Harvard’s response to evidence of errors and fake data in papers poor and slow
In an interview today published by the science journal Nature of Sholto David, the blogger who identified the numerous errors and fake data in 58 papers published by major researchers and managers at Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), he notes that the intitutue’s response to his evidence has generally been reluctant and disappointing.
I’ve flagged about 58 papers. In 16 or 17 of those, they say the data was collected at other institutions. Three of them, they dispute. I accept that. But I’d like to know what the dispute is. [DFCI did not respond as to why it disagrees with the anomalies flagged by David. It also said one additional paper is still under examination.]
So that seems like it’s pretty much all of them accounted for. In one sense, I’m relieved. They basically accepted that these are all errors. I stand by what’s on the blog and by what I post on PubPeer.
It does leave a frustrated feeling because a lot of these comments have been on PubPeer for ages. But now suddenly after the blog post, Rollins has said we’ve known about some of these concerns. Why does it take some nobody like me dropping a blog to make them start doing this?
In other words, Harvard was going to ignore David’s allegations, and only finally took action when he posted them in a way that made news.
None of this story speaks well of the scientific integrity and accomplishments at Harvard. If anything, its stone-walling and lack of transparancy indicates that it has no interest in fixing the problem. Instead, it wants to continue to tolerate shoddy research work and low standards.
Makes one question entirely all the research done at Harvard, as well as the quality of education it provides its students, at all levels. This apparently is not an elite college, despite its long held reputation. Instead it is a place where mediocre hacks fake their work while teaching their students to do the same.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
In an interview today published by the science journal Nature of Sholto David, the blogger who identified the numerous errors and fake data in 58 papers published by major researchers and managers at Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), he notes that the intitutue’s response to his evidence has generally been reluctant and disappointing.
I’ve flagged about 58 papers. In 16 or 17 of those, they say the data was collected at other institutions. Three of them, they dispute. I accept that. But I’d like to know what the dispute is. [DFCI did not respond as to why it disagrees with the anomalies flagged by David. It also said one additional paper is still under examination.]
So that seems like it’s pretty much all of them accounted for. In one sense, I’m relieved. They basically accepted that these are all errors. I stand by what’s on the blog and by what I post on PubPeer.
It does leave a frustrated feeling because a lot of these comments have been on PubPeer for ages. But now suddenly after the blog post, Rollins has said we’ve known about some of these concerns. Why does it take some nobody like me dropping a blog to make them start doing this?
In other words, Harvard was going to ignore David’s allegations, and only finally took action when he posted them in a way that made news.
None of this story speaks well of the scientific integrity and accomplishments at Harvard. If anything, its stone-walling and lack of transparancy indicates that it has no interest in fixing the problem. Instead, it wants to continue to tolerate shoddy research work and low standards.
Makes one question entirely all the research done at Harvard, as well as the quality of education it provides its students, at all levels. This apparently is not an elite college, despite its long held reputation. Instead it is a place where mediocre hacks fake their work while teaching their students to do the same.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The Beatles -Revolver (1966)
“Doctor Robert”
https://youtu.be/niuNlPo1q9M
2:17
You would think that reviewing these papers would be some undergraduates job.
They can check for bad attribution and plagiarism real fast.
It seems that the higher learning institutions are playing the “projection game” that we see in the other post
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/six-questions-too-many-democrats-refuse-to-answer/
Funny how the same technique is being used here.
To hold a society in your hand control the PALM
Politics
Academia
Media
Law
Spotlight
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-science-sleuths-technology-fakery-plagiarism.html