Thank you to all the bio/chem people in the comments confirming that the blots are super obvious to those trained in the procedure of SDS Page/Western Blot. I wasn't formerly trained in this, so the validation is great to hear!
The unfortunate reality is that if you're slightly less lazy than those people, it's very easy to fake these without anyone ever noticing. That's why independent replication of findings is so important.
At 18.. I hadn't even properly learned to 'pleasure myself' using my left hand. . And here is a boy who almost brought down that mega scammer's career. . I feel depressed now.
I completed my PhD in Neuroscience at Emory University. I reported my advisor for faking data to two people high up in my grad program and was threatened by them to not take it further. It’s not that they didn’t believe me, but that they didn’t want to deal with it. Was even told “I better hire a good lawyer” and told all the horrible things that would happen to me if formally reported her. I now realize they were lying but at the time I was really scared. Instead I removed my name from all the papers in the lab & quit. Academia is screwed up. Bad professors protect other bad professors and as students we have very little power.
This is definitely the kind of thing hiring a lawyer is for, and if you have any written evidence of the retaliation threats, then you should still take this to court. This is larger than just yourself, this affects the entire WORLD; it's scary and unfair to be threatened this way, but don't lose courage or hope that the truth matters. Integrity matters, and retaliation is absolutely unacceptable no matter the industry.
Had similiar situation in military in mid 80s. Not a good time for me. Destroyed my ability to have trust in superiors. Hats off to u and I for doing our part honestly.
This is truly infuriating! I’ve heard these kind of stories for decades. It is true that if things like this happen, gathering evidence is critical. Legal and especially social avenues now exist to level the playing field. But you are correct it is not easy and does take a toll. Best!
Keep in mind that the first two are legally prosecutable, and the latter isn't. There's no way this is incompetence. The lawyers just advertised an "opinion" which many people still think means something coming from a lawyer. Now, if a Judge voiced their opinion explaining a verdict, then there would be a reason to pay attention to such an opinion. The opinion of a lawyer is completely different. Every day defense laywers have opinions that their clients didn't commit crimes when the evidence shows they did; because, that's what the law requires, a zealous advocacy of the client's interesets, which might include the client's very misguided belief he did nothing wrong. Every day district attorneys have opinions of people's guilt when they didn't commit any crimes. That's what the law requires, a zealous advocacy of the DA's client's (the state's) interests, which might include the state's very misguided believe that the defendant did something wrong. The only opinions that really amtter are those of the Jury and the Judge, and neither group voiced their opinion.
@@ChannelOfJoris No incompetence is not having the ability to do the required thing, But in this case its more negligence than incompetence and negligence CAN be prosecuted.
He’s so incompetent/ negligent (at best naive) at controlling quality in a small team that will put him in charge of the whole shop … failing upwards like one of the characters in succession
Sadly, the whispers of " Texting Lingo" contributing heavily in Final Exam papers has been a huge red flag of Academia's TRUE condition. Legacy admission is another potential determinant.
what does his race have to do with him knowing the word risk. Are you assuming white people don't take any risks? how racist of you. Theo Baker and the lady in the video both are white@@ALotOfCancer
"Trust the science" - I truly hate this slogan. I'm a biologist and I have seen plenty of fudged data. There can be many reasons but the two most common are ego and funding. I've been asked to exclude certain data points when submitting papers and I've always refused because science is supposed to be about the truth. Every time someone fudges data or blatantly lies they are setting back research as a whole. A single paper, if it's important enough, can derail decades of research as people chase solutions based on exaggerated results. The error that both scientists and science journalists make is to believe science is immune from the human factor.
@planomathandscience A layman could spot the errors in the scientific papers mentioned in this video. You are making a classic error in logic; reductio ad absurdum. Just because I stated it is foolish to "just trust the science", and it is even anti-scientific to do this as it's more akin to religious dogma. You reduce this to the extreme position of insinuating I believe we should just listen to laypeople. This is disingenuous or poorly considered argumentation. You are responding to a comment on a video which is literally demonstrating a case of scientific fraud which resulted in papers that have been referenced by other researchers and thus tainted their research. The result is compounding errors and systemic problems which may effect the field for years. If we simply trusted the science then none of this would have been revealed and more lab hours would have been wasted. Science is supposed to be about questioning and testing, not trusting something just because we have previous results which suggest it's correct. I find it quite unsettling that a science educator like yourself is seemingly so ignorant about the scientific method and how human nature can subvert it. If we had more validation studies then the chances of fraud would be reduced, but sadly there is little praise and almost no money in validation studies, so lots of bad research can simply slip under the radar as people take a lot on trust. Hence the Stanford situation.
@@Madchris8828 I have worked for companies who directly benefit from my research and I have refused to alter things. It doesn't make one popular or lead to more lucrative positions. I used to work in academic settings but it's the same there. You scrap for every bit of funding and any inconvenient results might see the universities lose funding from private donors, people who are often described as philanthropists. It's rarely said in a direct way. It's more like: "I see you're about to publish your paper on (pick a subject). You know (private donor) said they are very interested in your work. Their company is developing a new medication which relies upon (insert research your paper may disprove). Well anyway I look forward to reading your paper". No direct comments, threats or pushing is required. This also makes it completely deniable and is one reason people don't complain.
And as a scientist myself, I would just like to point out that many journals allow you to nominate the reviewers for your own paper submissions. This is how the "club" works.
First Harvard then Stanford, aside from the fact that it's unethical, just imagine how many patients would've been treated for Alzheimer's based on the outcomes of this guy's research
At least they are taking action! Duke does not seem interested in taking any action against Dan Ariely although the evidence of data manipulation appears insurmountable-even if we were to believe his incredible story that he is an innocent victim of data fabrication by others (when he is the only person to have control over the data), not catching the obvious signs of data fraud before publishing his papers.
Ivy leagues quality of education have gone down over the last 2 decades nowadays its just the name and prestige instead of the quality of education Good unis are between ivy and top 20
There needs to be jail time for stuff like this. There are real negative consequences to real people. This is not a victimless crime. We are not talking about personal use of drugs. We are talking about ideas that influence future medical research, potentially in the wrong direction. Its frankly disgusting. Scientific fraud should be on the same criminal level as a ponzy scheme or other white collar fraud.
Well, that is one way to look at it but the reality today is the "TRUTH" does not find favor in dogmatic politics. For example the demonization of meat consumption by multiple factions funds all research that supports their dogma no matter how corrupt it is. They use "science" to establish their version of TRUTH.
Lol don’t forget that there’s a financial motive too and that millions or billions of dollars are in play here. That itself should be reason enough to put these people in jail.
Who do you trust to investigate someone who can ruin reputations and careers? Someone with no reputation or career to ruin. Theo Baker just made his name gambling his future on the truth. Mad props to the kid.
My thoughts exactly. If he had been wrong his career would have been over before it started. Even now, if he were to switch careers to any form of medical research he’ll have problems.
@danielschein6845 Except that's why he went to Elizabeth because she knows what to do and how to handle academic fraud. I also don't think anyone else apart from them would know that they were investigating if there was no wrongdoing found and he never would have published his article exposing him. And why would you not want to hire him in the future because if the reason is he rated someone out for fraud, that sounds like whoever he is trying to get employed by is hiding something and also probably committing academic fraud themselves.
@@maxb148 everyone has something to hide so that commentor has a point hiring him in the future would be risky for any institution or company and i can assure you that they do background checks, in academic field you need to not be notorious with things like this or being sassy or disrespectful, if the case will be lost and it became clear that it was just a revenge or a show off to ruin someone reputation and this is very probable, he will pay a high price literaly (defamation suit) and figuratively.
I remember a case where a professor was accused of scientific fraud. It took quite a while for his university to start an investigation, but eventually they appointed a professor to investigate the case. Guess who? You're right. The professor accused of scientific fraud was appointed to investigate himself. Ho Ho Ho. Aren't we clever.
As a graduate student (hard science field as well), I can say that this is also a product of the academia only putting value in "significant results" and publications (especially in high impact factor journal) rather than really contributing to the body of knowledge. Even in our laboratory, the professors will not be satsfied if you give null results, it is crazy. And for their excuse that the president is not aware of his lab members' data manipulation, I wont be surprised, because higher ups tend not to check too much as long as you give them the results they wanted to hear. Regardless, it is still a display of incompetence.
@@jacob9673 not at all a scientist but I would ha e to disagree with you hear Nero science is about as hard of science as you can get. Very neroq and specialized yes but still hard science. Yes it is often used to try and explain soft sciance behavioral things but from a hard science direction
The unforgiving, punishing regimen of publishing. Something. Anything! Even if it's crap. Think of the grants. The enrollment tuition revenue based on rank, prestige, reputation. Don't rock the boat! Nothing to see here. Carry on! God bless.
Not really, thankfully! Just look up the Phillip Felig, M.D. debacle of the late 1970's/early 1980's. Dr. Felig WAS Chief endocrinologist at Yale SOM. His research post-doc, while he was on assignment to peer review submitted lab papers to a high-end endocrine journal, literally STOLE data from another investigator at another institution and had the BALLS to publish said data as his own. Unfortunately, he also listed Dr. Felig as a co-author. The post-doc was immediately fired and Dr. Felig was forced to step down from his chairmanship. The story doesn't end there. You see, Dr. Felig at about the same time was being considered for the position of Dean at Columbia medical school. After his scandal broke: not any more!
@craig4841 yes it is...stolen data = fake data! same concept at work here...lack of integrity...doesn't that sum it all up! But if you want parallel concept true stories about actual "fudged" data, I can provide you with quite a few of those, too. And, it didn't end so pleasantly for the high and mighty perps either!
Actually humanity is doing better than ever, China, Russia, Iran and many other nations have revitalized their scientific systems now that the aryan one has destroyed it's own prestige.
It's not broken. Researchers are people and some have/will fudge data until the end of time. That's why the Scientific Method is not only important, but important to understand by the majority, not just researchers. The last part of the Scientific Method is independent parties replicating your research checking to see if their methods and results can be accurately and precisely duplicated. If not, it doesn't pass. If it does, then it should be tested again and again. The true misunderstanding here is not that the person fudged her numbers, but that WE took her results as truth either forgetting or never having understood the Scientific Method ourselves. A key component of Science is to verify others work. Remember, to this day, we are still testing Gravity ; )
Kinda feeling for Theo Baker here. Exposing all of this and putting in that amount of effort for no real reparation or consequences coming from doctored data, risking his personal life, possible employment opportunities, connections, career in academia… he’s not an 18 year old with nothing to lose. He’ll be under scrutiny for a long time. There’s plenty he could’ve lost by doing this but he did it anyways, and I hope he won’t be punished for it.
I hope that he ends up in journalism, because a track record like this would make him look excellent to employers. God help him if he decides to pursue research:(
Well, this is why dishonesty is simply the fitter strategy in the society we've structured. You gain nothing by honesty - you can only lose. You gain a lot by dishonesty and in addition, you can ruin those who try to expose you.
@@Ghoulia17 A track record like this would make him radioactive. Journalists today aren't breaking the watergate scandal, they're helping perpetrate it and cover it up.
I had a lecturer who dropped a PhD topic she had been working on for a couple of years because she felt that her perception as a non-native speaker of English would affect the validity of the findings. She spoke with a BBC accent and taught linguistics (one of the best I ever had). Yet, she wanted her research to be top notch. So she changed her topic out of her own adherence to her own high standards. No one forced her, she just did it by herself. I have a lot more respect for her decision now than ever.
Maybe the two years of research she had already done showed that the results/conclusions would go against the narrative? Maybe she just made up the excuse of her non-native speaker of English as the excuse to get out of the research as she did not want any controversial findings.
As a PhD myself that has done lots of experimental work. The fact that any of these papers were not thoroughly destroyed upon revision is mind boggling. The first blots are so clearly copy/pasted a 1st year bachelor student would be able to see this instantly. The second blot is even worse where its so clearly photoshopped anyone should be able to see this. Stanfords initial response is beyond disgusting. If its the case that these results do not affect the conclusion there would not be a reason to manipulate the results in the first place. It begs the question who the peer reviewers were for any of the publications since they are clearly complicit.
As a PhD student, I haven't experienced this myself with my supervisors but I've heard on the grapevine that with some journals, the name of the principal author sometimes makes all the difference. If the principal author is a big name in the field, their papers get published with very few revisions. I've even heard of a paper being submitted to a journal and the person whose desk that paper landed on deemed it so poor they immediately turned it down, but the head of the lab and principal author for that paper who knows the journal editor personally, contacted them directly after which point the paper was immediately back up in the review process.
You're right, he was a lazy cheater, and still it took decades to catch him. And when caught the university defended him. This just shows how easy it is to manipulate data, if he was better at photoshop he would never be caught. Obviously the peer review system doesn't work, but I don't see any solution to the problem. As science is based on trust and there is no "custody chain" for data, I could fabricate a dataset using AI in less than 10 minutes, and no one would be able to tell it didn't come from a legit experiment.
That's how it works, especially for the American journals. And they will desperately resist a good research on excuses such as minor grammatical mistakes.
@luszczi It is worse. They go by name and reputation. They know the names and, because the people who publish has some weight, they overlook or even mitigate the damages of the research. Anyone who publish a paper knows that reputation and prestige exists also in the Academia
Why shouldn't they take advantage of everyone? According to many at Stanford, we are just evolved apes and any pesky feelings of guilt or sense of morality should be suppressed like an irrational fear of the dark.
@@zachmac3824 It's not just systems, it's also culture. In a different area, look at the growth of soullessness in the management of mid- to large-size corporations since the proliferation of MBAs and bean counters in upper management. And politics has become a bloodsport over the past few decades. NGOs have come under a lot of ethical scrutiny in the same period. The systems have been shaped by people up to their eyeballs in a culture of corruption.
If you can take the credit of being last author on all the papers your lab minions are churning, you must also take responsibility when there's rubbish in them.
Truer words have not been said. Sadly the buck does not always stop at the top (with the PI); it's easier to turn a "blind eye" on someone that's likeable and "productive".
I took classes with teachers who were big names in their field, national level researchers in an university not nearly as important as Stanford but one of the top universities in my subcontinent. Some of them got jobs teaching in Harvard and such. You would believe you were getting top tier education in research with these people, but nope... we got the basics that a RUclips video could teach you nowadays, and the remainder of time we got assignments to collect data as an "exercise". But they asked for SO MUCH of it that it was impossible to produce it on time unless you dedicated your whole day to it (We had 6 more classes and lots of assignments in each one) , but if you didn't deliver before deadline, they would fail you, and if you failed any subject, you could lose your semester and thus your scholarship and your chance to work in one of their important labs in the future . So it led to the natural consequence of many students faking some data, after all, it's just homework to teach us to process it, right? The more hardworking students in my class may have faked like 10% of the data, but the most lazy ones were blatantly getting two or three 'copies' out of one original datum cause they didn't care that their sample was unrealistic, they were even happy they'd have to work less cause it'd be more consistent. On top of it half of the time we reviewed and graded each other cause the teachers Were so busy and told us to just exchange assignments and grade them. Fast forward some years and I see these researchers published impressive papers, out of curiosity I read what it is and to my surprise one of the things discussed was the one from those assignments, and it slowly downs on me that they simply use all the data collected, processed and reviewed by their students. That's how they got so much of it and what made the paper super robust thanks to the huge samples -imagine several semesters, many classes-. And what a surprise, they found consistency that supported their hypothesis, and consequently their career and lifestyle. I didn't pursue that career, I'm a nobody, so there is no way I could formally denounce them. And even if I did, why would the committee go against some of their national treasures? Turns out they're friends with the researchers sitting in such committee, having mentored them. And the scientists I discuss this with tell me it seems to be a common practice in academia. So when you mentioned "lab minions" and asked for responsibility, I really felt that. Sorry for the long useless story, your comment triggered my memory.
@@scottjensen7555 I know! but tell that to regular people. and try to explain to them that the meaning of the word "evidence" can be stretched to suit particular interests, and that "peers" are simple fallible corruptible humans with power, and the weight that grants and donations play in the development of the current institution of Science. Many can't even grasp the concept of lobbying. People want to blindly trust something, so now they reject gods but embrace anything that can fill that void in them.
My mother works as a research coordinator, a non PhD regulatory position in medical research, and I have heard so many stories of her catching doctors and researchers attempting to modify their research or get illegal consent agreements or just straight up lying.
You have no idea what a rort Academia has become. 99% of the output is fit for landfill and the ultimate pursuit is the procurement of tenure (which is basically a job for life). The great mass of academics are poor researchers, practitioners and even poorer teachers. They no longer fulfil their role in society anymore!
You don't get punished when your supervisors are engaged in the same behaviour. You might go before a council of your peers (what a joke) if caught blatantly and they'll give you a warning or more likely advise you to be more discreet! @@lizxu322
I got rejected from Stanford a decade ago, and the impact it had on me was pretty significant. Thankfully I’ve got my own academic career now, and just like you this makes me feel much better that I didn’t get in!
When one lives in the most corrupted, warrior country in all of recorded history, one should be surprised to find institutions and leaders that have integrity.
@@halogod0298you weren’t doing it out of interest in scientific integrity or actual expertise, so don’t try and lay claim to anything. Your fear, innate distrust, or whatever horseshit you started on was never grounds for any of the demands being made at that time. This goes without pointing out the deep lack of relevancy in most figureheads and primary arguments made in opposition during the period. Was there room for reasonable discussion about risk within the scope of the situation? Sure, most of that was already proposed, but there could have been more thorough discussion. Was any actually reasonable dissent presented that actually fit the urgency of the moment? Lol, no. You were conspiracy theorists begging to be relevant in a space rich with opportunity to grift, lie, obsfucate, and generally do nothing good for nobody except your own egos. So yeah, keep the branding. It still applies regardless of the outcome at this point.
@@halogod0298 Because your solution was to replace people who know what they are talking about, with people who couldn't finish a whole wikipedia article.
Its kinda funny that Theo wasn’t even born when the paper was published. Imagine getting away for something long enough for a person who didn’t exist when it happened being the one who caught you.
When I went to UCLA, I quickly learned that most of my peers had gotten their through some forms of cheating. Academia is designed to consistently promote cheaters. Then those cheaters advice policy makers, and then our laws are based on lies. I know I’m being dramatic, but I’ve become so frustrated with the “trust the science” dogma
@@LeutnantJoker if you are outside science you don't understand how it works. But, first he was removed as president, two he will probably have a hard time recruiting good students and three it is very likely that he will not receive funding. Once your reputation is destroyed it is very unlikely you comeback professionally from that
Grad student in bio here. Knowing how much work and effort that goes into grant proposals, the actual lab experiments, and then the data analysis and writing of the paper, to have your work be based of shoddy foundations such as fraudulent data would literally be years of work down the drain. The fact that some academics can still defend and even engage in academic fraud is unbelievable. I've long been aware of the absolute mess that is academia, whether it be in the US or abroad. If you want to climb in academia, you better latch onto that big name professor at your university and never let go. Then you have to publish like your life depends on it. Then maybe you do a stint as a postdoc and publish even more. If you're lucky, you'll be allowed to enter the big boys club on a probationary standing. Now you have to publish even more for that tenure, but make sure you aren't too successful and one-up the senior members of the department... Academia is not a meritocracy anymore, it's politics and making the right friends. Highly suggest anyone pursuing a PhD to leave for industry after graduation, unless you are really passionate about research.
@@callusklaus2413 can't say I know much about the academic circle in paleontology but best of luck to you. And take my comment with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded after all these years haha
Yup it sucks. I also wanted to go for PhD, cause I want to prove I can do it. But it just seemed more about politics than actual work. So I got a job instead. Maybe one day I'll go back to Uni.
You should be better off. Just like everything else, the more money that is involved the more corruption that follows. My stint in honey bee research was fine, my stint in "biomedical" and public health attached to hospitals was fraud city.@@callusklaus2413
He should be sued and pay back his 1.5 million (ridiculously high) salary. Stanford’s reputation is down the drain for not standing up for science but for corruption.
Nah, they had every opportunity to check the veracity of his work everything was available for them before they hired him and they still made the contract. This is as much on the community as it is the guy himself.
I love how the official response from Stanford is basically "Yeah, the papers he worked on show false data, but it totally doesn't affect the experiment." Like, how on Earth could it not?
I was responsible for sending articles out for peer review under the direction of an internationally know physician. I quit after less than half a year because the system was so very unethical.
I can relate. I used to work in a wet lab with a highly prolific researcher (I was still an undergrad), and I was often shocked by the discrepancies between what I saw during the experiments and what I read in the published papers. The procedure, the results, etc. were all pretty much entirely unfamiliar to me, based on my daily experiences at the lab, but I just assumed that, as undergrads, I wasn’t privy to the details the star scholar and her postdocs were. Back then, it didn’t even cross my mind that they may have been engaging in data fraud-but, now, I am 120% certain that they were fudging data.
@@nondescriptnyc Pony poop. No researcher - even a talented undergrad - should be silently tolerating discrepancies they don't understand. And I never met a researcher who wouldn't have been willing to explain to the most junior member of the team why something was valid. While I accept that there are bad researchers out there - I don't believe it's true of folks in general. It's just too damned hard to do that level of work - without loving it and wanting to do it right.
I've been saying this for about a decade: Academia is a cesspit of backstabbing, lies, and misinformation. You get ahead by doing what is fashionable, taking shortcuts, and faking results. The incentives to call other people out are so tiny compared to the incentives to get in on the grift. Once we started giving universities guaranteed budgets and institutional respect, it was inevitable that it became a game of popularity and networking over doing actual science.
its not just academia. its everywhere, since the 70s. jfk was killed, the blacks got rigths, and the money became worthless. now there is no honor left in the world. when society ios a lie, dont be suprise science becomes a lie aswell
I had a very good professor teaching Electromagnetic field theory. Then he was directed to cease teaching his area of expertise and teach circuit design instead. Obviously it was a case of insiders within the university backstabbing him. And the ones who grabbed control, sacrificed everyone in their way to do it; with student education being collateral damage. They just don’t care.
“An indelible stain on Stanford’s reputation”…Stanford’s academic profile has taken an absolute pounding in recent years, they have long since left the elite club imo but all the top US institutions have the same problem - the insatiable desire to chase money and clout, so they prop up their superstars (it’s also why they turn a blind eye to people like Andrew Huberman or David Sinclair, as they are megastars that boost the universities). Stanford is just the extreme end of this phenomenon as they are hand in glove with Silicon Valley which is on their doorstep. Biotech is afloat with BS science. Elizabeth Bik’s specialty is Western blots, but she’s said herself on several occasions that she is less good at spotting clinical research fraud (ie non-laboratory based). This is way more common than people think.
@@lordsneed9418 😂 lol your definition of social media influencer is…someone who is social media? I hate to break it to you, but academics have embraced social media wholeheartedly. And why do you think I wouldn’t make the assertion about social media doctors? They’re are even worse clout chasers, I’m just saying academics are not some special breed that is immune to it, and furthermore they have perverse incentives (as Pete and others have covered before) that force many into having to court publicity or falsify data. I have spent many years in academia and it wasn’t for me. Finally, in my above point I wasn’t directing my criticism at academics alone, but at their institutions.
What's really grating is the inequality of consequences. Any Stanford freshman caught doing similar stunts would have the book thrown at them. In fact, Stanford can't now afford not to throw the book at any small-fry data fudger, not unless they want to lose it all and become known as the place of sloppy research from the bottom to the top. So you know they'll be coming down hard on the little guys - while Mr Big Shot is and remains a made man, who probably knows where all the bodies are buried.
🤯 you’re so right. Circle the wagons around the dude who could bring the house of cards down. I think this is probably 90% of why powerful people don’t get held accountable…drowning victims and all
I was investigated for running an experiment exactly as my PI instructed me to do. When results came back that didn’t support his thesis I was thrown directly under the bus. Luckily the Dean saw straight through the issue but I left academia after this. It’s rife with crap.
Having done doctoral level research for almost eight years, this is really disturbing and disappointing. Fake published papers should be treated as crime and punishmed thereafter. 😡
As an active geneticist in academia who has followed Elizabeth Bik’s work for a while, I am kinda shocked that your viewers didn’t think that this was common or could happen in the “hard sciences”. It is sadly all too common. I have seen many instances of this in my own field of plant genetics and cellular biology, as well as in other fields like neuroscience. Journals are getting better by asking for more raw data of gel images and microscope images, which is great, but does create more work for people like myself, and if you had happened to loose the raw data and only have the newer processed version, that is a huge shame. But the price we pay because the publish or perish system and the bad actors that it promotes are just awful.
@@Paul-qe1jnAs a PhD with over 1k citations, I think the problem isn't the system, but the people using the system. Publish or perish worked fine for decades. But a morally bankrupt populace will corrupt any system or institution. I think that's what we are seeing.
Sadly this has been going on for a while... at least since since my time in academia 6 years ago (chemistry). Our lab would have weekly meetings to discuss new papers and developments in our little niche. Without fail, every week we would see papers that had been clearly written in a dishonest way (cutting off graphs, not reporting crucial information, impossible claims, etc.). All done with the express purpose of keeping the green light on their grants... I guess. Because we were so well versed in our area, we could sniff these papers out reliably. Sometimes though, they would make it through our screen and we would attempt to build on what a paper had reported, only to find that it was irreproducible. This happened all the time. It was so common that we adopted a kind of "aw-shucks" kind of attitude... Looking back and seeing how things are now, I really worry about the health and direction of our institutions.
It is amazing to me that anyone could think a peer review process would not be corrupt. Science by consensus is not science at all as it is nothing more than science by politics. Popularity has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is true or scientific. Such methodology can only lead to corruption.
The entire way academia is structured encourages and rewards corruption. And as we can see from there instances, there's little reason not to fake data, as at worst you'll get a slap on the wrist.
The "Peer Review Process" is based on the MOST ABSURD assumption, which is revealed by a study of the history of science. It assumes that every 'innovation', (every 'breakthrough' ) could have been created by the CREATOR'S PEERS. AND....the reason the innovation was a 'BREAKTHROUGH' is because the person HAD NO PEERS. He/she saw something that was NOT PART OF THE CURRENT PARADIGM. Read the book by Thomas Kuhn titled: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Nice video. The incentive in the science funding arena is not to do good science but to be good at selling and bringing in money. Stanford’s endowment is 37.5 $B. This is not a surprising occurrence at all. Kudos to that kid for being honest and persistent, we need more like him.
These videos remind me of my master's program. We were studying a series of Nature papers from a high profile prof that were important in the field. The assignment was to explain what they had done and re-analyse their data to get the same result. Turns out the "hidden" point of the assignment was to show that the tables in the publications were made up and that the authors had invented the results. To be clear, these are all real papers, many of which Nature papers that, to my knowledge, have not been corrected.
@torunaga1927 Correct, the data was manipulated and therefore the conclusions are incorrect based on the experiments or the experiments were conducted incorrectly and manipulated to reach an expected outcome. I assume the investigation will reveal more about the specifics.
I’m well-beyond my academic research stage in life (MD in private practice) but I have conducted and published research in the past. The pressure to publish at institutions such as Stanford I’m sure is unbelievable, and I’m certain that this pressure leads some, if not many, to fudge their data. I’m honestly pleased that this type of “fudgery” is coming to light.
Earlier this year Dr. Elisabeth Bik raised similar concerns about some images in a couple of cancer research papers. The researchers in question are star researchers at a top cancer research institute. These researchers were previously called out while working at another cancer researcher institute. Both organizations were made aware and chose to do nothing about it despite one of the papers already being retracted. It's important to call out how insitutional complacency is a huge driving force behind research fraud.
Oh no, everyone in a position of authority is totally legit, nobody should ever question or doubt any of them in such prestigous and elite positions in society.. like anthony fauci, he just oozes with integrity and experience.. very charming and endearing man too.. 🙄😒
Those with coin, connections, clout, crews, computer code, control, communities, and opportunities can do ANYTHING they wish. They're unstoppable. In fact, this Theo kid is really an anomaly: one rich family taking down another! 😂🤣😂 Very rare.
Stanford is owned and operated by the government. If you think they stopped MK Ultra, after getting in zero trouble, then you don’t understand criminal minds whatsoever.
As a graduate student in chemistry, it was pretty reassuring last year when a young professor attended my conference talk last year and said it was important that my results had some null results. I kept it that way for publication and got accepted.
@@yourunemployedfriendat2pmi think by "null results" they meant a sort of dead end, where nothing interesting has been found. Afaik it is still very good ! It tells other researchers that there is certainly nothing to be found there, and therefore finding dead ends is still research, maybe not as satisfying however as one would like it to be. And most importantly, dead ends are better than lies.
Unfortunately, it's considered a good practice for students but not so for mature researchers. One is supposed to plan the experiments in such a way that null results are actually positive, as in "this approach does not work because..." and not just "we tried X and Y and it didn't work, but maybe if we do Z it would help - alas, we ran out of time and money, maybe next year". The latter kind of stuff is being told exclusively at the workshops, it is super important, but you would almost see it in regular papers.
As someone who has been working over 20 years in the Taiwan higher education system as an educator, I completely agree. The international publication system and also the internal (university) promotion process are both corrupt. Like you said, it's who you know, and, as another commenter noted, "pal-review" not peer-review. Also, one of the conference lecturers on publishing academic papers even blatantly informed us that the information published can be forged. I'm in the process of preparing to exit the education system. It's good for steady income, but not much else.
just imagine how many good reliable results are being rejected just because the false data published by these top researchers, also top reviewers, does no get replication and validation, how many hours of good research are lost because of this?
I think that the field of research is so small, there's no true anonymous. Just by mentioning the topic you already kinda know who's doing the work. And bias starts influencing funding, publications or promotions opportunities
And the reputation of journalism. Decades of covering this, and not one moment of skepticism. Disgraceful and pathetic. Our establishment has no credibility whatsoever.
There's a huge need for skilled science reporters in journalism, however think about what kind of credentials you would need to have to catch this fraud. Big ups to Theo for putting in the work but he had to go to outside experts to help get the understanding of what he was looking at, and he only knew who to look at because of existing rumors. If you are operating without any understanding that this person might be sketchy, there's no way you'd ever put in that kind of time and effort. It's simply not feasible for science reporters to verify the accuracy of every research paper - that's what peer review is supposed to be for. What can improve is the ability to interpret what research papers are concluding and how strong the evidence actually is. It's a huge skillset to be a talented science reporter and it does not pay well at all so I don't anticipate the situation getting better.
@@estefencosta1835 "he had to go to outside experts to help get the understanding of what he was looking at, and he only knew who to look at because of existing rumors" This is what real reporters do, as in The Pentagon Papers. It isn't that the Paper of Record and Important News Sources did not break this specific important story, it is that they broke NONE of them. Vigilantes did all of the work for them. This is why the mass media has zero credibility, in fact, they are so suspect as to deserve no nothing but disrespect, and are useful only a hint of what the corrupt establishment is trying to hide. Remember, according to the "real news" we were wining in Afghanistan for 20+ years. How can anyone forgive that?
@estefencosta1835 Thank you for bringing up the fact that while science and research get covered in media, even hyped to exaggeration, not all media teams include science writers and journalists.
Why Lavigne is able to keep his "job" and not get fired by the board? Probably because the board is also corrupt and should also be investigated for any malpractices. Investigate the entire faculty and staff of Stanford University if need be and we might see even more damning malpractices and corruption.
I've worked at three major universities and seen stuff like this. It happens throughout the research industry because people want/need to publish regularly to get more funding.
This man does not deserve to call himself a scientist, doctor, or whatever titles he had. Anyone who would falsify results to advance their own career is an embarrassment and deserves not only scorn and shame but heavy legal consequences, in my opinion.
I have learned from this video that if you pay a law firm enough money, they can produce a report with the right spin to deflect criticism and suspicion away from your superstar and onto his underlings.
The report might actually be correct. Stealing the credit from your students' work is an old, well esablished practice in academia. It's quite possible Tessier-Lavigne didn't write - or even read - a single word in the articles that were published in his name. Not that it makes the situation any better of course, it's just another kind of fraud than what he is accused of.
@@tessjuel The report may indeed be true, and I would guess that a law firm would not commit fraud for a client by fabricating evidence. Nevertheless the purpose of the report is to exonerate their superstar in any way they can, so the law firm is using its knowledge of the situation and the law to protect the university and the superstar and throw the underlings under the bus. While though it may be important from an ethical standpoint he knew if the fraud was going on, the law firm is there to protect the university and the superstar from legal repercussions. If Stanford can claim that Tessier-Lavigne genuinely did not know about the fraud, that is a lot better for them than if he did know and perhaps even condoned it because then that is a conspiracy and was not simply incompetent.
If YOU hire experts, (legal, accounting, technical) YOU hire them to make YOU look good. You don’t hire them to point out your dishonesty, corrupting, and incompetence, and they know that.
I've had that experience when I was in grad school. My professors were pretty low profile, overseeing a handful of students each, and keeping a pretty close eye on what they were doing every step of the way. But there were professors who, because they were chair of some large grants, had under them dozens of students. Clearly more than they could realistically direct. Some of them were actually legit. They were just really passionate about what they were doing. One in particular comes to mind, who had humongous amounts of money to pour into research because he had turned some of this early work into commercial software that were bringing in tens of millions. But the guy was a beast and you couldn't get a fast one past him. That's fine. But there were a few others that were absolute frauds. They had their names as primary authors on papers they had had basically nothing to do with. Just because they were paying the student's scholarship they were apparently entitled to be first author on anything they published, with no oversight, and with contribution being limited to just helping edit the final version of the paper. From what I gathered the guy barely understood the papers at all, and certainly didn't review them diligently. He did the kind of reviews where you basically find a couple typos and syntax errors and move on. Yet this guy was director of a whole department. He spent months of the year just gone, attending to international conferences and eating out paid by the university. And his number of published papers kept going up as his dozens of Ph.D students, forced to publish a minimum of 3 papers before they can graduate, would just keep slaving away. Awful system. And guaranteed to generate bullshit science.
When i read things like that, I wonder whether we should just stop this paper crap. there are 20.000 journals. no one can check out that much research. also, you might do outstanding research but not SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR. especially not in humanities. we should check the journal-practice for every field of study, and don't rate scientist's research output so highly. this focus on the quantity of research, combined with it's newness-factor, is ruining everything
@@PeteJudo1How do asian families deal with the fatherlessness, do they rely on welfare, or they substitute the fatherless parent with a relative like an uncle?
@@nssSmooge depends, in the world of academic research this is an absolute bombshell because of the position Marc Tessier was in. Considering Theo is only 18 years old and as an amateur 'reporter' has already brought to light such a huge scandal, it could be life changing lol.
@@PeteJudo1 There should be a study done on whether people who are named Chad are actually cool, and if they aren't cooler than other people on average, maybe the internet can stop giving the name Chad this free PR boost.
Universities are complicit in much of the larger corruption happening in our country. They accept federal money, yet they are little Ivory Tower kingdoms that operate without consequence. They are sorely overdue for accountability.
We've put up over a trillion dollars in tax payer money, so lazy kids can learn Marxism and be taught to bring down western civilization. It's disgusting
Read Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories. It is who pays for the science that determines the results. It is why Ansel Keys never proven lipid hypothesis won over John Yutkins sugar hypothesis. Money. The food pyramid is based on the Ad vent ist cult ideas, not actual science.
As a structural biologist that has done a thousand blots working on membrane proteins during my postdoc and have taken ethics courses multiple times, my favorite part of the course is where they show blot manipulation, as a person that would never do this I still laugh at how completely ridiculous people are at cheating. You have a PhD but you aren't smart enough to cheat a blot? In most cases it would be so simple. My biggest concern is that as more people get found out there doesn't seem to be any real punishment, or the person being accused just aggressively denies it in a way that we're the idiots we just don't understand the data, or that it was copied and pasted to save space, which is fine if the originals are in the supp, but likely not in older pubs.
This is why we need double blind reviewing - the paper is sent without authors listed and the reviewers remain anonymous. A little backbone from the editors too as they would know all names and need to be completely impartial. I don't know if I got sent many papers to review because I (recommended) rejected many of them outright - I might have just been getting the dregs they needed an excuse to throw out because I am not polite about it.
What you're not taking into account here is that there is a little game theory here. If we're all nice to each other when we review each other's papers, it's easy for everybody to get published. If we start being difficult, pretty soon it's going to be difficult for everybody.
@@martymcfly1776 Yes games are played, however impartiality and publishing based on the quality of the work rather than the renown of the author is preferable. There are so many journals with low citation index that mediocre papers can always scrape through somewhere. In "high quality" journals with BIG indices (maybe more than 8.0) it is more important to be showing only the most rigorous results. The atmosphere of publish-or-perish means that lower quality work, or the least publishable increment over your last paper, are pumped out to bolster resumes, promotion cases and grant applications. I would much rather we all had to work a little harder to get published than let through dross based on the first author's name.
@@shulamay I mean yeah but the argument was that it was one of the other researchers. I'm not saying that's what happened but it's possible it wasn't him. But yeah, either way it is his fault because he was either negligent or corrupt.
@@cofee2596 It sounds like it's the practice in his lab, not just done by one student. This makes it look like he instructs them to do it. But I guess we can't know for sure.
@@cofee2596 If he wasn't actively complicit, then he just proved he'll put his name on just about anything passed in front of him. Everything he's put through before is now suspect.
Thank you for sharing this with us common mortals. The only consolation in this sad saga is that Theo Baker had the lucidity and the courage to investigate. Congratulations to this young man.
as someone who went to grad school (hated it). i can assure you that it happens more than you think. This is because academia is driven by grants (funding) and they want you to arrive at a conclusion before the data even comes in.
I think the key thing here is not to limit your suspicion to just academia. There is a tremendous amount of fraud, especially data manipulation going on in "science" all the time. It all comes down to money, if you will get a lot more money in showing results that "prove" what the payers want to see, you will get "scientific" results showing those exact results. Doesn't matter if it's corporate (like the cigarette makers did), or political (like the man-made global warming hoax) or in academia... but yet time after time we are told to blindly "trust the science".
Physics PhD student here, and even I can see the blatant copy-paste job with the blot! I can see why a lot of journals are requesting access to raw data (rightfully so!), and also within my field it's becoming common practice to give tutorial style workflows to make things easier to verify/reproduce (computational physics/chemistry). I suppose with experimental work it's a lot harder to verify one off results, but that zoom in on the neuron had me in stitches!
I left my PhD program about a decade ago because of how much nonsense there was in academic research. (I decided to get an MSc and MBA instead). Part of the reason I left was because I was starting my lit review for my PhD thesis and was reading SO MANY studies that were complete bunk. One example was a math paper, but it was a model of a disease vector. The math was fine from what I could tell. It was a huge system of PDEs but the problem was that they used really bad papers to get values for coefficients. Like they cited a paper from 30+ years prior to get the mortality rate of the disease and that paper only had n=5 data points ... with a 40% mortality rate ... which is nuts because when you reference more recent literature (available when they wrote the paper) on the topic, you see mortality rates around 6% with sample sizes of 1,000+. I'm pretty sure this was because the authors were all mathematicians ... but maybe it was nefarious to reach the conclusion they wanted so that the paper would be impactful considering epidemiologists have cited that paper THOUSANDS of times over the last decade and if you actually plug in the 6% coefficient into their model, it yields the exact opposite conclusion! There is not only a problem of deliberate fraud like this and myriad other cases, but there's also straight up laziness / purposeful bias from researchers when doing lit review and developing models ... because of all the pressures to 'publish or perish' and you need to publish results where there is something profound in order to get tenure ... that just leads to unethical behavior.
Absolutely true. It seems that many people here fail to grasp the magnitude of this problem. Ironically, blatant data fraud often grabs the headlines, exactly like big papers get all the attention. While undeniably sensational, it's the subtle data manipulations-resulting from laziness or selective cherry-picking-that truly poison scientific integrity. Science has unfortunately transitioned from a methodology to a form of storytelling.
Well done Theo Baker. Thank you for exposing this Academia Fraud. I am sure this is not the only case that would have come to light if we had more students like Theo Baker. 👏👏👏
What makes me sick is that they higher you are up the food chain you are the more your protected. If your a university president it’s no big deal to be incompetent and unable to run your labs properly and still keep a fat paycheck, but if your a blue collar worker on a factory floor that makes a mistake your fired without a second thought.
You're word usage is that of a factory shop worker. - every time you mean "you're", you type "your". Yet, you use apostrophes in "it's" repeatedly. Fishy.
@@gregrice1354 So you get joy out of belittling people that might not have the level of education you do. You must really get off on public shaming someone who simply wanted to voice their opinion. I truly hope you can now spend the rest of your day walking proudly around feeling superior to someone you’ve never met because you were able to correct their spelling and grammar. Good for you! I simply wanted to state how people who can’t afford college or are unable to advance their education are treated like their lives and paychecks aren’t as important as the ones in charge. Your superiority complex kind of proves my point. By shaming my poor spelling and grammar your trying to show that I’m not worth listening to. I don’t have a high level of education so my opinion has no place in a public forum.
and if you're a student or lecturer, your career is just as much being a pawn until you can move up the ladder and become the boss... if you ever make it that far
There is a replication crisis in academia as well. Only 25% of the top 200 cancer experiments were replicated according to the Science article "Dozens of major cancer studies can't be replicated". True, it is because fraud isn't detectable in the articles or because of the publish or perish mindset producing bias, but the methods used too. They could either have been not explained thoroughly enough or omitted entirely.
P hacking is huge too, and in some circles actively encouraged by the professors mentoring the students. It's a toxic cycle where they end up producing nothing of value to academia (or even setting research back because of subsequent research based on fraudulant initial research) just to get a paycheck. Worst case scenario is fraudulent statistics or misleading conclusions based on p-hacking lead to real harm, not just an academic scamming their way into a living.
replication crisis is a term used for research papers published before 2000's, the guidelines of research has improved since that and failing to reproduce a result is something different than a fraud and usually the probability of failing to replicate is a natural consequence of accepting statistical power of 80% and first type error risk of 5% in Biology and Medcal studies, you need to understand that Biology does not work like Physics, you can't control all the variables in a living organism and even in some Physical sciences we are not even able to do experiments we just do simulations like in astrophysics.
If a "scientific" process can't be replicated by third parties, then by default... IT AIN'T LEGIT SCIENCE. End of story. No exceptions, no excuses, no apologies. Everyone needs to read Sagan's "TDHW" and refer to the BDK. No exceptions. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
It's a widespread occurrence in academia. Some of the biggest narcissists, rascals, and snakes rise to the top. There is a code of silence, not only to avoid backlash but because many faculty members engage in the same unscrupulous behavior.
I had a front row seat to this kind of stuff. Head of a medical dept at one of the best med schools in the US. Her lab falsified and manipulated data all the time. I jumped ship quick after uncovering how poor the research integrity was in that lab. Such a shame.
The perverse incentives are the issue. If you want to get published and have an academic career, you better produce papers with significant results. It's also the reason we see so little reproduction studies; they don't get published.
But fellow researchers at institutions are also to blame. Anyone who thinks any serious scientist can publish a manuscript every 7 days is either incompetent or delusional. And, these people get millions in funding drying up honest research labs doing meticulous quality studies.
Imagine how bad it is in psychology, a field that attracts all sorts of people with troubled histories just trying to figure out what's wrong with themselves.
I’ve been collecting instances of academic “fraud,” research bias, and admin bias affecting research. I use fraud in quotes because most acts the average person would consider fraudulent in academia aren’t labeled as fraud when judgement is administered. I’d love to see you continuing to personally investigate and reveal shortcomings of today’s academic institutions. I’m also happy to show you my collection of academia’s shortcomings, if you’re interested.
Go for it. We all know that "P-hacking", and corruption from within are common. This also explains why certain individuals always seem to "discover miracles" every few months or so. 😂🤣😂 In other words, a HUGE red flag is when we continue seeing that someone has "the Midas Touch". It's ridiculous. NO ONE can be successful with scientific breakthroughs on a consistent basis. Data is always cooked because REPUTATIONS and IMAGE are the only things that matter. Deeds, ethics, honor, honesty, and all that boolsheet aren't important. 😂🤣😂 Not if you wanna be RICH.
Fraud such as the one pointed in this video is rampant in academia. Let's not be cowardsand cucks hiding behind quotation marks. Fraud is fraud. Period.
This is a question I've had for a long time that you might therefore be able to answer assuming you also have historical knowledge of the subject you are writing about. Did this get worse as many universities founded by religious groups became secular? I know this is a funny video to comment this on as Stanford is one of the few large name universities that actually were secular since their founding.
Unfortunately although Lavigne may now be gone, his comrades and tribesmen still have a very tight hold over academia. This 18 year old is likely to suffer and be ostracized for exposing one of their own.
All of these published papers were peer reviewed. So much for the process of peer review as well as "trust the science". Humanity's capacity for deliberate deception is boundless.
@@jrbleau It's supposed to. Just like we're SUPPOSED to have laws that work as checks and balances to stop people from doing things. Problem in both peer review and law enforcement is that if you just get enough of your friends around to help out, you get the result you want. But then you see this in the public's outrage, too. People call out the infractions that the other tribe/team/party/scientists make, and then instead of holding their own group to higher standards they'll say something like, "Eh, everyone's doing it." Instead of arbitrary tribes, can we get instead get tribalism to the point where we're on team fraud and team anti-fraud?
We keep seeing that peer review is no assurance of quality or integrity. Lots of other medical papers have also been found to be fraud at best, or infomercial based on who's paying.
Science can be trusted, it is in fact the only method of truthfinding we have. Material truth that is, human truth is another matter altogether. Going forward we should distinguish between those who take science (I.e. truth) seriously and those who do not.
I took IB in high school and had to do an academic research paper to graduate. All of our class procrastinated and didn't have time to finish all the "experiments". Our biology teacher, who used to be a researcher, told us to make up numbers that made sense and that everyone does it. I'm starting to think she was talking about academic researchers and not just IB students...
That's repulsive. It must have been heartbreaking to experience that as a High School kid. Talk about shattering dreams right out of the gate. Thanks for sharing.
I'm subscribing because of this video. It's a sterling example of clear, logical presentation. I learned exactly what the title promised me. Good going, Pete.
Most researchers abhore this ķind of thing. Honestly, I think as far as institutions go, science is probably one of the least corrupt. But humans will be humans anywhere... We need better systems to deal with this.
Those people run all upper levels of everything. The psychopaths have taken over all centers of power... the west is done for. The damage done goes far beyond the cheating. They literally have destroyed humanity with their lies, their theft, their corruption, and other people looking up to them.
@@shulamay You sweet summer child. China and India engage in such egregious fraud that most Western research groups have completely banned anything from those countries. The number of completely fraudulent organic chemistry and biochemistry papers I've been through is mind-boggling. It's now becoming an issue in the US and Canada due to globalism.
I watched your previous video about the 'Harvard fake data scandal'. As a former assistant professor in a University, I'm glad I didn't continue my career in the Academia. I didn't see myself in the rat race of doing a lot of research for increase compensation and fame. I saw some of my fellow faculty dedicate time in research but failed to fulfill their role as a teacher. This results to almost to a less than 10 lecture classes in a semester, and I've heard that some only lectured twice a semester. The students complained because they didn't get what they paid for and the worst part is the teacher even failed some students. How could the teacher expect an output from the students when he didn't even give an input. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.
@@megenberg8 Yes I agree on that. I left the University because I need to provide more for my family. I went back to Tech Industry, to be updated with knowledge and experience. If given the chance I would still love to teach, but maybe in the post grad / masters. I don't want to succumb to doing more research and degrade my teaching quality. The students deserve a good quality of teaching. I was already working more than 8 hours/day while teaching. What more if I added some research studies. I won't have time for my family. I think you get the point. Maybe I was not fit to be an Assistant Professor/Researcher.
Look for the money!! The invistigators should find out who is funding this research and how they benifited from the fake results. The profesor should not only be stripped out off his titles but also obligated to return the money that was fraudently earned.
The words "fraud" and "neuroscience" should not be near each other unless it's "the neuroscience of fraud." 😳 Good job Theo and Elizabeth for catching this! 👏
@@Seldomheardabout bless your heart. Search the name "Jan-Hendrik Schon" and you'll quickly realise that even the highest levels of Physics aren't immune from fraud
When i used to go to uni, studying Physics, on the second year we had to individually write a lab report of an experiment made in groups. My group made the experiment with a faulty equipment (I realy dont remember what it was or even what the experiment was been years now). I was the only one in the group of 5 that reported the collected data and came to the conclusion that the data made no sense what so ever. Most of my group made up new data to fit the model. We all got the same grade. Thats when i saw that academia was fd.
When I was in college I tutored some fellow students in the art of lab report writing. They were dismayed that their routine lab class experiments “didn’t work”, but at least there was a solid analysis of why it didn’t work. Truth be told, a lot of lab classes taught year-after-year had equipment so finicky that you needed someone with significant professional experience just to make it work properly. I was lucky to be young, in college, and with some engineering experience under my belt. Students were routinely fudging data trying to “make it work”. I figured that everyone can be lazy at times and a seasoned lab teacher would probably not mind getting a lab report pointing out what goes wrong with suggestions on how to avoid it. It helped them directly in their teaching work. The “no expected result but here is what failed” reports got good marks! As they should have. So, it’s not even true that the lab forced students to fake results. The students just thought, wrongly, and with no one correcting them, that the expected results are the only “correct” results. We know how wrong that is. Reinforcing it in a lab course is tragic. It is real work to replicate some of the most basic established science in a teaching lab. There’s an expectation that because something has been known for over a century and is mentioned almost as an aside in textbooks that it doesn’t take much work to show again. Well folks, we have computers and cheap electronics, but there is still good old experimental work on the bench. The “giants” who laid those foundations didn’t get recognition for doing the easy stuff. And a good lab experiment doesn’t magically get simpler just because a century has passed. It may get less menial all right, but that’s about it.
I'll be honest I try to stay away from topics like this. BUT... I will put money on the fact that this happens more often than we'd like to believe. Especially with these big prestigious colleges around the world!
"...I will put money on the fact..." - Ya don't have to, just adhere to the old adage "follow the money, it tells all". Beneficial interest in recognition, breakthrough, publication (or pick any field of expertise and corresponding nouns) supersede facts. Their job is to define "truth" and be it an individual, or individual(s) representing government, business or scholastic institutions, they have a single commonality. All are symptoms of the disease. Did I mention follow the money!
In dubai indian professionals have ao many qualifications and degrees along with full-time job thats its impossible for so many people to do that in such a span.
Thanks for this. Will be using this video in a case study for my Philosophy of Science class this fall, in which we discuss the harm that fraudulent science has on institutional trust
When I was a child my family happened to be driving near Stanford University campus and I remember asking my dad if it was a hospital and he literally answered "No Hamilton this is the best University in the world"
I think he has nothing to worry about. If he's willing to spearhead this effort, he will be writing his own ticket to success. Many eyes will be on the administration and how he is treated.
He said in his interview on the news that he has had professors talk to him after class about how they are proud of what he is doing. So hopefully it continues
@@garrettwilson3032gosh bless Theo either was a public school enigma or a home school hero because he is not the result of modern education system. He thinks therefore he is. Fucking brilliant really.
My gf is finishing her doctoral internship at a program connected to Stanford right now, and is completely blown away with how sub-standard her entire experience is there. She excels as both an academic and a clinician, and the stories of ineptitude she tells me of Stanford-made students and a number of those in charge of the programs… neither of us expected her to have this kind of experience at the prestigious Stanford.
Hi Pete, impressed by your critique and delivery in this video. SUBSCRIBED. Not very interested in Academia but it is important to EXPOSE the CORRUPTION and lack of checks and balances ( in the name of MONEY ). I'm a senior citizen. You are among those that can give us HOPE for a better future by fighting the forces of greed, manipulation and fraud.
It's been half a century since I was nursing some electrophoresis runs on Frog proteins, and writing up experiments as if I knew what I was doing and seeing... Thanks for explaining all this.
The co-authors should also be investigated because their is no way any of them did not notice this hilariously bad data manipulation before getting the papers published.
The co-authors also all signed off on it, and stated very clearly that they support the claims made in the manuscript. They 100% agreed to what the paper states.
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you to all the bio/chem people in the comments confirming that the blots are super obvious to those trained in the procedure of SDS Page/Western Blot. I wasn't formerly trained in this, so the validation is great to hear!
The blots look like a bad copy/paste job! BIG red flags...Thanks for shouting out my western blotting tutorial vid too!
@@EmmaSandy My pleasure! It really helped me in my research for this!
The unfortunate reality is that if you're slightly less lazy than those people, it's very easy to fake these without anyone ever noticing. That's why independent replication of findings is so important.
It actually works, but under room temperature superconducting environment。
At 18.. I hadn't even properly learned to 'pleasure myself' using my left hand.
.
And here is a boy who almost brought down that mega scammer's career.
.
I feel depressed now.
I completed my PhD in Neuroscience at Emory University. I reported my advisor for faking data to two people high up in my grad program and was threatened by them to not take it further. It’s not that they didn’t believe me, but that they didn’t want to deal with it. Was even told “I better hire a good lawyer” and told all the horrible things that would happen to me if formally reported her. I now realize they were lying but at the time I was really scared. Instead I removed my name from all the papers in the lab & quit. Academia is screwed up. Bad professors protect other bad professors and as students we have very little power.
This is definitely the kind of thing hiring a lawyer is for, and if you have any written evidence of the retaliation threats, then you should still take this to court. This is larger than just yourself, this affects the entire WORLD; it's scary and unfair to be threatened this way, but don't lose courage or hope that the truth matters. Integrity matters, and retaliation is absolutely unacceptable no matter the industry.
Had similiar situation in military in mid 80s. Not a good time for me. Destroyed my ability to have trust in superiors. Hats off to u and I for doing our part honestly.
This is truly infuriating! I’ve heard these kind of stories for decades. It is true that if things like this happen, gathering evidence is critical. Legal and especially social avenues now exist to level the playing field. But you are correct it is not easy and does take a toll. Best!
vote with your wallet chump, institutionalized learning is merely a relic in this digital age
Emory's my undergrad alma mater, sad to hear this.
In a nutshell, Stanford's statement is saying, "No! Our president is not a liar and a fraud, he's just incompetent!"
Keep in mind that the first two are legally prosecutable, and the latter isn't.
There's no way this is incompetence. The lawyers just advertised an "opinion" which many people still think means something coming from a lawyer. Now, if a Judge voiced their opinion explaining a verdict, then there would be a reason to pay attention to such an opinion. The opinion of a lawyer is completely different.
Every day defense laywers have opinions that their clients didn't commit crimes when the evidence shows they did; because, that's what the law requires, a zealous advocacy of the client's interesets, which might include the client's very misguided belief he did nothing wrong.
Every day district attorneys have opinions of people's guilt when they didn't commit any crimes. That's what the law requires, a zealous advocacy of the DA's client's (the state's) interests, which might include the state's very misguided believe that the defendant did something wrong.
The only opinions that really amtter are those of the Jury and the Judge, and neither group voiced their opinion.
@@edwinbuck1854 wait, incompetence isn't prosecutable? Even though it was literally his job to prevent these kinds of things?
@@ChannelOfJoris No incompetence is not having the ability to do the required thing, But in this case its more negligence than incompetence and negligence CAN be prosecuted.
This. Literally this. That’s so much better isn’t it?
He’s so incompetent/ negligent (at best naive) at controlling quality in a small team that will put him in charge of the whole shop … failing upwards like one of the characters in succession
Stanford's lack of action is a clear sign that there is more rot within their system.
I thought that as well!
@@nicsxnin6786 Sad that Academia has digressed so far.
Excellent, original point. Thanks!
@@jameswest4819I think academia has always been like this. We just have the benefit of hindsight(:
Sadly, the whispers of " Texting Lingo" contributing heavily in Final Exam papers has been a huge red flag of Academia's TRUE condition.
Legacy admission is another potential determinant.
Imagine an 18 year old coming to you to investigate a well known and well respected person. She took a huge risk too and deserves some plaudits.
She took no risk whatsoever. Theo Baker suggested that she look at some papers. She did so and reported her findings.
@@hb1338You don't know what the word risk means. White guy...
what does his race have to do with him knowing the word risk. Are you assuming white people don't take any risks? how racist of you. Theo Baker and the lady in the video both are white@@ALotOfCancer
@ALotOfCancer how ironic you say that.
@ALotOfCancer Theo Baker was the one who took the risk going against someone higher up that him. ALotofcancer is a good way to describe your self.
"Trust the science" - I truly hate this slogan.
I'm a biologist and I have seen plenty of fudged data. There can be many reasons but the two most common are ego and funding. I've been asked to exclude certain data points when submitting papers and I've always refused because science is supposed to be about the truth. Every time someone fudges data or blatantly lies they are setting back research as a whole. A single paper, if it's important enough, can derail decades of research as people chase solutions based on exaggerated results.
The error that both scientists and science journalists make is to believe science is immune from the human factor.
Yeah, just trust laymen.
My favorite too is studies that are funded by companies who would directly benefit the research of said studies as well
@planomathandscience
A layman could spot the errors in the scientific papers mentioned in this video.
You are making a classic error in logic; reductio ad absurdum. Just because I stated it is foolish to "just trust the science", and it is even anti-scientific to do this as it's more akin to religious dogma. You reduce this to the extreme position of insinuating I believe we should just listen to laypeople.
This is disingenuous or poorly considered argumentation.
You are responding to a comment on a video which is literally demonstrating a case of scientific fraud which resulted in papers that have been referenced by other researchers and thus tainted their research. The result is compounding errors and systemic problems which may effect the field for years. If we simply trusted the science then none of this would have been revealed and more lab hours would have been wasted.
Science is supposed to be about questioning and testing, not trusting something just because we have previous results which suggest it's correct.
I find it quite unsettling that a science educator like yourself is seemingly so ignorant about the scientific method and how human nature can subvert it. If we had more validation studies then the chances of fraud would be reduced, but sadly there is little praise and almost no money in validation studies, so lots of bad research can simply slip under the radar as people take a lot on trust. Hence the Stanford situation.
@@Madchris8828
I have worked for companies who directly benefit from my research and I have refused to alter things. It doesn't make one popular or lead to more lucrative positions. I used to work in academic settings but it's the same there. You scrap for every bit of funding and any inconvenient results might see the universities lose funding from private donors, people who are often described as philanthropists.
It's rarely said in a direct way. It's more like: "I see you're about to publish your paper on (pick a subject). You know (private donor) said they are very interested in your work. Their company is developing a new medication which relies upon (insert research your paper may disprove). Well anyway I look forward to reading your paper".
No direct comments, threats or pushing is required. This also makes it completely deniable and is one reason people don't complain.
Science is a consensus: discuss
And as a scientist myself, I would just like to point out that many journals allow you to nominate the reviewers for your own paper submissions. This is how the "club" works.
So, are you saying you're a member of this club?
Pal review instead of peer review. Very convenient.
Some journals dont even review anything and accept papers for money, so what? Talk concrete examples and cases
Go on, don’t be shy, which journals
Lancet med journal. The hoax papers.
First Harvard then Stanford, aside from the fact that it's unethical, just imagine how many patients would've been treated for Alzheimer's based on the outcomes of this guy's research
At least they are taking action! Duke does not seem interested in taking any action against Dan Ariely although the evidence of data manipulation appears insurmountable-even if we were to believe his incredible story that he is an innocent victim of data fabrication by others (when he is the only person to have control over the data), not catching the obvious signs of data fraud before publishing his papers.
@@nondescriptnyc ya but (not even) half action is the same as inaction
@@nondescriptnyc At the very least, it is a confession of incompetence.
Ivy leagues quality of education have gone down over the last 2 decades nowadays its just the name and prestige instead of the quality of education
Good unis are between ivy and top 20
Stanford is not part of the Ivy League.
He isn’t to blame, he just magically moved from lab to lab where each lab was filled with people who had the exact same processes for fraud.
If he is a principal author, he carries responsibility for the content of the paper, regardless of who actually did the work.
There needs to be jail time for stuff like this. There are real negative consequences to real people. This is not a victimless crime. We are not talking about personal use of drugs. We are talking about ideas that influence future medical research, potentially in the wrong direction. Its frankly disgusting. Scientific fraud should be on the same criminal level as a ponzy scheme or other white collar fraud.
Well, that is one way to look at it but the reality today is the "TRUTH" does not find favor in dogmatic politics. For example the demonization of meat consumption by multiple factions funds all research that supports their dogma no matter how corrupt it is. They use "science" to establish their version of TRUTH.
So, not enforced? Lol
@@MichelleHellMartin Shkreli would like to have a word!
Lol don’t forget that there’s a financial motive too and that millions or billions of dollars are in play here. That itself should be reason enough to put these people in jail.
I say they need to have their hands and legs broken
Who do you trust to investigate someone who can ruin reputations and careers? Someone with no reputation or career to ruin. Theo Baker just made his name gambling his future on the truth. Mad props to the kid.
My thoughts exactly. If he had been wrong his career would have been over before it started. Even now, if he were to switch careers to any form of medical research he’ll have problems.
@@TheThirstyOtterwhy do you think that?
@danielschein6845 Except that's why he went to Elizabeth because she knows what to do and how to handle academic fraud. I also don't think anyone else apart from them would know that they were investigating if there was no wrongdoing found and he never would have published his article exposing him. And why would you not want to hire him in the future because if the reason is he rated someone out for fraud, that sounds like whoever he is trying to get employed by is hiding something and also probably committing academic fraud themselves.
Oh yes a Journalism student career in Academia is over...but his Journalism career just took off.
Nothing to loose and everything to gain.
@@maxb148 everyone has something to hide so that commentor has a point hiring him in the future would be risky for any institution or company and i can assure you that they do background checks, in academic field you need to not be notorious with things like this or being sassy or disrespectful, if the case will be lost and it became clear that it was just a revenge or a show off to ruin someone reputation and this is very probable, he will pay a high price literaly (defamation suit) and figuratively.
I remember a case where a professor was accused of scientific fraud. It took quite a while for his university to start an investigation, but eventually they appointed a professor to investigate the case. Guess who? You're right. The professor accused of scientific fraud was appointed to investigate himself. Ho Ho Ho. Aren't we clever.
That wasn't done by mistake or out of stupidity.
😂😂
Cant be true
Who was the professor?
@@adamantii I can't afford to say. Lawyers are expensive.
As a graduate student (hard science field as well), I can say that this is also a product of the academia only putting value in "significant results" and publications (especially in high impact factor journal) rather than really contributing to the body of knowledge. Even in our laboratory, the professors will not be satsfied if you give null results, it is crazy. And for their excuse that the president is not aware of his lab members' data manipulation, I wont be surprised, because higher ups tend not to check too much as long as you give them the results they wanted to hear. Regardless, it is still a display of incompetence.
“Hard science fields” are not like neuroscience at the intersection of psychology.
@@jacob9673 You're not a scientist.
@@jacob9673 not at all a scientist but I would ha e to disagree with you hear Nero science is about as hard of science as you can get. Very neroq and specialized yes but still hard science. Yes it is often used to try and explain soft sciance behavioral things but from a hard science direction
The unforgiving, punishing regimen of publishing. Something. Anything! Even if it's crap. Think of the grants. The enrollment tuition revenue based on rank, prestige, reputation. Don't rock the boat! Nothing to see here. Carry on! God bless.
People in high positions hardly ever pay the price for their crimes. It is always the scapegoat that takes the blame
Steal enough and they call you a king
Sadly it's been that way for a long time.
Not really, thankfully! Just look up the Phillip Felig, M.D. debacle of the late 1970's/early 1980's. Dr. Felig WAS Chief endocrinologist at Yale SOM. His research post-doc, while he was on assignment to peer review submitted lab papers to a high-end endocrine journal, literally STOLE data from another investigator at another institution and had the BALLS to publish said data as his own. Unfortunately, he also listed Dr. Felig as a co-author. The post-doc was immediately fired and Dr. Felig was forced to step down from his chairmanship. The story doesn't end there. You see, Dr. Felig at about the same time was being considered for the position of Dean at Columbia medical school. After his scandal broke: not any more!
agreed, but I don't think that's applicable in this matter
@craig4841 yes it is...stolen data = fake data! same concept at work here...lack of integrity...doesn't that sum it all up! But if you want parallel concept true stories about actual "fudged" data, I can provide you with quite a few of those, too. And, it didn't end so pleasantly for the high and mighty perps either!
The damage that these people are doing to the entirety of human science is inexcusable.
Actually humanity is doing better than ever, China, Russia, Iran and many other nations have revitalized their scientific systems now that the aryan one has destroyed it's own prestige.
Once your humors re-equalize, you will be right as rain.
true but, as you said , at least it's only human science though.... oh.... wait....
While theses Socialists call everyone else a Nazi.
It's not broken. Researchers are people and some have/will fudge data until the end of time. That's why the Scientific Method is not only important, but important to understand by the majority, not just researchers.
The last part of the Scientific Method is independent parties replicating your research checking to see if their methods and results can be accurately and precisely duplicated. If not, it doesn't pass. If it does, then it should be tested again and again.
The true misunderstanding here is not that the person fudged her numbers, but that WE took her results as truth either forgetting or never having understood the Scientific Method ourselves.
A key component of Science is to verify others work. Remember, to this day, we are still testing Gravity ; )
Kinda feeling for Theo Baker here. Exposing all of this and putting in that amount of effort for no real reparation or consequences coming from doctored data, risking his personal life, possible employment opportunities, connections, career in academia… he’s not an 18 year old with nothing to lose. He’ll be under scrutiny for a long time. There’s plenty he could’ve lost by doing this but he did it anyways, and I hope he won’t be punished for it.
No good deed goes unpunished.
I hope that he ends up in journalism, because a track record like this would make him look excellent to employers. God help him if he decides to pursue research:(
Well, this is why dishonesty is simply the fitter strategy in the society we've structured. You gain nothing by honesty - you can only lose. You gain a lot by dishonesty and in addition, you can ruin those who try to expose you.
@@Ghoulia17 A track record like this would make him radioactive. Journalists today aren't breaking the watergate scandal, they're helping perpetrate it and cover it up.
Some will favor Theo. Most will look to put him down. Such is life in America. 🇺🇸
I had a lecturer who dropped a PhD topic she had been working on for a couple of years because she felt that her perception as a non-native speaker of English would affect the validity of the findings.
She spoke with a BBC accent and taught linguistics (one of the best I ever had). Yet, she wanted her research to be top notch. So she changed her topic out of her own adherence to her own high standards. No one forced her, she just did it by herself.
I have a lot more respect for her decision now than ever.
Maybe the two years of research she had already done showed that the results/conclusions would go against the narrative? Maybe she just made up the excuse of her non-native speaker of English as the excuse to get out of the research as she did not want any controversial findings.
@@rl7012based
As a PhD myself that has done lots of experimental work. The fact that any of these papers were not thoroughly destroyed upon revision is mind boggling. The first blots are so clearly copy/pasted a 1st year bachelor student would be able to see this instantly. The second blot is even worse where its so clearly photoshopped anyone should be able to see this. Stanfords initial response is beyond disgusting. If its the case that these results do not affect the conclusion there would not be a reason to manipulate the results in the first place. It begs the question who the peer reviewers were for any of the publications since they are clearly complicit.
I can easily believe that the peer reviewers were just lazy and inattentive, not necessarily complicit.
As a PhD student, I haven't experienced this myself with my supervisors but I've heard on the grapevine that with some journals, the name of the principal author sometimes makes all the difference. If the principal author is a big name in the field, their papers get published with very few revisions. I've even heard of a paper being submitted to a journal and the person whose desk that paper landed on deemed it so poor they immediately turned it down, but the head of the lab and principal author for that paper who knows the journal editor personally, contacted them directly after which point the paper was immediately back up in the review process.
You're right, he was a lazy cheater, and still it took decades to catch him. And when caught the university defended him. This just shows how easy it is to manipulate data, if he was better at photoshop he would never be caught. Obviously the peer review system doesn't work, but I don't see any solution to the problem. As science is based on trust and there is no "custody chain" for data, I could fabricate a dataset using AI in less than 10 minutes, and no one would be able to tell it didn't come from a legit experiment.
That's how it works, especially for the American journals.
And they will desperately resist a good research on excuses such as minor grammatical mistakes.
@luszczi It is worse. They go by name and reputation. They know the names and, because the people who publish has some weight, they overlook or even mitigate the damages of the research. Anyone who publish a paper knows that reputation and prestige exists also in the Academia
The lack of personal integrity in our culture is degrading all aspects of society.
I agree!
Why shouldn't they take advantage of everyone? According to many at Stanford, we are just evolved apes and any pesky feelings of guilt or sense of morality should be suppressed like an irrational fear of the dark.
The people haven't changed, the systems have. We can't expect people to change. All we can do is create accountability by altering our systems
@@zachmac3824 It's not just systems, it's also culture. In a different area, look at the growth of soullessness in the management of mid- to large-size corporations since the proliferation of MBAs and bean counters in upper management. And politics has become a bloodsport over the past few decades. NGOs have come under a lot of ethical scrutiny in the same period. The systems have been shaped by people up to their eyeballs in a culture of corruption.
@@grizzlygrizzleThe rise of the left.
If you can take the credit of being last author on all the papers your lab minions are churning, you must also take responsibility when there's rubbish in them.
Truer words have not been said. Sadly the buck does not always stop at the top (with the PI); it's easier to turn a "blind eye" on someone that's likeable and "productive".
I took classes with teachers who were big names in their field, national level researchers in an university not nearly as important as Stanford but one of the top universities in my subcontinent. Some of them got jobs teaching in Harvard and such. You would believe you were getting top tier education in research with these people, but nope... we got the basics that a RUclips video could teach you nowadays, and the remainder of time we got assignments to collect data as an "exercise". But they asked for SO MUCH of it that it was impossible to produce it on time unless you dedicated your whole day to it (We had 6 more classes and lots of assignments in each one) , but if you didn't deliver before deadline, they would fail you, and if you failed any subject, you could lose your semester and thus your scholarship and your chance to work in one of their important labs in the future . So it led to the natural consequence of many students faking some data, after all, it's just homework to teach us to process it, right? The more hardworking students in my class may have faked like 10% of the data, but the most lazy ones were blatantly getting two or three 'copies' out of one original datum cause they didn't care that their sample was unrealistic, they were even happy they'd have to work less cause it'd be more consistent. On top of it half of the time we reviewed and graded each other cause the teachers Were so busy and told us to just exchange assignments and grade them. Fast forward some years and I see these researchers published impressive papers, out of curiosity I read what it is and to my surprise one of the things discussed was the one from those assignments, and it slowly downs on me that they simply use all the data collected, processed and reviewed by their students. That's how they got so much of it and what made the paper super robust thanks to the huge samples -imagine several semesters, many classes-. And what a surprise, they found consistency that supported their hypothesis, and consequently their career and lifestyle. I didn't pursue that career, I'm a nobody, so there is no way I could formally denounce them. And even if I did, why would the committee go against some of their national treasures? Turns out they're friends with the researchers sitting in such committee, having mentored them. And the scientists I discuss this with tell me it seems to be a common practice in academia. So when you mentioned "lab minions" and asked for responsibility, I really felt that. Sorry for the long useless story, your comment triggered my memory.
You are being too kind. It was OBVIOUS fraud. He was the instigator, not the victim. An 18 year old discovered this fraud.
@@sandstorm8874 Implicit faith in "science"? Science is evidence based, after all, and peer reviewed.
@@scottjensen7555 I know! but tell that to regular people. and try to explain to them that the meaning of the word "evidence" can be stretched to suit particular interests, and that "peers" are simple fallible corruptible humans with power, and the weight that grants and donations play in the development of the current institution of Science. Many can't even grasp the concept of lobbying. People want to blindly trust something, so now they reject gods but embrace anything that can fill that void in them.
My mother works as a research coordinator, a non PhD regulatory position in medical research, and I have heard so many stories of her catching doctors and researchers attempting to modify their research or get illegal consent agreements or just straight up lying.
What punishments would they get
You have no idea what a rort Academia has become. 99% of the output is fit for landfill and the ultimate pursuit is the procurement of tenure (which is basically a job for life). The great mass of academics are poor researchers, practitioners and even poorer teachers. They no longer fulfil their role in society anymore!
You don't get punished when your supervisors are engaged in the same behaviour. You might go before a council of your peers (what a joke) if caught blatantly and they'll give you a warning or more likely advise you to be more discreet! @@lizxu322
This makes me feel less bad for not getting into Stanford University. 😅
I got rejected from Stanford a decade ago, and the impact it had on me was pretty significant. Thankfully I’ve got my own academic career now, and just like you this makes me feel much better that I didn’t get in!
Dodged a bullet if anything
I went to uiuc so I'm feeling big today.
When one lives in the most corrupted, warrior country in all of recorded history, one should be surprised to find institutions and leaders that have integrity.
go bears! boo trees!
Anytime someone becomes so respected that their work is beyond questioning, you can bet that their work is going to become unreliable.
It's time we question experts as if they were under cross examination
@@TheGreySage0 we try to do that about two years ago, but we were just conspiracy theorist
@@halogod0298you weren’t doing it out of interest in scientific integrity or actual expertise, so don’t try and lay claim to anything. Your fear, innate distrust, or whatever horseshit you started on was never grounds for any of the demands being made at that time. This goes without pointing out the deep lack of relevancy in most figureheads and primary arguments made in opposition during the period.
Was there room for reasonable discussion about risk within the scope of the situation? Sure, most of that was already proposed, but there could have been more thorough discussion.
Was any actually reasonable dissent presented that actually fit the urgency of the moment? Lol, no.
You were conspiracy theorists begging to be relevant in a space rich with opportunity to grift, lie, obsfucate, and generally do nothing good for nobody except your own egos. So yeah, keep the branding. It still applies regardless of the outcome at this point.
@@halogod0298 Because your solution was to replace people who know what they are talking about, with people who couldn't finish a whole wikipedia article.
@@halogod0298No You guys didn’t
Its kinda funny that Theo wasn’t even born when the paper was published. Imagine getting away for something long enough for a person who didn’t exist when it happened being the one who caught you.
When I went to UCLA, I quickly learned that most of my peers had gotten their through some forms of cheating. Academia is designed to consistently promote cheaters.
Then those cheaters advice policy makers, and then our laws are based on lies. I know I’m being dramatic, but I’ve become so frustrated with the “trust the science” dogma
I understand your frustration.
There is nothing wrong with science. There is plenty wrong with the people that practise it.
There’s a big difference between trusting chemistry, biology or medicine than trusting psychology or neuroscience/neuropsych.
@jacob9673. Please define the difference.
And don't forget the tag line, "EVIDENCE BASED" whatever the hell that means. They can change that to LIE BASED.
This blatant curruption goes unpunished. Everyone sees it. Giving the powerful the will to pursue it even more.
You are wrong, they will be and are being punished
@@FJCDapparently you didn't watch the video
@@LeutnantJoker if you are outside science you don't understand how it works. But, first he was removed as president, two he will probably have a hard time recruiting good students and three it is very likely that he will not receive funding. Once your reputation is destroyed it is very unlikely you comeback professionally from that
Have you heard the term “Maya” ?
Nicely composed and stated.
Grad student in bio here. Knowing how much work and effort that goes into grant proposals, the actual lab experiments, and then the data analysis and writing of the paper, to have your work be based of shoddy foundations such as fraudulent data would literally be years of work down the drain. The fact that some academics can still defend and even engage in academic fraud is unbelievable. I've long been aware of the absolute mess that is academia, whether it be in the US or abroad. If you want to climb in academia, you better latch onto that big name professor at your university and never let go. Then you have to publish like your life depends on it. Then maybe you do a stint as a postdoc and publish even more. If you're lucky, you'll be allowed to enter the big boys club on a probationary standing. Now you have to publish even more for that tenure, but make sure you aren't too successful and one-up the senior members of the department... Academia is not a meritocracy anymore, it's politics and making the right friends. Highly suggest anyone pursuing a PhD to leave for industry after graduation, unless you are really passionate about research.
Leave the country, there are plenty of places abroad with the right credentials that will welcome you with warm arms.
Christ.. It's daunting down here in undergrad, looking up at the mess I intend to wade into...
I hope Paleontology doesn't have it quite as bad.
@@callusklaus2413 can't say I know much about the academic circle in paleontology but best of luck to you. And take my comment with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded after all these years haha
Yup it sucks. I also wanted to go for PhD, cause I want to prove I can do it. But it just seemed more about politics than actual work. So I got a job instead. Maybe one day I'll go back to Uni.
You should be better off. Just like everything else, the more money that is involved the more corruption that follows. My stint in honey bee research was fine, my stint in "biomedical" and public health attached to hospitals was fraud city.@@callusklaus2413
He should be sued and pay back his 1.5 million (ridiculously high) salary.
Stanford’s reputation is down the drain for not standing up for science but for corruption.
How many lies can they provide for him!
It seems like Stanford have made their bed, and he's in it
Nah, they had every opportunity to check the veracity of his work everything was available for them before they hired him and they still made the contract. This is as much on the community as it is the guy himself.
Big names are big for their marketing departments...
Nope. That's not how it works. They had the chance to vet him, and chose to be complicit in his BS. They deserve to lose that money.
I love how the official response from Stanford is basically "Yeah, the papers he worked on show false data, but it totally doesn't affect the experiment." Like, how on Earth could it not?
I was responsible for sending articles out for peer review under the direction of an internationally know physician. I quit after less than half a year because the system was so very unethical.
I can relate. I used to work in a wet lab with a highly prolific researcher (I was still an undergrad), and I was often shocked by the discrepancies between what I saw during the experiments and what I read in the published papers. The procedure, the results, etc. were all pretty much entirely unfamiliar to me, based on my daily experiences at the lab, but I just assumed that, as undergrads, I wasn’t privy to the details the star scholar and her postdocs were. Back then, it didn’t even cross my mind that they may have been engaging in data fraud-but, now, I am 120% certain that they were fudging data.
Name and shame bro. It’s the only way for the system to self correct
Not very specific. Why?
@@ssgg23 Probably because it's not entirely true.
@@nondescriptnyc Pony poop. No researcher - even a talented undergrad - should be silently tolerating discrepancies they don't understand. And I never met a researcher who wouldn't have been willing to explain to the most junior member of the team why something was valid. While I accept that there are bad researchers out there - I don't believe it's true of folks in general. It's just too damned hard to do that level of work - without loving it and wanting to do it right.
I've been saying this for about a decade:
Academia is a cesspit of backstabbing, lies, and misinformation. You get ahead by doing what is fashionable, taking shortcuts, and faking results. The incentives to call other people out are so tiny compared to the incentives to get in on the grift. Once we started giving universities guaranteed budgets and institutional respect, it was inevitable that it became a game of popularity and networking over doing actual science.
We dont need your education, we dont need your thought control
lol
its not just academia. its everywhere, since the 70s. jfk was killed, the blacks got rigths, and the money became worthless. now there is no honor left in the world. when society ios a lie, dont be suprise science becomes a lie aswell
We are in a new dark age
I had a very good professor teaching Electromagnetic field theory. Then he was directed to cease teaching his area of expertise and teach circuit design instead. Obviously it was a case of insiders within the university backstabbing him. And the ones who grabbed control, sacrificed everyone in their way to do it; with student education being collateral damage. They just don’t care.
“An indelible stain on Stanford’s reputation”…Stanford’s academic profile has taken an absolute pounding in recent years, they have long since left the elite club imo but all the top US institutions have the same problem - the insatiable desire to chase money and clout, so they prop up their superstars (it’s also why they turn a blind eye to people like Andrew Huberman or David Sinclair, as they are megastars that boost the universities). Stanford is just the extreme end of this phenomenon as they are hand in glove with Silicon Valley which is on their doorstep. Biotech is afloat with BS science. Elizabeth Bik’s specialty is Western blots, but she’s said herself on several occasions that she is less good at spotting clinical research fraud (ie non-laboratory based). This is way more common than people think.
I've seen some social science shenanigans in my career, but at least it "wasn't hurting" anyone. Medical research fraud is taking it one step further.
hmm the social media influencer doctor complaining about academics chasing clout. Sounds pretty rich coming from you if you ask me.
Bro I hated community college. But I trust it way more than racist Ivy League schools that float only upon their laurels.
@@lordsneed9418 😂 lol your definition of social media influencer is…someone who is social media? I hate to break it to you, but academics have embraced social media wholeheartedly. And why do you think I wouldn’t make the assertion about social media doctors? They’re are even worse clout chasers, I’m just saying academics are not some special breed that is immune to it, and furthermore they have perverse incentives (as Pete and others have covered before) that force many into having to court publicity or falsify data. I have spent many years in academia and it wasn’t for me. Finally, in my above point I wasn’t directing my criticism at academics alone, but at their institutions.
What do you mean by "turning a blind eye on..."? What exactly have these two done?
What's really grating is the inequality of consequences. Any Stanford freshman caught doing similar stunts would have the book thrown at them. In fact, Stanford can't now afford not to throw the book at any small-fry data fudger, not unless they want to lose it all and become known as the place of sloppy research from the bottom to the top. So you know they'll be coming down hard on the little guys - while Mr Big Shot is and remains a made man, who probably knows where all the bodies are buried.
🤯 you’re so right. Circle the wagons around the dude who could bring the house of cards down. I think this is probably 90% of why powerful people don’t get held accountable…drowning victims and all
I was investigated for running an experiment exactly as my PI instructed me to do. When results came back that didn’t support his thesis I was thrown directly under the bus. Luckily the Dean saw straight through the issue but I left academia after this. It’s rife with crap.
you explain A LOT, this was exactly my hypothesis of the origin of all these POORLY faked photos.
Having done doctoral level research for almost eight years, this is really disturbing and disappointing. Fake published papers should be treated as crime and punishmed thereafter. 😡
Anyone surprised by this wasn't paying attention during COVID
As an active geneticist in academia who has followed Elizabeth Bik’s work for a while, I am kinda shocked that your viewers didn’t think that this was common or could happen in the “hard sciences”. It is sadly all too common. I have seen many instances of this in my own field of plant genetics and cellular biology, as well as in other fields like neuroscience.
Journals are getting better by asking for more raw data of gel images and microscope images, which is great, but does create more work for people like myself, and if you had happened to loose the raw data and only have the newer processed version, that is a huge shame. But the price we pay because the publish or perish system and the bad actors that it promotes are just awful.
Not an academic, but what's the solution to publish or perish ?
@@Paul-qe1jn Without getting into detail... create more incentives for publishing null results.
Removing financial incentives/dependencies
@@emmanuelalagbala9590 I wish it were that simple.
@@Paul-qe1jnAs a PhD with over 1k citations, I think the problem isn't the system, but the people using the system. Publish or perish worked fine for decades. But a morally bankrupt populace will corrupt any system or institution. I think that's what we are seeing.
"He didn't check it". Yep, people want all the glory of the success and zero responsibility for the failure.
Sadly this has been going on for a while... at least since since my time in academia 6 years ago (chemistry). Our lab would have weekly meetings to discuss new papers and developments in our little niche. Without fail, every week we would see papers that had been clearly written in a dishonest way (cutting off graphs, not reporting crucial information, impossible claims, etc.). All done with the express purpose of keeping the green light on their grants... I guess. Because we were so well versed in our area, we could sniff these papers out reliably. Sometimes though, they would make it through our screen and we would attempt to build on what a paper had reported, only to find that it was irreproducible. This happened all the time. It was so common that we adopted a kind of "aw-shucks" kind of attitude... Looking back and seeing how things are now, I really worry about the health and direction of our institutions.
What was the field?
@@strikephorce Photocatalysis primarily, but our lab touched on most of the "broader" fields. We also worked a lot on MOFs. I'll leave it at that lol
Punishment needs to be severe. This is undermining our institutions
Nothing is going to happen and these people will get good jobs.
@@SevenTheMisgiven 🤷♂Yup, no surprises there🙄
Trust the science!
😂😂😂 The institutions are already gone.
You need to spell it "undermined" as in past tense.
As a researcher, this is saddening. This affects the integrity of the entire the peer review process.
It is amazing to me that anyone could think a peer review process would not be corrupt. Science by consensus is not science at all as it is nothing more than science by politics. Popularity has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is true or scientific. Such methodology can only lead to corruption.
The entire way academia is structured encourages and rewards corruption. And as we can see from there instances, there's little reason not to fake data, as at worst you'll get a slap on the wrist.
Integrity?
LOL.
The "Peer Review Process" is based on the MOST ABSURD assumption, which is revealed by a study of the history of science. It assumes that every 'innovation', (every 'breakthrough' ) could have been created by the CREATOR'S PEERS. AND....the reason the innovation was a 'BREAKTHROUGH' is because the person HAD NO PEERS. He/she saw something that was NOT PART OF THE CURRENT PARADIGM. Read the book by Thomas Kuhn titled: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
It would be more correct to say that this =reveals= the (lack of) integrity of the entire peer review process.
Nice video. The incentive in the science funding arena is not to do good science but to be good at selling and bringing in money. Stanford’s endowment is 37.5 $B. This is not a surprising occurrence at all. Kudos to that kid for being honest and persistent, we need more like him.
These videos remind me of my master's program. We were studying a series of Nature papers from a high profile prof that were important in the field. The assignment was to explain what they had done and re-analyse their data to get the same result. Turns out the "hidden" point of the assignment was to show that the tables in the publications were made up and that the authors had invented the results.
To be clear, these are all real papers, many of which Nature papers that, to my knowledge, have not been corrected.
A standing ovation to the kid. He had nothing to lose, and so was able to risk everything in order to investigate something no one else would dare to
what's surprising is that he got away with it and didn't get slandered and thrown out of Stanford!
@jwenting got away with what? Some pictures? Were the results of the data based on those doctored images? I really dont get it.
@torunaga1927 Correct, the data was manipulated and therefore the conclusions are incorrect based on the experiments or the experiments were conducted incorrectly and manipulated to reach an expected outcome. I assume the investigation will reveal more about the specifics.
I don't think metaphorically, kicking one of the "brightest and best" in the nuts, won't win him any friends at Sanford.
"He had nothing to lose, . . "? He was putting his academic future at Stanford on the line AND now he has a target on his back.
I’m well-beyond my academic research stage in life (MD in private practice) but I have conducted and published research in the past. The pressure to publish at institutions such as Stanford I’m sure is unbelievable, and I’m certain that this pressure leads some, if not many, to fudge their data. I’m honestly pleased that this type of “fudgery” is coming to light.
"Fudgery"... Nice Euphemism for FRAUD and CORRUPTION.
“Mistakes” for the elite and politicians renders different consequential results from “mistakes” made by average citizens and scapegoats.
Earlier this year Dr. Elisabeth Bik raised similar concerns about some images in a couple of cancer research papers. The researchers in question are star researchers at a top cancer research institute. These researchers were previously called out while working at another cancer researcher institute. Both organizations were made aware and chose to do nothing about it despite one of the papers already being retracted. It's important to call out how insitutional complacency is a huge driving force behind research fraud.
She is pretty good at what she does! I loved to see her on Twitter haunting inconsistencies on papers. 😅
You know the scary thing? The cheaters might have a ton of dirt on others or the institution as a whole, therefore the institution does nothing.
A hard lesson for Institutional complacency is the Challenger exlosion.
I’m a layman. I think most things I hear about cancer are bs
What a shock. People in positions of power and authority lying. So unheard of...
😡
Oh no, everyone in a position of authority is totally legit, nobody should ever question or doubt any of them in such prestigous and elite positions in society.. like anthony fauci, he just oozes with integrity and experience.. very charming and endearing man too..
🙄😒
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 for real
Those with coin, connections, clout, crews, computer code, control, communities, and opportunities can do ANYTHING they wish. They're unstoppable. In fact, this Theo kid is really an anomaly: one rich family taking down another! 😂🤣😂 Very rare.
@@marcodarko6941In fact, Anthony Fauci does exude integrity and has experience.
Opinions are like assholes.
We all have one.@@beryllium1932
And people wonder why institutional trust has collapsed like a dying star.
We live in a society where money, not competence or logic makes the rules. Watch, observe and protest: bring liars to light!
Stanford is owned and operated by the government. If you think they stopped MK Ultra, after getting in zero trouble, then you don’t understand criminal minds whatsoever.
As a graduate student in chemistry, it was pretty reassuring last year when a young professor attended my conference talk last year and said it was important that my results had some null results. I kept it that way for publication and got accepted.
What does that mean?
@@yourunemployedfriendat2pmi think by "null results" they meant a sort of dead end, where nothing interesting has been found.
Afaik it is still very good ! It tells other researchers that there is certainly nothing to be found there, and therefore finding dead ends is still research, maybe not as satisfying however as one would like it to be.
And most importantly, dead ends are better than lies.
Unfortunately, it's considered a good practice for students but not so for mature researchers.
One is supposed to plan the experiments in such a way that null results are actually positive, as in "this approach does not work because..." and not just "we tried X and Y and it didn't work, but maybe if we do Z it would help - alas, we ran out of time and money, maybe next year". The latter kind of stuff is being told exclusively at the workshops, it is super important, but you would almost see it in regular papers.
As someone who has been working over 20 years in the Taiwan higher education system as an educator, I completely agree. The international publication system and also the internal (university) promotion process are both corrupt. Like you said, it's who you know, and, as another commenter noted, "pal-review" not peer-review. Also, one of the conference lecturers on publishing academic papers even blatantly informed us that the information published can be forged. I'm in the process of preparing to exit the education system. It's good for steady income, but not much else.
you review me, I review you.
just imagine how many good reliable results are being rejected just because the false data published by these top researchers, also top reviewers, does no get replication and validation, how many hours of good research are lost because of this?
I think that the field of research is so small, there's no true anonymous. Just by mentioning the topic you already kinda know who's doing the work. And bias starts influencing funding, publications or promotions opportunities
Humanity is a failed species.
Yet, in most of other fields there is no any review process.
And the reputation of journalism. Decades of covering this, and not one moment of skepticism. Disgraceful and pathetic. Our establishment has no credibility whatsoever.
There's a huge need for skilled science reporters in journalism, however think about what kind of credentials you would need to have to catch this fraud. Big ups to Theo for putting in the work but he had to go to outside experts to help get the understanding of what he was looking at, and he only knew who to look at because of existing rumors. If you are operating without any understanding that this person might be sketchy, there's no way you'd ever put in that kind of time and effort. It's simply not feasible for science reporters to verify the accuracy of every research paper - that's what peer review is supposed to be for. What can improve is the ability to interpret what research papers are concluding and how strong the evidence actually is.
It's a huge skillset to be a talented science reporter and it does not pay well at all so I don't anticipate the situation getting better.
@@estefencosta1835 "he had to go to outside experts to help get the understanding of what he was looking at, and he only knew who to look at because of existing rumors"
This is what real reporters do, as in The Pentagon Papers.
It isn't that the Paper of Record and Important News Sources did not break this specific important story, it is that they broke NONE of them. Vigilantes did all of the work for them. This is why the mass media has zero credibility, in fact, they are so suspect as to deserve no nothing but disrespect, and are useful only a hint of what the corrupt establishment is trying to hide. Remember, according to the "real news" we were wining in Afghanistan for 20+ years. How can anyone forgive that?
@@estefencosta1835 Such innocence as yours is a rarity!
@@megenberg8 That makes no sense. I explained the problem and stated I didn't think it would get better. Where's the innocence.
@estefencosta1835 Thank you for bringing up the fact that while science and research get covered in media, even hyped to exaggeration, not all media teams include science writers and journalists.
Why Lavigne is able to keep his "job" and not get fired by the board? Probably because the board is also corrupt and should also be investigated for any malpractices. Investigate the entire faculty and staff of Stanford University if need be and we might see even more damning malpractices and corruption.
They are partners in crime like Cosa Nostra-except they will back stab each other.
investigated by who?
the WHO?
I've worked at three major universities and seen stuff like this. It happens throughout the research industry because people want/need to publish regularly to get more funding.
It’s all about the almighty dollar… like they say follow the money, the more money the more blatant fraud and corruption, and this is world wide
Wow, just wow
In what fields
@@jacob9673 environmental science mostly related to climate change. You CANNOT publish anything that shows .. for example .. a negative heating trend.
This man does not deserve to call himself a scientist, doctor, or whatever titles he had. Anyone who would falsify results to advance their own career is an embarrassment and deserves not only scorn and shame but heavy legal consequences, in my opinion.
fully agree.
This is what they are hiding from you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] ❤
I have learned from this video that if you pay a law firm enough money, they can produce a report with the right spin to deflect criticism and suspicion away from your superstar and onto his underlings.
The report might actually be correct. Stealing the credit from your students' work is an old, well esablished practice in academia. It's quite possible Tessier-Lavigne didn't write - or even read - a single word in the articles that were published in his name. Not that it makes the situation any better of course, it's just another kind of fraud than what he is accused of.
@@tessjuel The report may indeed be true, and I would guess that a law firm would not commit fraud for a client by fabricating evidence. Nevertheless the purpose of the report is to exonerate their superstar in any way they can, so the law firm is using its knowledge of the situation and the law to protect the university and the superstar and throw the underlings under the bus. While though it may be important from an ethical standpoint he knew if the fraud was going on, the law firm is there to protect the university and the superstar from legal repercussions. If Stanford can claim that Tessier-Lavigne genuinely did not know about the fraud, that is a lot better for them than if he did know and perhaps even condoned it because then that is a conspiracy and was not simply incompetent.
If YOU hire experts, (legal, accounting, technical) YOU hire them to make YOU look good. You don’t hire them to point out your dishonesty, corrupting, and incompetence, and they know that.
This is what they are hiding from you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] ❤
I've had that experience when I was in grad school. My professors were pretty low profile, overseeing a handful of students each, and keeping a pretty close eye on what they were doing every step of the way. But there were professors who, because they were chair of some large grants, had under them dozens of students. Clearly more than they could realistically direct.
Some of them were actually legit. They were just really passionate about what they were doing. One in particular comes to mind, who had humongous amounts of money to pour into research because he had turned some of this early work into commercial software that were bringing in tens of millions. But the guy was a beast and you couldn't get a fast one past him. That's fine.
But there were a few others that were absolute frauds. They had their names as primary authors on papers they had had basically nothing to do with. Just because they were paying the student's scholarship they were apparently entitled to be first author on anything they published, with no oversight, and with contribution being limited to just helping edit the final version of the paper. From what I gathered the guy barely understood the papers at all, and certainly didn't review them diligently. He did the kind of reviews where you basically find a couple typos and syntax errors and move on. Yet this guy was director of a whole department. He spent months of the year just gone, attending to international conferences and eating out paid by the university. And his number of published papers kept going up as his dozens of Ph.D students, forced to publish a minimum of 3 papers before they can graduate, would just keep slaving away.
Awful system. And guaranteed to generate bullshit science.
When i read things like that, I wonder whether we should just stop this paper crap. there are 20.000 journals. no one can check out that much research. also, you might do outstanding research but not SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR. especially not in humanities. we should check the journal-practice for every field of study, and don't rate scientist's research output so highly. this focus on the quantity of research, combined with it's newness-factor, is ruining everything
Theo Baker is such a Chad
Too bad i think that his academic career (if he wanted one) might be over. Especially after seeing, stanford did not fire the professor
Gigachad
@@PeteJudo1How do asian families deal with the fatherlessness, do they rely on welfare, or they substitute the fatherless parent with a relative like an uncle?
@@nssSmooge depends, in the world of academic research this is an absolute bombshell because of the position Marc Tessier was in. Considering Theo is only 18 years old and as an amateur 'reporter' has already brought to light such a huge scandal, it could be life changing lol.
@@PeteJudo1 There should be a study done on whether people who are named Chad are actually cool, and if they aren't cooler than other people on average, maybe the internet can stop giving the name Chad this free PR boost.
Universities are complicit in much of the larger corruption happening in our country. They accept federal money, yet they are little Ivory Tower kingdoms that operate without consequence. They are sorely overdue for accountability.
We've put up over a trillion dollars in tax payer money, so lazy kids can learn Marxism and be taught to bring down western civilization. It's disgusting
Hard agree! Each department has their stars, who are allowed to create their little kingdoms.
@@anix670boohoo, "kingdom" haha
Yes. Retention rates, graduation rates, job placement rates, loan default rates…a subpar industry by most KPI’s
I´m a medical sciences student and this is just so heartbreaking for me. I can´t believe they are lying in such an important area...
Some advice. Nothing in this world is as it appears to be, ever.
Read Gary Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories.
It is who pays for the science that determines the results.
It is why Ansel Keys never proven lipid hypothesis won over John Yutkins sugar hypothesis. Money.
The food pyramid is based on the Ad vent ist cult ideas, not actual science.
Humans🙄
“I can’t believe…”
Aha, I see you’ve not [yet] been to grad school.
It's been happening a loooonngg time. They will manipulate and lie on anything for that sweet, sweet funding money
As a structural biologist that has done a thousand blots working on membrane proteins during my postdoc and have taken ethics courses multiple times, my favorite part of the course is where they show blot manipulation, as a person that would never do this I still laugh at how completely ridiculous people are at cheating. You have a PhD but you aren't smart enough to cheat a blot? In most cases it would be so simple. My biggest concern is that as more people get found out there doesn't seem to be any real punishment, or the person being accused just aggressively denies it in a way that we're the idiots we just don't understand the data, or that it was copied and pasted to save space, which is fine if the originals are in the supp, but likely not in older pubs.
This is why we need double blind reviewing - the paper is sent without authors listed and the reviewers remain anonymous. A little backbone from the editors too as they would know all names and need to be completely impartial. I don't know if I got sent many papers to review because I (recommended) rejected many of them outright - I might have just been getting the dregs they needed an excuse to throw out because I am not polite about it.
What you're not taking into account here is that there is a little game theory here. If we're all nice to each other when we review each other's papers, it's easy for everybody to get published. If we start being difficult, pretty soon it's going to be difficult for everybody.
@@martymcfly1776 Yes games are played, however impartiality and publishing based on the quality of the work rather than the renown of the author is preferable. There are so many journals with low citation index that mediocre papers can always scrape through somewhere. In "high quality" journals with BIG indices (maybe more than 8.0) it is more important to be showing only the most rigorous results. The atmosphere of publish-or-perish means that lower quality work, or the least publishable increment over your last paper, are pumped out to bolster resumes, promotion cases and grant applications. I would much rather we all had to work a little harder to get published than let through dross based on the first author's name.
@@martymcfly1776 true which is why anonmyous is better
If he wasn't deliberately corrupt, then he was incompetent to an even greater level, which may be more shameful.
No one photoshops a blot by mistake. It's just not done. They knew what they were doing.
@@shulamay I mean yeah but the argument was that it was one of the other researchers. I'm not saying that's what happened but it's possible it wasn't him. But yeah, either way it is his fault because he was either negligent or corrupt.
@@cofee2596
It sounds like it's the practice in his lab, not just done by one student. This makes it look like he instructs them to do it. But I guess we can't know for sure.
@@cofee2596 If he wasn't actively complicit, then he just proved he'll put his name on just about anything passed in front of him. Everything he's put through before is now suspect.
Not incompetent exactly-too busy to do proper oversight.
Thank you for sharing this with us common mortals. The only consolation in this sad saga is that Theo Baker had the lucidity and the courage to investigate. Congratulations to this young man.
as someone who went to grad school (hated it). i can assure you that it happens more than you think. This is because academia is driven by grants (funding) and they want you to arrive at a conclusion before the data even comes in.
I hate this because I can't help but wonder if you simply entered a program that wasn't a good fit with a faculty that wasn't a good match.
I think the key thing here is not to limit your suspicion to just academia.
There is a tremendous amount of fraud, especially data manipulation going on in "science" all the time.
It all comes down to money, if you will get a lot more money in showing results that "prove" what the payers want to see, you will get "scientific" results showing those exact results.
Doesn't matter if it's corporate (like the cigarette makers did), or political (like the man-made global warming hoax) or in academia... but yet time after time we are told to blindly "trust the science".
Physics PhD student here, and even I can see the blatant copy-paste job with the blot! I can see why a lot of journals are requesting access to raw data (rightfully so!), and also within my field it's becoming common practice to give tutorial style workflows to make things easier to verify/reproduce (computational physics/chemistry). I suppose with experimental work it's a lot harder to verify one off results, but that zoom in on the neuron had me in stitches!
The brain’s a good catch, though; rotated around 30 degrees and new foto taken - hard to spot if you don’t know where to look!
I left my PhD program about a decade ago because of how much nonsense there was in academic research. (I decided to get an MSc and MBA instead). Part of the reason I left was because I was starting my lit review for my PhD thesis and was reading SO MANY studies that were complete bunk.
One example was a math paper, but it was a model of a disease vector. The math was fine from what I could tell. It was a huge system of PDEs but the problem was that they used really bad papers to get values for coefficients. Like they cited a paper from 30+ years prior to get the mortality rate of the disease and that paper only had n=5 data points ... with a 40% mortality rate ... which is nuts because when you reference more recent literature (available when they wrote the paper) on the topic, you see mortality rates around 6% with sample sizes of 1,000+. I'm pretty sure this was because the authors were all mathematicians ... but maybe it was nefarious to reach the conclusion they wanted so that the paper would be impactful considering epidemiologists have cited that paper THOUSANDS of times over the last decade and if you actually plug in the 6% coefficient into their model, it yields the exact opposite conclusion!
There is not only a problem of deliberate fraud like this and myriad other cases, but there's also straight up laziness / purposeful bias from researchers when doing lit review and developing models ... because of all the pressures to 'publish or perish' and you need to publish results where there is something profound in order to get tenure ... that just leads to unethical behavior.
Absolutely true. It seems that many people here fail to grasp the magnitude of this problem.
Ironically, blatant data fraud often grabs the headlines, exactly like big papers get all the attention. While undeniably sensational, it's the subtle data manipulations-resulting from laziness or selective cherry-picking-that truly poison scientific integrity. Science has unfortunately transitioned from a methodology to a form of storytelling.
WOW!......major kudos for helping publicize this sheer level of 1) stupidity/carelessness or 2) duplicity.
Well done Theo Baker. Thank you for exposing this Academia Fraud. I am sure this is not the only case that would have come to light if we had more students like Theo Baker. 👏👏👏
Yeah, I’m guessing Theo saw Harrison Ford in “The Fugitive” how Dr Kimble was framed for murder when he discovered Cancer Research Fraud!
What makes me sick is that they higher you are up the food chain you are the more your protected. If your a university president it’s no big deal to be incompetent and unable to run your labs properly and still keep a fat paycheck, but if your a blue collar worker on a factory floor that makes a mistake your fired without a second thought.
You're word usage is that of a factory shop worker. - every time you mean "you're", you type "your". Yet, you use apostrophes in "it's" repeatedly. Fishy.
@@gregrice1354 So you get joy out of belittling people that might not have the level of education you do. You must really get off on public shaming someone who simply wanted to voice their opinion. I truly hope you can now spend the rest of your day walking proudly around feeling superior to someone you’ve never met because you were able to correct their spelling and grammar. Good for you! I simply wanted to state how people who can’t afford college or are unable to advance their education are treated like their lives and paychecks aren’t as important as the ones in charge. Your superiority complex kind of proves my point. By shaming my poor spelling and grammar your trying to show that I’m not worth listening to. I don’t have a high level of education so my opinion has no place in a public forum.
@@gregrice1354 doesnt take away from the point, you reek of reddit bruh
and if you're a student or lecturer, your career is just as much being a pawn until you can move up the ladder and become the boss... if you ever make it that far
There is a replication crisis in academia as well. Only 25% of the top 200 cancer experiments were replicated according to the Science article "Dozens of major cancer studies can't be replicated". True, it is because fraud isn't detectable in the articles or because of the publish or perish mindset producing bias, but the methods used too. They could either have been not explained thoroughly enough or omitted entirely.
P hacking is huge too, and in some circles actively encouraged by the professors mentoring the students. It's a toxic cycle where they end up producing nothing of value to academia (or even setting research back because of subsequent research based on fraudulant initial research) just to get a paycheck. Worst case scenario is fraudulent statistics or misleading conclusions based on p-hacking lead to real harm, not just an academic scamming their way into a living.
Lack of replicability isn't evidence of fraud though..
@@Freddylot True.
replication crisis is a term used for research papers published before 2000's, the guidelines of research has improved since that and failing to reproduce a result is something different than a fraud and usually the probability of failing to replicate is a natural consequence of accepting statistical power of 80% and first type error risk of 5% in Biology and Medcal studies, you need to understand that Biology does not work like Physics, you can't control all the variables in a living organism and even in some Physical sciences we are not even able to do experiments we just do simulations like in astrophysics.
If a "scientific" process can't be replicated by third parties, then by default... IT AIN'T LEGIT SCIENCE. End of story. No exceptions, no excuses, no apologies.
Everyone needs to read Sagan's "TDHW" and refer to the BDK. No exceptions.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
It's a widespread occurrence in academia. Some of the biggest narcissists, rascals, and snakes rise to the top. There is a code of silence, not only to avoid backlash but because many faculty members engage in the same unscrupulous behavior.
It's like when they tell you, if you see one roach in your house it means you have hundreds.
The scariest thing about this is that these are only the researchers that have been caught.
This wouldn't normally pass peer review. Maybe the reviewers were easy on him because of his status or some other reason...
@@shulamayhow do you know this doesn't happen all the time? It took years and years for this alone to be exposed. You are basing this on FAITH.
@@amentco8445
I just know what came back from reviewers when I was in a research lab.
I had a front row seat to this kind of stuff. Head of a medical dept at one of the best med schools in the US. Her lab falsified and manipulated data all the time. I jumped ship quick after uncovering how poor the research integrity was in that lab. Such a shame.
The perverse incentives are the issue. If you want to get published and have an academic career, you better produce papers with significant results. It's also the reason we see so little reproduction studies; they don't get published.
But fellow researchers at institutions are also to blame. Anyone who thinks any serious scientist can publish a manuscript every 7 days is either incompetent or delusional. And, these people get millions in funding drying up honest research labs doing meticulous quality studies.
Imagine how bad it is in psychology, a field that attracts all sorts of people with troubled histories just trying to figure out what's wrong with themselves.
Psychology isnt science at all, lol. Its groupthink on steroids.
I’ve been collecting instances of academic “fraud,” research bias, and admin bias affecting research. I use fraud in quotes because most acts the average person would consider fraudulent in academia aren’t labeled as fraud when judgement is administered. I’d love to see you continuing to personally investigate and reveal shortcomings of today’s academic institutions. I’m also happy to show you my collection of academia’s shortcomings, if you’re interested.
Go for it. We all know that "P-hacking", and corruption from within are common. This also explains why certain individuals always seem to "discover miracles" every few months or so. 😂🤣😂 In other words, a HUGE red flag is when we continue seeing that someone has "the Midas Touch". It's ridiculous. NO ONE can be successful with scientific breakthroughs on a consistent basis. Data is always cooked because REPUTATIONS and IMAGE are the only things that matter. Deeds, ethics, honor, honesty, and all that boolsheet aren't important. 😂🤣😂 Not if you wanna be RICH.
Fraud such as the one pointed in this video is rampant in academia. Let's not be cowardsand cucks hiding behind quotation marks. Fraud is fraud. Period.
Hey bro as a 1st year grad student I would like to see your collection
This is a question I've had for a long time that you might therefore be able to answer assuming you also have historical knowledge of the subject you are writing about. Did this get worse as many universities founded by religious groups became secular? I know this is a funny video to comment this on as Stanford is one of the few large name universities that actually were secular since their founding.
This is what they are hiding from you 👉 The Connections (2021) [short documentary] ❤
That 18-year old student is gonna go far. Great reporting in this video!
Unfortunately although Lavigne may now be gone, his comrades and tribesmen still have a very tight hold over academia. This 18 year old is likely to suffer and be ostracized for exposing one of their own.
All of these published papers were peer reviewed. So much for the process of peer review as well as "trust the science". Humanity's capacity for deliberate deception is boundless.
I was wondering about that. Peer review comes across to me as less an exercise in guaranteeing integrity than in gatekeeping.
@@jrbleau It's supposed to. Just like we're SUPPOSED to have laws that work as checks and balances to stop people from doing things. Problem in both peer review and law enforcement is that if you just get enough of your friends around to help out, you get the result you want.
But then you see this in the public's outrage, too. People call out the infractions that the other tribe/team/party/scientists make, and then instead of holding their own group to higher standards they'll say something like, "Eh, everyone's doing it."
Instead of arbitrary tribes, can we get instead get tribalism to the point where we're on team fraud and team anti-fraud?
We keep seeing that peer review is no assurance of quality or integrity. Lots of other medical papers have also been found to be fraud at best, or infomercial based on who's paying.
Religion's capacity for deliberate deception is boundless as well.
Science can be trusted, it is in fact the only method of truthfinding we have. Material truth that is, human truth is another matter altogether. Going forward we should distinguish between those who take science (I.e. truth) seriously and those who do not.
I took IB in high school and had to do an academic research paper to graduate. All of our class procrastinated and didn't have time to finish all the "experiments". Our biology teacher, who used to be a researcher, told us to make up numbers that made sense and that everyone does it. I'm starting to think she was talking about academic researchers and not just IB students...
That's repulsive. It must have been heartbreaking to experience that as a High School kid. Talk about shattering dreams right out of the gate. Thanks for sharing.
Fraud should never be celebrated or excused!
I'm subscribing because of this video. It's a sterling example of clear, logical presentation. I learned exactly what the title promised me. Good going, Pete.
Lots of corrupt practices being exposed lately; 2 in academic research, 1 in geopolitics by the Big Guy.
This makes me feel so grateful that I got out of academia early. These people need to be brought to justice.
Most researchers abhore this ķind of thing. Honestly, I think as far as institutions go, science is probably one of the least corrupt. But humans will be humans anywhere... We need better systems to deal with this.
My feeling is that the closest you are to power and money, the more fraud you see, academia or not.
Those people run all upper levels of everything. The psychopaths have taken over all centers of power... the west is done for. The damage done goes far beyond the cheating. They literally have destroyed humanity with their lies, their theft, their corruption, and other people looking up to them.
@@shulamay You sweet summer child. China and India engage in such egregious fraud that most Western research groups have completely banned anything from those countries. The number of completely fraudulent organic chemistry and biochemistry papers I've been through is mind-boggling. It's now becoming an issue in the US and Canada due to globalism.
@@shulamay Is there a study to backup your claims that science is one of the least corrupt institutions?
I watched your previous video about the 'Harvard fake data scandal'. As a former assistant professor in a University, I'm glad I didn't continue my career in the Academia. I didn't see myself in the rat race of doing a lot of research for increase compensation and fame. I saw some of my fellow faculty dedicate time in research but failed to fulfill their role as a teacher. This results to almost to a less than 10 lecture classes in a semester, and I've heard that some only lectured twice a semester. The students complained because they didn't get what they paid for and the worst part is the teacher even failed some students. How could the teacher expect an output from the students when he didn't even give an input. Garbage in, garbage out as they say.
a university can be much like a giant mill - it is a wonder anyone learns! there has to be a purpose in life, a worthy objective aside from 😵💫💸
@@megenberg8 Yes I agree on that. I left the University because I need to provide more for my family. I went back to Tech Industry, to be updated with knowledge and experience. If given the chance I would still love to teach, but maybe in the post grad / masters. I don't want to succumb to doing more research and degrade my teaching quality. The students deserve a good quality of teaching. I was already working more than 8 hours/day while teaching. What more if I added some research studies. I won't have time for my family. I think you get the point. Maybe I was not fit to be an Assistant Professor/Researcher.
Corruption at this level is not just one man.
Look for the money!! The invistigators should find out who is funding this research and how they benifited from the fake results. The profesor should not only be stripped out off his titles but also obligated to return the money that was fraudently earned.
The words "fraud" and "neuroscience" should not be near each other unless it's "the neuroscience of fraud." 😳
Good job Theo and Elizabeth for catching this! 👏
It is a science without quanta. Aka not a science.
Psychology, gender study and magical rocks would have to be sciences if neuro study is a science.
😂
@@Seldomheardabout Want to hear about some fraud in quantum mechanic research ?
@@Seldomheardabout bless your heart. Search the name "Jan-Hendrik Schon" and you'll quickly realise that even the highest levels of Physics aren't immune from fraud
@@minhnguyenphanhoang4193 there is fraud in all areas of study. It’s human nature.
When i used to go to uni, studying Physics, on the second year we had to individually write a lab report of an experiment made in groups. My group made the experiment with a faulty equipment (I realy dont remember what it was or even what the experiment was been years now). I was the only one in the group of 5 that reported the collected data and came to the conclusion that the data made no sense what so ever. Most of my group made up new data to fit the model.
We all got the same grade.
Thats when i saw that academia was fd.
Similar experiences here, too, having studied physics in academia for 4 years. The "system" as a *whole* is irreparably screwed.
When I was in college I tutored some fellow students in the art of lab report writing. They were dismayed that their routine lab class experiments “didn’t work”, but at least there was a solid analysis of why it didn’t work.
Truth be told, a lot of lab classes taught year-after-year had equipment so finicky that you needed someone with significant professional experience just to make it work properly. I was lucky to be young, in college, and with some engineering experience under my belt.
Students were routinely fudging data trying to “make it work”. I figured that everyone can be lazy at times and a seasoned lab teacher would probably not mind getting a lab report pointing out what goes wrong with suggestions on how to avoid it. It helped them directly in their teaching work.
The “no expected result but here is what failed” reports got good marks! As they should have.
So, it’s not even true that the lab forced students to fake results. The students just thought, wrongly, and with no one correcting them, that the expected results are the only “correct” results. We know how wrong that is. Reinforcing it in a lab course is tragic.
It is real work to replicate some of the most basic established science in a teaching lab. There’s an expectation that because something has been known for over a century and is mentioned almost as an aside in textbooks that it doesn’t take much work to show again.
Well folks, we have computers and cheap electronics, but there is still good old experimental work on the bench. The “giants” who laid those foundations didn’t get recognition for doing the easy stuff. And a good lab experiment doesn’t magically get simpler just because a century has passed. It may get less menial all right, but that’s about it.
I'll be honest I try to stay away from topics like this. BUT... I will put money on the fact that this happens more often than we'd like to believe. Especially with these big prestigious colleges around the world!
Fully agree as mist if thus research is funded by corporations or organisations with agendas.
I guarantee that you would win that bet.
"...I will put money on the fact..." - Ya don't have to, just adhere to the old adage "follow the money, it tells all". Beneficial interest in recognition, breakthrough, publication (or pick any field of expertise and corresponding nouns) supersede facts. Their job is to define "truth" and be it an individual, or individual(s) representing government, business or scholastic institutions, they have a single commonality. All are symptoms of the disease. Did I mention follow the money!
It's very common in colleges around the world.
In dubai indian professionals have ao many qualifications and degrees along with full-time job thats its impossible for so many people to do that in such a span.
Theo Baker's initials of T.B. also stands for "Titanic Balls." A fitting moniker for someone of his standing challenging someone like him.
Thanks for this. Will be using this video in a case study for my Philosophy of Science class this fall, in which we discuss the harm that fraudulent science has on institutional trust
When I was a child my family happened to be driving near Stanford University campus and I remember asking my dad if it was a hospital and he literally answered "No Hamilton this is the best University in the world"
I hope Theo’s bravery does not negatively affect the way that Theo is treated by the professors at Standford.
Theo can build his career as a fraud researcher😉
I think he has nothing to worry about. If he's willing to spearhead this effort, he will be writing his own ticket to success. Many eyes will be on the administration and how he is treated.
He said in his interview on the news that he has had professors talk to him after class about how they are proud of what he is doing. So hopefully it continues
It probably will, but he will find he can add value elsewhere. This sort of talent is widely appreciated.
@@garrettwilson3032gosh bless Theo either was a public school enigma or a home school hero because he is not the result of modern education system. He thinks therefore he is. Fucking brilliant really.
Thank you for these videos. It is good, for me, to get at least some understanding of what's going on in the world. You're helping.
That's just the beginning. The real problem is the copious amounts of administration in all colleges and universities.
My gf is finishing her doctoral internship at a program connected to Stanford right now, and is completely blown away with how sub-standard her entire experience is there. She excels as both an academic and a clinician, and the stories of ineptitude she tells me of Stanford-made students and a number of those in charge of the programs… neither of us expected her to have this kind of experience at the prestigious Stanford.
Prestige has been for sale for a long time.
Aw, but her degree will have the Stanford brand! Doesn't that itself justify the effort and expense in this competitive world?
What is reputation? It is people talking, is gossip.
@@scottjensen7555Fortunately for her, her degree won’t have Stanford’s name anywhere on it. Only her CV will. lol
Hi Pete, impressed by your critique and delivery in this video. SUBSCRIBED. Not very interested in Academia but it is important to EXPOSE the CORRUPTION and lack of checks and balances ( in the name of MONEY ). I'm a senior citizen. You are among those that can give us HOPE for a better future by fighting the forces of greed, manipulation and fraud.
😊
It's been half a century since I was nursing some electrophoresis runs on Frog proteins, and writing up experiments as if I knew what I was doing and seeing... Thanks for explaining all this.
The co-authors should also be investigated because their is no way any of them did not notice this hilariously bad data manipulation before getting the papers published.
The co-authors also all signed off on it, and stated very clearly that they support the claims made in the manuscript. They 100% agreed to what the paper states.