Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Jailed for Falsifying Research
Caldeso writes "For the first time in U.S. history, a researcher has received jail time for falsifying research data to obtain federal grants. Eric Poehlman pled guilty to defrauding the government to the tune of nearly 3 million dollars by changing and making up research and was sentenced to a year in a federal prison work camp and a lifetime ban on further federal grants."
In this article, it says that a research assistant, Walter DeNino, discovered that Poehlman was fabricating data. It sounds like Poehlman was pretty aggressive in trying to slander DeNino to save his own skin ...
Grant funds are closely watched as to what is charged to them.
Oh? At my local university, professors buy pc hardware for use around the office when their grant is about to run out. I know of one instance where nearly $10,000 was spent on laptops... who the hell needs 10 laptops for research, especially three days before the grant expires?
Now, not to say that all grant money goes to waste (and, this was a $3.2 million grant, so it's not like it was a large percentage), but it could've paid for 1/100,000,000 of the budget for the new stealth bomber or whatever it is. I mean, come on!
Well any fraudulent activity is bad enough, and IMO deserves such a punishment. It seems fair for what was done - enough, but not overkill. The fact that it was medical research that could put others' lives in danger makes it much worse, and it seems that he should have also been charged with some sort of gross negligence or reckless endangerment. If there was no grant involved, then I'd have thought the fraud charges were absured, and likewise the charges that weren't but could have been pressed would be insane in probably any other case. In short, I completely agree.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
One of the major arguments of a major subset of the anti-evolution/pro-Creationism school of thought (if it can be called that...) is that there is some sort of tippy-top secret conspiracy among scientists to keep their own cash flow going by producing evidence in favor of evolution. The consensus seems to be that scientists are all a bunch of godless atheists who are interested only in lining their own pockets-- that they lie and cheat and deny the "obvious fact" that an invisible man in the sky created the world 6,000 years ago in order to make money hand over fist.
I GUARANTEE you that the instant one of the people who maintains one of the many creationist sites out there gets wind of this, this guy will get made into (anecdotal) evidence for the "fact" that all scientists are not to be trusted.
*bashes head against wall*
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
"If she'd cooperated rather than lied, she would never have served time."
If she had cooperated, she'd probably had faced even more jail time. Law enforcement isn't necessarily about getting to the truth, but to make a case against you, which makes anything you say "make be construed against you." That quote that goes something like give me six lines from anyone, and I'll find a reason to hang 'em.
Most things come down to whether the law enforcement person "like you" or not, not the claims you make or are made against you.
I once "cooperated" and told the truth on a serious matter, which was total BS in the first place, only to be find myself facing another charge that came out of nowhere (which was also BS--I said I drove quickly into the driveway, which became sped into the driveway, which become a public disturbance from spinning my tires (which didn't happen) which no one complained about or even heard). Thus faced a $300 fine for a summary offense or go up against the magistrate who could have put me in jail for 2 months.
Anyways, if Martha Stewart (like her stuff, 3 star towels rule, but hate her personality and shows) had just kept quiet and hadn't spoken to the federal agent, what she did go to jail for wouldn't have been an issue. (And even that guilty finding people correctly question.)
In short, meet federal agent or police, be polite, do not confront, give your name if asked, then keep quiet and ask for a lawyer or if you are free to go.
Does this apply to the CIA falsifying intelligence to secure a slice of the defence budget?
Sure, but first you have to prove it.
And no, linking to sites which claim that the moon landing was faked and that the US bombed Jupiter with anti-matter weapons doesn't count as "proof".
The damning report correctly states that most research in computer architecture (unlike research topics in the medical sciences) is almost never reproduced because most researchers in CA do not care about reproduction.
I daresay that the failure of the Itanium was to due to depending on wild and unreproducible claims by numerous professors seeking to build their academic careers. When reality hit the fan, Itanium collapsed under the weight of the fraudulent results.
If you doubt the report or if you doubt what I am saying, just select some often cited CA papers and try to find follow-up papers that actually verified the results in the often cited papers. You can try, but you will fail.