• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:542] Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is ludicrous.

You wouldn’t believe the guardrails the FDA has to ensure studies are designed, performed, and interpreted. And the journals mentioned above do an outstanding job of editing and reviewing published papers.

Your alternative is to just trust the nuttiest guy in the room that says stuff you like.
mccoullough fundation...lol. they are desperate.

 
That call to action, at great expense, and cost of lifestyle on assumptions not yet proven is a big big risk.

One that most people aren't willing to take, INCLUDING those advocating OTHERS do it.

There is overwhelming evidence for manmade global warming from CO2 emissions. Republicans politicians have also had decades reviewing the evidence. Leading to that this report that clearly stated the urgent need for action was published during Trump's first presidency. Because the evidence is overwhelming that Republican politicians couldn't stop the report.


There is also a lot of benefits with a transition away from fossil fuel.





So Republican politicians opposition toward action on climate change is based on all the money they have gotten from fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships.


 
There is overwhelming evidence for manmade global warming from CO2 emissions. Republicans politicians have also had decades reviewing the evidence. Leading to that this report that clearly stated the urgent need for action was published during Trump's first presidency. Because the evidence is overwhelming that Republican politicians couldn't stop the report.


There is also a lot of benefits with a transition away from fossil fuel.





So Republican politicians opposition toward action on climate change is based on all the money they have gotten from fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel dictatorships.


yep, you first. Then all the politician and those supporting. The rest of us will follow along shortly.
 
This is ludicrous.

You wouldn’t believe the guardrails the FDA has to ensure studies are designed, performed, and interpreted. And the journals mentioned above do an outstanding job of editing and reviewing published papers.

Your alternative is to just trust the nuttiest guy in the room that says stuff you like.

That nutty guy is now the health secretary. That so extreme have anti science become in the US.

 
yep, you first. Then all the politician and those supporting. The rest of us will follow along shortly.

It's both about individual and social changes. Like for example I can work from home. While Sweden have also invested in public transport and cycling paths. So I can save a lot of money buy rarely drive a car.

Also the 1970 oil crisis showed the massive cost and risk of being dependent on oil from ruthless dictatorship. So Sweden have since then switch to district heating. Saving mine and many other households a lot of money while also reducing CO2 emissions.


While EU as whole reduced their CO2 emissions to 1960's level.

 
This is ludicrous.

You wouldn’t believe the guardrails the FDA has to ensure studies are designed, performed, and interpreted. And the journals mentioned above do an outstanding job of editing and reviewing published papers.

Your alternative is to just trust the nuttiest guy in the room that says stuff you like.
The vast majority of studies published in medical journals have no FDA involvement whatsoever.
 
Even when they are really working for big pharma instead of conducting actual research?
It’s not that difficult. When every single medical organization on the entire planet is telling you to mask, vaccinate, and distance, I would take it seriously.

When every single scientific organization is telling you that a century and a half of research is pointing to the real reality of climate change science, you take it seriously.

Just because some occasional big Pharma study on a particular drug may be biased is not a reason to question the measles vaccine.

You are using the occasional Harvard business school researcher or big Pharma study may be biased is not a reason to question all science or think it’s just as valid as chasing after cat eating Haitians in Ohio. It gets ridiculous.
 
It's both about individual and social changes. Like for example I can work from home. While Sweden have also invested in public transport and cycling paths. So I can save a lot of money buy rarely drive a car.

Also the 1970 oil crisis showed the massive cost and risk of being dependent on oil from ruthless dictatorship. So Sweden have since then switch to district heating. Saving mine and many other households a lot of money while also reducing CO2 emissions.


While EU as whole reduced their CO2 emissions to 1960's level.

Lets have a little thought process:

The US in all it's glory decides to move back towards the time before we have cars with emissions. We get horses. We grow crops. We barter etc.
You get my point, right?

So how long does that buy the world?
 
There are a few key points.

1) Something is very broken in academia when someone lauded as one of the nation’s top researchers can commit data fraud and publish fraudulent studies in scientific journals without anyone saying boo for over 10 years.

2) There are an awful lot of people howling at cutting Harvard’s federal research grants. Then we find out one of their most respected researchers is a fraud.

Harvard, like most universities has a policy of tenure in place for their professors. But it is not designed to protect those who knowingly commit ethical violations and gross misconduct as this particular Harvard professor has done. Ironically, this woman is a behavioral scientist who manipulated data for her own personal advantage. Pretty gross behavior on her part. Good move by Harvard to remove her tenure.
 
Their peers like the peer review process that totally missed her fraud 10 years ago?
So you still fly on airplanes that lead to this?

1748461728212.webp

What about cars that lead to this?

1748461765908.webp

How about houses that lead to this?

1748461802119.webp

This all means something is very broken in all of these things. I think you should stop trusting planes, cars, and houses immediately and just live in the wild.
 
A renowned Harvard University professor was stripped of her tenure and fired after an investigation found she fabricated data on multiple studies focused on dishonesty.

Francesca Gino, a celebrated behavioral scientist at Harvard Business School, was let go after the school’s top governing board determined she tweaked observations in four studies so that their findings boosted her hypotheses, GHB reported.

Harvard administrators notified business faculty that Gino was out of a job in a closed-door meeting this past week, the outlet reported.

We are supposed to trust the "experts" right? It reminded me of this:



Since when does Harvard require that professors not make shit up?

What is this, 1960? I thought the Harvard model is to draw a conclusion, then find or fabricate data to support it?
 
Since when does Harvard require that professors not make shit up?

What is this, 1960? I thought the Harvard model is to draw a conclusion, then find or fabricate data to support it?
You must have misheard. But you're not gonna believe what Trump's top people are finding on Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate, believe me!
 
Higher education is in trouble because many college freshman in this generation can't so much as read a book. And that's not hyperbole.

Sorry, I don't buy it.
 

Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty!

Maybe KING MAGAT can pick him up for a spot in the neo-DoE, he sounds like a perfect fit?
 
So some were and some weren't
Your statement was false
Here, learn something today
I’ll repeat myself since you seem to have forgotten what I wrote. The overwhelming majority of priests were not pedophiles. They were homosexuals.
 
Twitter seems to be his go to, which is kind of classic since they explicitly support publishing disinformation.

I thought the line for the left is that social media are not publishers? Oh, but it's (D) ifferent now that Twitter allows free speech.

It always was and is about the left wanting to censor any idea contrary to the party.
 

Star Harvard business professor stripped of tenure, fired for manipulating data in studies on dishonesty!

Maybe KING MAGAT can pick him up for a spot in the neo-DoE, he sounds like a perfect fit?

This is a "she," and a leftist Lou.
 
During doctorate program studies you are literally taught how to manipulate questions utilizing programs like SMSS to determine which questions asked will produce favorable results. Qualitative research analysis teaches where, when, and who to seek out survey results from to secure favorable findings.
It must depend on the field of study. I certainly was never taught any such things. But then logistics is a very quantitative science. Tac time for production of goods, turns of inventory, quality metrics and such aren't open to social manipulation.

I spent great deal of time with SSMS (SQL Server Management Studio,) still do, but am not familiar with SMSS, which I assume to be a statistical modeling tool. I just used StatPlus and Excel.

Even 20 years ago we were asking why research was only considered viable if the findings matched the dissertation 'question'... and why instead wasnt research and study findings deemed just as valuable if the research disproved hypothesis. The same work and effort went into the research, writing, delivery and defense and the whole purpose of the dissertation experience was to expose students to process. Even back then (and I'm certain long before then), academia was not asking honest questions...they were pursuing results to match predicted outcomes.

Clearly the field and the institution varies. Focus with my group was original research, plagiarism was unfortunately rampant, and of course being published. Manipulation of results would be a fast track for dismissal from the program. In my case it would have also meant dismissal from my job, since the goop people of Lockheed funded the whole thing.
 
Even the most prestigious journals are full of statistical errors. The peer review process doesn't catch them because often the peer reviewers are no more mathematicians than the study author.

Errors are not fabrications and manipulation. This wasn't a matter of setting the wrong parameters for an ANOVA or regression, she was deliberately falsifying data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom