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."
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?
Troll me if you want but it's been published.
Yeah, you should worry about being modded troll, because Slashdot is so well-known for its pro Bush attitudes.
With our present administration if you were falsifying data to prove creationism you might just get a medal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Ioannidis article you cite has more to do with overinterpretation of statistical power in data analysis than outright falsification of data as in the Poehlman case. In particular, Ioannidis is actually critical of overinterpretation of results obtained from sample sizes that are too small or experimental designs that have too many degrees of freedom. In fact, the title of his study is an overinterpretation of the conclusions in the paper itself - which I'm sure he did on purpose to incite debate on the topic.
This is well summarized in this response to the article, which has the added bonus of quoting "Mudd's Women" to support the argument.
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!!!
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
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.
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.
The administration claimed that there was incontrovertible evidence of WMDs in Iraq, yet they didn't find any. So, it's clear that someone in the administration was either deeply incompetent or deliberately lying; either possibility is a liability for the administration.
In any case, the burden of proof is not on the critics of the CIA, it's on the CIA and the administration; they have to prove to the public that they spent public money wisely and justifiably. We all can listen to their case and decide every four years at the ballot box whether to believe them.