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."
Does this apply to the CIA falsifying intelligence to secure a slice of the defence budget?
I hate printers.
I think I could tough that out for 3 million...
This guy steals 3 million and gets a work camp. Martha Stewert was in volved in a .25 million insider trading and she gets 6 months.
But Lay and a number of the very wealthy CEOs who stole BILLIONS will get 6 months to maybe several years at a very easy going federal prison. Amazing. It is all who you know.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The slashdot summary is not only inaccurate, but libelous. By the article, he pleaded guilty to one $542,000 grant. So, he's only been found legally accountable for that amount, not the $2.9 million claimed by the prosecution:
In an agreement with prosecutors, he pleaded guilty in connection with one $542,000 grant; the government said he defrauded federal agencies out of $2.9 million.
OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
OK, let me get this straight.
Defraud the government, with devious intent, for a tune of 3 million USD and receive a 1 year sentence in a work camp.
Copy a movie and get fined up to 250,000 dollars and face upto a 10 year sentence? After, getting beaten up by people who dress like cops but aren't, in public?
An essay regarding the mentioned topic, and I thought it might be interesting to a few people. The are many non-technical paragraphs that draw to the author's conclusions, and those should be readable by all.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request= get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Summary:
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
when you have the gov't throw around billions like candy at halloween, why are we surprised that people will do this kind of stuff? when are we gonna figure out that most scientists are spouting some BS either for corporate or gov't money. yes, some are hard at work, but the real money is in getting others to fund your work. global warming? sure. nope. need money to tell you!! abortion harms women? sure. nope. need money to tell you!! but this is true of almost all the federal gov't does. the gov't spends 2.8 trillion dollars, 95% of which is completely unconstitutional. that in itself is a crime. so when someone tries to skim a few mil for themselves...
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Poor guy. Obviously he forgot to credit the Flying Spaghetti Monster for his research findings.
With our present administration if you were falsifying data to prove creationism you might just get a medal.
Well, that's sort of what tipped them off. A recently-appointed federal oversight committee reviewed the bibliography he submitted of primary sources for his research, and found that he had many works cited besides the King James Bible. Knowing that the Bible is the only authentic scientific work published to date, they knew right away that the guy was committing fraud of some sort. It only took a little digging to come up with the details.
...how many turns is this going to set me back? I don't have the resources to allocate my Military funding to Research, since I'm upgrading my units!
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Think, that the sentence was "soft".
Then i read the article, and start thinking...
OK, I don't know him, but imagine the embarrassing situation of send retraction and correction letters to (in some way) HIS community.
IMO In this kind of "criminal acts" the worst is just leave the guy in society.
It's the society who really condemn him, think that every scientific guy will know that he is a fraud. Ok, maybe when he goes to the supermarket not everybody knows who is him, but he will be asking himself "Does he recognize me?".
Rock and Roll
Based solely on this quote, we can conclude that faking the results of medical research could potentially kill people. Faking research about a new method for vectorizing signal-processing algorithms might result in a poorly performing compiler for a multiprocessor. Faking research about a medical therapy might result in real people being subjected to a lethal cocktail of drugs.
The doctor who faked the results of his medical research deserved prison time. For once, justice was served.
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 ...
A scientist encroaching on the domain of politicians and business? For shame!!!
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?
Non-violent offenders such as this guy should not go to jail. They should be held accountable for their actions through financial restitution.
t .php
"Nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the early release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts
We should dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.
Restitution, even if enforced through court action, deters criminals and decreases the necessity of actually going to court. Japan, which has such a system in place, is the only industrialized nation that has seen a consistent decrease in violent crime since World War II. Litigants normally come to a settlement before coming in front of the judge, so very little time is spent in court.
Why should victims have to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and shelter those who harmed them? Why should criminals get a free ride at the further expense of their victims?
People have a right to their life, liberty and property. Anyone who takes these away has an obligation to restore them as much as possible. Such restitution will not always be perfect, but the punishment fits the crime much better than today's system does.
In addition, restitution is a more effective deterrent than prison. During informal surveys, inmates claimed that they much preferred jail time, which they saw as 'time off,' than restitution, which they saw as 'work.
Restitution through productive work is the most successful rehabilitation known. Even if the victim can't be fully compensated, something is better than the nothing that they receive today. Also, repayment to the victim allows criminals to truly right their wrongs. "
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_lis
Libertas in infinitum
Retraction was the Most Important Part.
Bad research in some fields doesn't just waste time and resources and careers,
Bad research can kill.
There are enough honest mistakes and statistical glitches and wishful thinking
without adding fraud to the mix.
Maybe if you hadn't beaten them up in high school, they wouldn't have the self-esteem problems they have now and *would* be able to hold down a job and beat substance dependancy.
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?
He loses one year of his life in jail to get $3mil, of which he has been ordered to repay absolutely nothing, and will be living the next year without having to pay rent, buy his own food, pay his own utilities, and so on. I lose one year of my life to something like a jail and I earn about 5% of that, and from my own income I have to pay my own rent and my own bills. Gee, defrauding $3mil from the government (really from the taxpayers) is seeming more and more attractive by the minute.*
*This comment was made in jest. As Bush probably has people spying on everyone every moment of every goddamned day, ready to arrest people for the slightest offense in the name of combatting terrorism, I simply want to say to you, Mr. Dumbass, I mean, Mr. President, is that I don't actually plan to steal $3mil from the taxpayers. I mean, you do that enough.
It's a girl!
I thought the same thing at first, that this was a soft sentence for the man in question... however, being barred from any federal grant ever is no laughing matter.
That, and this kind of disgrace will more or less ruin his career. It doesn't matter whether he spends his life inside a jail cell or on the streets; everything he's ever worked for is gone, permanently. His life's work is now less than shit because he got too greedy... that's a hard pill to swallow. I mean, seriously, what's he going to do now? Teach physics and biology at some tiny shit high school in the stix? Pump gas? Manage a McDonalds? This is a good lesson for the more unscrupulous in the scientific community: engage in lying and scumbaggery, and lose everything you've held dear, ever.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Maybe some of these so-called "scientists" involved with Global Warming will get a wake-up call!
The so-called scientists involved in the the oil-and-gas disinformation campaign are indeed guilty of fraud. Only now are the scientists involved in the Tobacco disinformation campaign starting to be held to account. Let us hope that in this situation the wheels of justice move quicker.
If you think there is any legitimate question as to the relationship between CO2 and climate change, or as to humankind's contribution to CO2, or as to the acuteness of the problem, please cite reviewed scientific articles.
If you don't believe in science, say so. But don't dismiss the scientific evidence as "voodoo science" without offering some of what you consider "real science." Testimonials are not science, regardless of who makes them.
For those who bat about the words "proof" and "theory" I suggest you determine what they mean in a technical context. Americans are perfectly happy to kill their own citizens with a standard of proof known as "beyond reasonable doubt." And to kill the citizens of other countries on mere suspicion. There is no reasonable doubt about the relationships stated above. In terms of the popular legal use of the word proof, the case is proven.
There is some uncertainty as to how fast the climate change may cascade out of control. Just like when I turn up the volume control on a PA system, I know that I will eventually get horrible screeching feedback but I can't point to the exact position on the dial where it will occur. This does not make feedback "a theory" or "uncertain" at all. In the case of global there is strong evidence that this feedback has started to occur; we just don't know when it will be outright out of control.
- First of all, you need to have a solid scientific background on what you want to ask the funding for
- If you are already working on this field, you have to present your previous results, with published data
- You have to present a detailed plan of what you want to do, and the rationale for it, and possibly the deadlines for partial results
- You also have to give reasons for using the money, including salaries and equipment
Writing a *good* grant is not that easy. I don't live in the US, but I think that similar guidelines apply there.A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
I disagree, to a degree. Don't let anyone off the hook because you presume the results of their falsifications won't have far-reaching consequences. It's a damn rare piece of research that doesn't have some application, somewhere, and there's no way to predict how something will ultimately be used. Using your example, if that defective signal-processing algorithm happened to end up in a jet liner's avionics package the results could be catastrophic. When you get right down to it, medical treatments have to undergo far more rigorous testing procedures than most algorithms do. Like doctors and other medical personnel, software developers have to place their trust in the work of others, whether that be some unsung programmer at Microsoft or a computer scientist who comes up with a cool new algorithm.
... given a chance good science (and good scientists!) will weed them out.
... the guy's a crook and deserved what he got.
Events of this nature do stress the importance of scientific method, peer-review and replication of results. There will always be bad apples
So far as that three mil is concerned, I guess this just goes to show that bureaucrats don't make good watchdogs for scientists. Heck, I could have told them that. But I agree with you otherwise
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This guy had to fake data to get grants, which I assume means he had to make his data look like what the grantors expected.
Not really (well, except politically charged areas of research like recreational drug use, environment, and the heredity of human intelligence). Other things being equal (researcher's reputation, clinical relevance, novelty) what granting agencies look for are results that tell some kind of self-consistant story, whether it extends the prevailing consensus or overturns it. If it overturns the prevailing consensus, the more persuasive data will be expected, but in both cases the data itself is judged by its coherence.
So if you write that drug foo makes protein bar get upregulated in liver but downregulated in lungs and stay the same in kidneys in young mice and the difference disappears with age except in the brain, where there now is a difference, and on top of that, the measures of protein bar activity don't always agree with protein bar levels, you have a very messy story that is going to be hard to publish, let alone fund, unless there are other studies published that put it into some kind of interpretable context. It just sounds like you're chasing random noise.
If you write that drug foo makes protein baz get upregulated in every organ system studied, at several different ages, and several independent tests (mRNA level, protein level, protein activity) are all in perfect agreement, you have yourself a paper in a nice journal and convincing data to back your next grant application.
The problem is that in real life, almost all data looks like the first protein instead of the second one. So you pretty much have to use your own experience (and sometimes intuition) in figuring out which experiments to repeat or expand on, and which ones really are likely to be random noise.
So if you're an honest scientist you spend more of your grant money, buy more mice, repeat the experiments using more precise measurements and larger sample sizes. You pore over the literature and come up with elaborate theories that tie these disparate results together. You publish your paper in a lower quality journal. You risk getting passed over for tenure or getting your next grant application rejected.
If you take the easy way out, you just say "I know what the data is really supposed to be, we just screwed up the experiment, I'll just drop a few data points here, and make up a few over here, and now it all makes sense".
The scary thing is, if you have good hunches, a lot of the time you'll be right about how the experiment would have turned out if you put $100,000 into repeating it. And most of the rest of the time, it will be years before anybody figures out you were wrong, and they'll probably assume it was an honest mistake rather than fraud. Meanwhile, your career as a scientist is at stake right now. So the temptation can be great.
To me that's the big frustration about research science-- our equivalent of the write-compile-test cycle takes years.
How to fix it? Put more money into basic research, so it's less of a rat-race and scientists can spend more of their energy thinking about science instead of about where their next grant is going to come from. Where to get this money? Oh, I dunno, maybe avoid invading Iran and pass a tiny fraction of the savings to research? Decrease health-care costs by loosening the immigration and accreditation requirements for foreign MDs (like has already been done over the years for foreign PhDs) and pass a tiny fraction of the savings to research? Increase the inheritance tax for estates worth more than, say, $5 million and put it into research? Stop blowing money on the drug war, or on moral crusades, or on music/movie/software "piracy", or on imaginary domestic terrorists (who would kill fewer people than get killed by cancer and heart disease even if they staged a 9-11 every frigging year) and (you guessed it) pass a tiny fraction of the savings to research? Oh heck, if you're some ki