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.
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.
