He Hunts Sloppy Scientists. He’s Finding Lots of Prey.; The New York Times, February 2, 2024

Matt Richtel, The New York Times ; He Hunts Sloppy Scientists. He’s Finding Lots of Prey.

"Sholto David, 32, has a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular biology from Newcastle University in England. He is also developing an expertise in spotting errors in scientific papers. Most recently, and notably, he discovered flawed or manipulated data in studies conducted by top executives at the Harvard-affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The institute said that it was requesting retraction of six manuscripts and had found 31 other manuscripts that required corrections.

From his home in Wales, Dr. David scours new research publications for images that are mislabeled and manipulated, and he regularly finds mistakes, or malfeasance, in some of the most prominent scientific journals. Accuracy is vital, as peer-reviewed papers often provide the evidence for drug trials or further lines of research. Dr. David said that the frequency of such errors suggests an underlying problem for science.

His interview with The New York Times has been edited and condensed...

Does this call into question the peer-review process?

I think that’s something that people need to think about. These are top scientific journals with errors that escaped peer review. Maybe the peer reviewers are looking for other things. Maybe they like to look at the methods or the conclusions more carefully than the results. But, yeah, it does make me think that people should question how effective the peer-review process has been."

Opinion: Harvard’s Claudine Gay should resign; The Washington Post, December 23, 2023

Ruth Marcus , The Washington Post; Opinion: Harvard’s Claudine Gay should resign

"Perhaps the most disturbing example is the least academic — Gay’s borrowing of words from another scholar, Jennifer L. Hochschild. In her acknowledgments for a 1996 book, Hochschild described a mentor who “showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor” and “drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Gay’s dissertation thanked her thesis adviser, who “reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor,” and her family, “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Now, can I just say? Acknowledgments are the easiest, and most fun part, of writing a book, the place where you list your sources and allies and all the people who helped you get the manuscript over the finish line. Why not come up with your own thanks? What does it say about a person who chooses to appropriate another’s language for this most personal task."

USM tapped to develop ethics training in age of artificial intelligence; Portland Press Herald, September 5, 2023

LANA COHEN, Portland Press Herald; USM tapped to develop ethics training in age of artificial intelligence

"Thompson and other researchers at the Portland-based regulatory training and ethics center hope to better understand what is behind individuals’ tendencies to cut corners ethically and use that information to create training programs for businesses, nonprofits and colleges – including those in the UMaine System – that could help prevent cheating or other unethical conduct in research."

Stanford president to resign over concerns about integrity of his research; The Guardian, July 19, 2023

Guardian staff and agency , The Guardian; Stanford president to resign over concerns about integrity of his research

"The president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, has announced he will resign after concerns about the integrity of his research."

Eight studies by former Harvard, BIDMC researcher retracted over ethics review; Boston Globe, April 3, 2022

Jessica Bartlett, Boston Globe ; Eight studies by former Harvard, BIDMC researcher retracted over ethics review

"A former Harvard professor and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center doctor has had eight research studies or abstracts retracted by three different medical journals for problems with critical oversight approvals for the research."

The government dropped its case against Gang Chen. Scientists still see damage done; WBUR, February 16, 2022

Max Larkin, WBUR ; The government dropped its case against Gang Chen. Scientists still see damage done

"When federal prosecutors dropped all charges against MIT professor Gang Chen in late January, many researchers rejoiced in Greater Boston and beyond.

Chen had spent the previous year fighting charges that he had lied and omitted information on U.S. federal grant applications. His vindication was a setback for the "China Initiative," a controversial Trump-era legal campaign aimed at cracking down on the theft of American research and intellectual property by the Chinese government.

Researchers working in the United States say the China Initiative has harmed both their fellow scientists and science itself — as a global cooperative endeavor. But as U.S.-China tensions remain high, the initiative remains in place." 

Blockchain could ensure the integrity of scientific research trials; Digital Trends, February 23, 2019

Georgina Torbet , Digital Trends; Blockchain could ensure the integrity of scientific research trials

"Scientific misconduct is more than just a problem for academia. The falsifying of results can lead to incorrect information spreading out into the world and can have real-world consequences as well as undermining the credibility of science among the general public. Now a group of researchers have proposed a way to make research data more trustworthy and less susceptible to manipulation — by using blockchain.

Researchers at the University of California, San Fransico (UCSF) created a proof of concept that shows how the integrity of clinical trial data can be protected and proven using blockchain. Blockchain allows users to track the changes made to any portion of the data entered into it, making an audit trail for regulators which can be checked for any inconsistencies. This would make it obvious if, for example, a researcher changes certain values in their data set to come to the conclusion that they wanted."
 

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It; Rolling Stone, February 13, 2019

Jake Malooley, Rolling Stone;

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It

When journalist Jake Malooley talked to the former New York Times executive editor, she admitted only to minor mistakes — but her responses were revealing

[Kip Currier: In yesterday's Information Ethics class session, looking at Plagiarism, Attribution, and Research Integrity and Misconduct, we explored this illuminating 2/13/19 interview of Jill Abramson--veteran journalist and the former first-ever female Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2011 until her firing in 2014--by Rolling Stone reporter Jake Malooley.

I also played the first ten minutes of a 2/20/19 radio interview of Abramson by WNYC's Brian Lehrer, in which Abramson fields questions from Lehrer about her ongoing plagiarism controversy and research/writing process.

The Abramson plagiarism controversy is a rich ripped-from-the-headlines case study, emphasizing the importance and implications of plagiarism and research integrity and misconduct. Imagine being in Abramson's Harvard University class this term, where the 1976 Harvard FAS alumna is teaching an Introduction to Journalism course...

Speaking of Harvard, The Harvard Crimson has an interesting 2/15/19 article on the continuing Abramson controversy, as well as prior instances of alleged plagiarism by a trio of prestigious Harvard professors in the early 2000's, who, following investigations, "faced no public disciplinary action": Current Policy, Past Investigations Offer Window Into Harvard’s Next Steps In Abramson Plagiarism Case]

"In the days that followed, Abramson gave interviews to Vox and CNN. She unconvincingly sidestepped definitions of plagiarism upheld by the Times and Harvard, contending she is guilty of little more than sloppiness. She also claimed Vice is “waging an oppo campaign” against her book. Amid all the equivocation and attempts to duck the plagiarist label, Abramson still had not sufficiently explained how my writing and that of several other journalists ended up running nearly word-for-word in her book. I didn’t feel personally aggrieved, as some colleagues believed I rightfully should. But I did think I was owed straight answers. So late last week, I requested an interview with Abramson through Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Merchants of Truth.

On Monday afternoon, Abramson phoned me from Harvard’s campus, where she would be teaching an introduction to journalism seminar. According to the syllabus for Abramson’s Spring 2019 workshop “Journalism in the Age of Trump,” a copy of which a student, Hannah Gais, tweeted, Merchants of Truth is assigned as required reading...

This interview has been condensed for length.

Correction: This article previously stated that Abramson was on her way to her Spring 2019 workshop, “Journalism in the Age of Trump.” It has been corrected to clarify that she was on her way to an introduction to journalism class."

Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Document; New York Times, March 14, 2017

Danny Hakim, New York Times; 

Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Document

"In one email unsealed Tuesday, William F. Heydens, a Monsanto executive, told other company officials that they could ghostwrite research on glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were actually written by Monsanto. “We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak,” Mr. Heydens wrote, citing a previous instance in which he said the company had done this.

Asked about the exchange, Monsanto said in a second statement that its “scientists did not ghostwrite the paper” that was referred to or previous work, adding that a paper that eventually appeared “underwent the journal’s rigorous peer review process before it was published.”

David Kirkland, one of the scientists mentioned in the email, said in an interview, “I would not publish a document that had been written by someone else.” He added, “We had no interaction with Monsanto at all during the process of reviewing the data and writing the papers.”

The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. Last year, a review by The New York Times showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings."