Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Maybe? I'd want to see a clear model of flows and selection biases before I concluded that.

Another way to look at it: perhaps Tessier-Lavigne only got this scrutiny because he was president of the university. And the fact that they didn't guarantee anonymity when "not guaranteeing anonymity in an investigation of this importance is an 'extremely unusual move'" might be a sign that the scrutiny was politically diminished.

So it could be that most of the equally dubious researchers don't get caught because not enough attention is paid to patterns like this except when it's somebody especially prominent. Or it could be that this one was not as well covered up, perhaps because of the sheer number of issues. Or that the cross-institution issues made Stanford more willing to note the wrongdoing. Or that Stanford is less likely to sweep things under the rug because of its prominence. Or just that there was some ongoing tension between the trustees and the president and that this was an opportunity to win a political fight.




These are good points and hard to know. But the Retraction Watch is tracking stories of both mistakes and fraud in published research, across universities:

https://retractionwatch.com/




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: