Cheating

January 21, 2013

Against my usual principles in such matters, I’ve been reading pro-cyclist Tyler Hamilton’s confessional book. It isn’t the finest writing in the world, as you might imagine. There are also a lot of specifics about particular races, events and participants/characters that will be of interest only to those who followed pro cycling during Tyler’s career.

Nevertheless.

There is a great deal of parallel here for the top level ranks of competitive sciencing. A great deal. And if we do not clamp down hard on where the Glamour Game has been taking science lately, this is where we are headed.

A place where “everybody is doing it, so we’re just leveling the playing field by photoshopping bands” is true, if not an excuse.

I suggest you read Hamilton’s book with a constant eye on science fraud.

Advertisements

No Responses Yet to “Cheating”

  1. Postdoc Says:

    good luck with the clamping down… once you figured that out, let us know…

    Like

  2. Beaker Says:

    Epo didn’t do shit for my h-index. Now that my doc’s got me on these nootropics, my impact factor went up, my priority scores went down, and I’m in the clear ’cause teh NIH ain’t testing.

    Like

  3. BikeMonkey Says:

    Retraction watch, enhanced discussion of the ORI findings via social media….I see some positive signs, postdoc.

    Like

  4. Comradde PhysioProffe Says:

    Dude, you are allowing your envy and hatred for people doing high-impact science to overwhelm your ability to discern reality. The only place we are heading towards “everybody is doing it, so we’re just leveling the playing field by photoshopping bands” is in your fevered imagination.

    Lay offe the govt ditch weede and get a fucken grippe.

    Like

  5. BikeMonkey Says:

    That’s the sort of thing Lance Armstrong was saying…..is this an intentional parody?

    Like

  6. Dave Says:

    It would help if the NIH actually grew a pair and punish people who do get caught. See the Muchowski case for an example of this. Pathetic.

    I don’t think it is fair or smart to assume that this cheating is more or less prevalent in glamor mags though. And stop using fucking WBs as the sin qua non of scientific misconduct!!!!!

    Like

  7. BikeMonkey Says:

    The only thing approximately as common are made up subjects…but that’s clinical trials, not basic science.

    Upgrading the severity of consequences does little if the chances of getting caught are low, and the benefits accrue for a long time. In many ways the benefits of cheating are still substantial even after getting busted. The person is a professor with successful grants and some performances that one assumes are genuine. Just like the bike racer who makes his rep juiced. Tyler’s book tells the tale of Credit Agricole hiring Jonathan Vaughters after a dope-enhanced stint on Postal. JV told them he wasn’t going to do as well clean and they still wanted him. Among other reasons, because racing and training doped makes you better in a lasting way.

    Like

  8. Dave Says:

    The only thing approximately as common are made up subjects…but that’s clinical trials, not basic science.

    Not accurate at all. The correct way to phrase this is to say that made up subjects are detected as frequently. You can’t detect fraud in a bar chart without the excel file. It’s an important point.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: