The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Scholar of Dishonesty Accused of Research Dishonesty Sues for Libel, Claiming Accusers Were Dishonest
Prof. Francesca Gino, a celebrated scholar studying dishonesty, was recently put on unpaid leave by Harvard, based on allegations that she had fabricated data in her studies; the allegations had been raised and discussed by three professors who run Data Colada (Uri Simonsohn of ESADE Business School in Barcelona, Leif Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, and Joseph Simmons of the University of Pennsylvania). Yesterday, in Gino v. Harvard Univ., Gino sued Harvard for employment law violations (basically, discrimination and breach of contract) and both Harvard and Data Colada for libel. The complaint is long, and I won't try to summarize it in any more detail here; but those interested in the controversy (or in such controversies generally) may want to read it, of course recognizing that it's just Gino's side of the story. I expect to write more about this as the defendants raise their objections, likely in motions to dismiss.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Again, Franz Kafka is jealous of the 21st Century.
More like Escher, maybe?
Recursive accusations of dishonesty!
"Recursion's a powerful mathematical concept, but I don't see how it can help us now."
It's turtles all the way down!
Sounds like Jacobson -
Critics point out errors in his 100% renewable study and he sues.
The story has an air of inevitability, considering the shear sensational value of the headline. Maybe this is just original research on being economical with the truth?
Any relation to the resignation of Stanford's president?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-corrects-itself-right-a-scandal-at-stanford-says-it-doesnt/
It would be great if this story stimulated interest in the more important issue of the replication crisis (that is of scientific research, not male infertility)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Having read the original accusations of falsification of data, the only way she did not intentionally or knowingly falsify her findings is if her cat danced on her keyboard while she was away and miraculously ended up copying, renaming, and moving files into the perfect folders on her computer to be used and cited in her research.
If an infinite number of cats dance on an infinite number of keyboards ....
You get a lot of keyboards full of cat poop.
We need a Like button.
I am not a lawyer, but I often pontificate on it and occasionally am lucky enough to find myself in front of some judge or another. I can confidently say that most lawyers in the room scoff at me, which is OK because I usually lose. Only not always. I feel sorry for you lawyers though, since you will never savor victory as a layman against a member of the bar. However, as cheeky as I am, I would never acquiesce to jousting with a scientist about statistical analysis. I admit that I switched to skimming around paragraph 301,
but my guess is Professor Gino is going to become very rich in the next few years. I think the jury will ignore your monkeys and instead zero in on a powerful body breaking it's own policies to torment a female that they obviously wanted gone. Bravo to her for standing and fighting. I have no idea whether she falsified data or not.
She obviously falsified data. It's pretty blatant, statistically. There's like 3 papers documenting it, and they're damning.
The Harvard internal report is supposed to be about 1,200 pages long.
Meaning, no one will bother to read it. And then it will make great kindling for the next Harvard bonfire.
For Data Colada's side of it, go to https://datacolada.org/toc and look at posts 109-112. The evidence is pretty powerful.
The evidence is actually feeble. Read the recent filing to see that Data Colada admitted they had no evidence that this researcher modified the data. Additionally, Data Colada also admitted they never had access to or used the original data sets. They also ignored every alternative reason for discrepancies.
Data Colada seem like a bunch of chumps with a chip on their shoulders. This will more than likely end very badly for them.
Hi Professor Gino
Yeah, not her. I do teach at two other universities, so I am very, very familiar with what's going on.
I don't think anyone here read the 100-page document. It's very, very telling. Granted, it's only one side, but if the allegations are true, it's very damning against Harvard and Data Colada.
The accusations paint a picture that this was "hushed and rushed" to mitigate damage to Harvard's reputation and maximize the damage to the researcher.
This might get settled out of court, but due to the intentional public nature of the situation and the level of damage this has done, there will be demands for public statements and clarifications as part of any settlement.
Regardless, it's a complete clusterfuck drama that's going to play out in the courts. No one is going to win at the end of this journey.
Hi Professor Gino
Really fucking original, douchenozzle. Got anything of substance?