and my group could do lifelong research in mathematics for that money…
Now you have a goal
Ngl that’s the smoothest ad Segway I’ve ever seen from a YTer
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
Can Harvard counter sue her after she loses the lawsuit?
They obviously will. And who files a law suit against Harvard law anyway?! Is she ok?! Lol Does she think that she can actually take on Harvard law?!
can people actually win $25m for stuff like this?
Probably hoping they'll settle.
Excel’s SORT function has entered the chat…
Great video thank you!
I want to clarify that I'm not attempting to support her perspective, but I believe she might have been referring to the process of recording data on paper in groups of P# with condi ton 0, followed by groups of P# with condition 1, and so forth. On the other hand, a counterargument could be that it would only require about 5 minutes to sort the data based on Participants. what do u think tho? 🤔
Pete Judo said the weird data points were at the extremes, AND supported her conclusions. If correct, that’s mighty convenient. (Especially if they happen to drag the data over the threshold of significance? Be interesting to know that.)
And even if these were purely random transcribing errors, that doesn’t say much for the quality of her research. “ I’m not evil, just incompetent” is not a great argument.
Academia and politics sleep together, and that's all we need to know.
Great job!
Very informative report - thanks, Pete Judo ... you've gained my respect. I first learned of potential issue of fraud (or poorly
substantiated research) around 2010, in a NYT article.
On the one hand, Harvard has some of the best (students & researchers) ... and they also feature some people doing
timely/trendy things. I think some patience with amateur technique is warranted (in favor of discovery), but integrity is critical.
I do think that intersubjective verification is essential to not only a given researcher's success, but
also the integrity and legitimacy of the profession as a whole.
@0:35 "If the allegations against Gino are true, this is one of the most aggregious cases of data fraud we've ever seen in the world of academia."
. . . ever seen called out maybe. The fields of nutritional science, pharmacology and atmospheric science immediately spring to mind, but surely economics, psychology and archeology all have skeletons in their closets too.
"If we were all untrusting of each other all the time, it would make it very hard to get anything done."
No offense man, but this is why so many people think academia is a joke. That is exactly how it works in many - if not most - professions. Accountants, engineers, programmers, data analysts, etc. all fully expect to have their work checked, cross-checked, audited, QA'd, UAT'd, and re-checked on a regular basis. Academia is the only bizarro world where for some unfathomable reason, everyone seems to think just operating on the honor system is totally legit.
Thanks for doing this. I did read some of Gino’s work during my time in Harvard but thankfully I didn’t cite any of her material in my final project so at least I can give myself some relief that the integrity of my project won’t be compromised by this.
I am glad they are taking steps to clean things up
Accusations of sexism make sense in the field. Just not against women. There's one subfield where the sex rato is about 50/50, beyond that one field, phycology has a bad habit of treating men like defective women.
Anyone coulda told you that academia is broken, its been happening for decades if not forever.
The most important thing is that she never denied fudging the data
That accused lady is more despicable than i thought.