It takes AGES for malfeasance to get consequences. The Wakefield MMR study (responsible for energizing the modern anti vaccination movement), published in 1998, wasn’t retracted until 2010. (He was also stripped of his license to practice medicine and has consistently doubled down since which has paid off dearly, marrying supermodels and being a literal millionaire).
The amyloid plaque hypothesis for Alzheimer’s that was based on falsified data from 2006 wasn’t retracted until 2024. This had thousands of citations, possibly tens of thousands, and the first author continues to defend the data manipulation as overblown. Essentially something like that the underlying experiments were sound, we just edited the images for clarity, there was no intent, all (8!) of my coauthors agreed to the retraction because they’re laaaaame, basically every drug made based on this hypothesis doesn’t work because of some other reason, trust me bro.
It’s very difficult to counter this. It takes serious effort to generate data contrary to the evidence presented. However, funding would help. But additionally this is something where criminal charges would be merited. Wakefield has created a world in which we moved backward for his own financial enrichment. One could argue that the children dead from measles outbreaks are in part his fault. He lost his license, sure, but this is meaningless. He is an antivax icon, he married Elle McPherson, he does podcasts and documentaries, speaking engagements, etc. he is paid far more than many doctors with none of the stress and liability. And it’s fairly clear his original intent was to discourage people from the MMR vaccine to push them towards a product he had a vested financial interest in. The antivax stuff was not his goal but it worked out because he is a sociopathic grifter.
Lesne is different. He is a scientist that is probably pushed to publish at all costs and did so. Perhaps he is honest and his manipulation was simply to improve clarity. If it was not and he was pushing to get an influential paper out then he is guilty of wasting billions in funding and tens of thousands of hours of researcher time as well as countless lives wasted doing clinical trials for treatments that were never worth exploring.
What’s a viable consequence for these people? Life in prison? This is such a huge crime against society. Similarly the Monsanto and Coca Cola ghost writing research, everything involved in tobacco, Purdue and OxyContin addiction, etc. the last one was treated as a civil matter but are these not criminal? Countless lives were destroyed
He is an antivax icon, he married Elle McPherson, he does podcasts and documentaries, speaking engagements, etc. he is paid far more than many doctors with none of the stress and liability.
Similarly the Monsanto and Coca Cola ghost writing research, everything involved in tobacco, Purdue and OxyContin addiction, etc. the last one was treated as a civil matter but are these not criminal? Countless lives were destroyed.
Attention is all you need.
Philosophical questions of liability don’t matter anymore; optics do. Wakefield didn’t just win that game; he blew it away. Monsanto, big tobacco, even Purdue drug their public sentiment battles on long enough not to win, but not to lose.
I mean no offense, but I keep seeing scientists ask “why is all this happening?” on Twitter, as they presumably pass mobs of folks glued to algorithms and influencers gaming them on thier phones, and politicians now emulating thier behavior.
Hence I hate to sound so cynical, but I think your question:
What’s a viable consequence for these people? Life in prison?
Is pointless.
Science and journalism aren’t front-and-center anymore. Frames of reference are intimately manipulated. To quote AOC, “everything feels increasingly like a scam.” And pondering what these massively wealthy entities deserve is a waste of energy until that festering problem is addressed.
Well but what about all the other researchers that didn’t recreate this study?
Basically a big problem in especially medical science is that studies are not redone and retested like in a lot of other stem fields. It’s not only some bad actors it’s a kind of broken system.
Replication as you describe isn’t done in most fields, that’s part of the “serious effort and funding” I mentioned. If I am applying for a grant to do research what do you think gets funded? Novel proposition or rudimentary replication? Funders want to be a part of glory just as much as institutions which is part of the systemic issue here.
There are researchers that aim to replicate but the numbers of them have shrunk across all fields because funders and universities are pushing for novel research.
Aside from this though one does not need to fully replicate a study to disprove it. In both the studies I pointed out people were sounding alarms for years about discrepancies in the data that in wakefields case should not have passed peer review. The lesne paper is more subtle and one could argue it still should’ve been caught in peer review. But in both cases it took ages of people saying “hey hey hey this shit is fucked” and that is the problem. In the case of Wakefield it was more decisive, in the case of lesne it was more insidious (kind of a sunk cost fallacy because the field bought into the hypothesis without verifying so hard)
The thing that always annoys me in this toxic cycle is the insistence on applied research. I’ve seen people across a few different fields run into this problem.
Let’s say that they do some really interesting applied research, where they build on existing basic research to come up with some really cool applications. Yay, science! But this brings them to the boundary of what we know in that area — there’s no more basic research to build upon. What they need to do (and what is very clearly cued up by what they just published) is take this applies research and just do a bunch of structured “fuck around and find out” and see what happens, hopefully producing some additional basic research that they, or other researchers, can then figure out how to apply that in interesting ways.
But noooooooooo. It’s like that meme comic with the dog where it has a frisbee and it says “no take, only throw”. Everything you make has to be useful, or you will struggle to get funding. The area I know most about this is in protein structure stuff, and it drives me mad to see papers complaining about how many potentially druggable targets there could be in the “dark proteome” — the large array of human proteins that we don’t know shit about. Countless papers lamenting how we’re not researching proteins where we’re most likely to find new and useful stuff, but rather we’re just doing more and more research on proteins we already know a heckton about, i.e. “searching in the areas where we have the best light”[1]. But of course people are doing that, when someone who wants to go and search in the dark are expected to produce useful results right away.
The way it’s meant to work is that some people go spelunking in the dark, and they say “hey, I might have found something here”, and that causes other people to head over there to shed light on the area so we can evaluate things better. We need to start somewhere!
[1]: To be clear, I’m not blaming the researchers who write these papers or editorials, because there’s very little that they can do to change it. Hell, writing these papers is likely their attempt to change this unreasonable system of expectations. Unfortunately, the root problem here is how capitalism and our funding model for research leads to toxic cycles such as “publish or perish”.
I sometimes reflect on how an evil version of me would be so successful. I’m actually rather good at a lot of the capitalism type skills, and especially in recent years, I’ve reflected on how those skills combined with my genuine expertise in machine learning would make me exceptionally good at making bank off of the dumbasses who have wholeheartedly drank the koolaid. I went to a university with a lot of effective altruists, and man, they’re easy to scam, and I could be so much more comfortable if I just sacrificed everything I value in life.
It turns out that I’m not actually sad that I have a moral compass, but rather that people with strong values are so often forced to consider compromising on those values because they’re desperate to not live in precarity. It’s grim.
Something significant that has just occurred to me is that the compulsory banking internship I had to do after my first year of university as part of a scholarship might’ve been more useful than I had previously realised. It was a soul killing experience and I reached some extremely low periods that Summer because of it, but I’m realising that it was a useful learning experience. Prior to that, I would’ve been far more likely to consider selling my soul for a comfortable life, but if nothing else, that internship taught me I physically couldn’t live a life like that. Good thing I learned that on a low stakes internship, rather than something more committed.
It takes AGES for malfeasance to get consequences. The Wakefield MMR study (responsible for energizing the modern anti vaccination movement), published in 1998, wasn’t retracted until 2010. (He was also stripped of his license to practice medicine and has consistently doubled down since which has paid off dearly, marrying supermodels and being a literal millionaire).
The amyloid plaque hypothesis for Alzheimer’s that was based on falsified data from 2006 wasn’t retracted until 2024. This had thousands of citations, possibly tens of thousands, and the first author continues to defend the data manipulation as overblown. Essentially something like that the underlying experiments were sound, we just edited the images for clarity, there was no intent, all (8!) of my coauthors agreed to the retraction because they’re laaaaame, basically every drug made based on this hypothesis doesn’t work because of some other reason, trust me bro.
It’s very difficult to counter this. It takes serious effort to generate data contrary to the evidence presented. However, funding would help. But additionally this is something where criminal charges would be merited. Wakefield has created a world in which we moved backward for his own financial enrichment. One could argue that the children dead from measles outbreaks are in part his fault. He lost his license, sure, but this is meaningless. He is an antivax icon, he married Elle McPherson, he does podcasts and documentaries, speaking engagements, etc. he is paid far more than many doctors with none of the stress and liability. And it’s fairly clear his original intent was to discourage people from the MMR vaccine to push them towards a product he had a vested financial interest in. The antivax stuff was not his goal but it worked out because he is a sociopathic grifter.
Lesne is different. He is a scientist that is probably pushed to publish at all costs and did so. Perhaps he is honest and his manipulation was simply to improve clarity. If it was not and he was pushing to get an influential paper out then he is guilty of wasting billions in funding and tens of thousands of hours of researcher time as well as countless lives wasted doing clinical trials for treatments that were never worth exploring.
What’s a viable consequence for these people? Life in prison? This is such a huge crime against society. Similarly the Monsanto and Coca Cola ghost writing research, everything involved in tobacco, Purdue and OxyContin addiction, etc. the last one was treated as a civil matter but are these not criminal? Countless lives were destroyed
Attention is all you need.
Philosophical questions of liability don’t matter anymore; optics do. Wakefield didn’t just win that game; he blew it away. Monsanto, big tobacco, even Purdue drug their public sentiment battles on long enough not to win, but not to lose.
I mean no offense, but I keep seeing scientists ask “why is all this happening?” on Twitter, as they presumably pass mobs of folks glued to algorithms and influencers gaming them on thier phones, and politicians now emulating thier behavior.
Hence I hate to sound so cynical, but I think your question:
Is pointless.
Science and journalism aren’t front-and-center anymore. Frames of reference are intimately manipulated. To quote AOC, “everything feels increasingly like a scam.” And pondering what these massively wealthy entities deserve is a waste of energy until that festering problem is addressed.
Well but what about all the other researchers that didn’t recreate this study?
Basically a big problem in especially medical science is that studies are not redone and retested like in a lot of other stem fields. It’s not only some bad actors it’s a kind of broken system.
Replication as you describe isn’t done in most fields, that’s part of the “serious effort and funding” I mentioned. If I am applying for a grant to do research what do you think gets funded? Novel proposition or rudimentary replication? Funders want to be a part of glory just as much as institutions which is part of the systemic issue here.
There are researchers that aim to replicate but the numbers of them have shrunk across all fields because funders and universities are pushing for novel research.
Aside from this though one does not need to fully replicate a study to disprove it. In both the studies I pointed out people were sounding alarms for years about discrepancies in the data that in wakefields case should not have passed peer review. The lesne paper is more subtle and one could argue it still should’ve been caught in peer review. But in both cases it took ages of people saying “hey hey hey this shit is fucked” and that is the problem. In the case of Wakefield it was more decisive, in the case of lesne it was more insidious (kind of a sunk cost fallacy because the field bought into the hypothesis without verifying so hard)
The thing that always annoys me in this toxic cycle is the insistence on applied research. I’ve seen people across a few different fields run into this problem.
Let’s say that they do some really interesting applied research, where they build on existing basic research to come up with some really cool applications. Yay, science! But this brings them to the boundary of what we know in that area — there’s no more basic research to build upon. What they need to do (and what is very clearly cued up by what they just published) is take this applies research and just do a bunch of structured “fuck around and find out” and see what happens, hopefully producing some additional basic research that they, or other researchers, can then figure out how to apply that in interesting ways.
But noooooooooo. It’s like that meme comic with the dog where it has a frisbee and it says “no take, only throw”. Everything you make has to be useful, or you will struggle to get funding. The area I know most about this is in protein structure stuff, and it drives me mad to see papers complaining about how many potentially druggable targets there could be in the “dark proteome” — the large array of human proteins that we don’t know shit about. Countless papers lamenting how we’re not researching proteins where we’re most likely to find new and useful stuff, but rather we’re just doing more and more research on proteins we already know a heckton about, i.e. “searching in the areas where we have the best light”[1]. But of course people are doing that, when someone who wants to go and search in the dark are expected to produce useful results right away.
The way it’s meant to work is that some people go spelunking in the dark, and they say “hey, I might have found something here”, and that causes other people to head over there to shed light on the area so we can evaluate things better. We need to start somewhere!
[1]: To be clear, I’m not blaming the researchers who write these papers or editorials, because there’s very little that they can do to change it. Hell, writing these papers is likely their attempt to change this unreasonable system of expectations. Unfortunately, the root problem here is how capitalism and our funding model for research leads to toxic cycles such as “publish or perish”.
1 ↩︎
Sometimes I feel sad I am incapable of chicanery like this, it sounds like the only path to an affluent life.
I sometimes reflect on how an evil version of me would be so successful. I’m actually rather good at a lot of the capitalism type skills, and especially in recent years, I’ve reflected on how those skills combined with my genuine expertise in machine learning would make me exceptionally good at making bank off of the dumbasses who have wholeheartedly drank the koolaid. I went to a university with a lot of effective altruists, and man, they’re easy to scam, and I could be so much more comfortable if I just sacrificed everything I value in life.
It turns out that I’m not actually sad that I have a moral compass, but rather that people with strong values are so often forced to consider compromising on those values because they’re desperate to not live in precarity. It’s grim.
Something significant that has just occurred to me is that the compulsory banking internship I had to do after my first year of university as part of a scholarship might’ve been more useful than I had previously realised. It was a soul killing experience and I reached some extremely low periods that Summer because of it, but I’m realising that it was a useful learning experience. Prior to that, I would’ve been far more likely to consider selling my soul for a comfortable life, but if nothing else, that internship taught me I physically couldn’t live a life like that. Good thing I learned that on a low stakes internship, rather than something more committed.
deception through trickery
The appropriate punishment is an extended life inside a torture box, AM style.
Say, a couple of million of years.
Locked in syndrome or prions. :)
Alternatively, the Total Perspective Vortex would be appropriate for the very worst offenders.
Pfft, that’d be my wet dream: to actually know shit, and that’s one way to learn it.