Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WRAL)   Feds suck $112.5 million back from Duke University for research grants with faked data   (wral.com) divider line
    More: Fake, North Carolina, News, Raleigh, North Carolina, North Carolina State University, WRAL-TV, WRAL Weather App, Best BBQ, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill  
•       •       •

2847 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2019 at 1:47 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-03-25 12:35:26 PM  
 
2019-03-25 12:47:41 PM  
Well... Duke sucks.
 
2019-03-25 01:18:52 PM  
Does this include Nike shoe testing data?
 
2019-03-25 01:55:51 PM  
Officials said the alleged misconduct occurred from 2006 to 2013, when Duke officials fired the technician accused of fabricating the data for embezzling grant funds from the university over the same period.

"We expect Duke researchers to adhere always to the highest standards of integrity, and virtually all of them do that with great dedication," Duke President Vincent Price said in a statement. "When individuals fail to uphold those standards, and those who are aware of possible wrongdoing fail to report it, as happened in this case, we must accept responsibility, acknowledge that our processes for identifying and preventing misconduct did not work, and take steps to improve."


Probably find out that if the "technician" (what job title would that be, wouldn't it be "research professor"?) didn't try to embezzle away the funds, Duke would have kept the misappropriated funds, because Duke University administrators need to admit the misappropriation took place otherwise they couldn't sic the police and prosecutors after their former employee.
 
2019-03-25 01:57:31 PM  
Who cares? Did y'all see the game last night? That's all you need to know about Duke. $112M is pocket change. Pay it with the NCAA tournament pay out.
 
2019-03-25 01:58:22 PM  
Nice paywall.
 
2019-03-25 02:00:14 PM  

bighairyguy: Does this include Nike shoe testing data?


It was funny how many replays they had of Zion slipping and sliding around, almost as much as him actually rebounding or dunking or whatever.
 
2019-03-25 02:02:03 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Officials said the alleged misconduct occurred from 2006 to 2013, when Duke officials fired the technician accused of fabricating the data for embezzling grant funds from the university over the same period.

"We expect Duke researchers to adhere always to the highest standards of integrity, and virtually all of them do that with great dedication," Duke President Vincent Price said in a statement. "When individuals fail to uphold those standards, and those who are aware of possible wrongdoing fail to report it, as happened in this case, we must accept responsibility, acknowledge that our processes for identifying and preventing misconduct did not work, and take steps to improve."

Probably find out that if the "technician" (what job title would that be, wouldn't it be "research professor"?) didn't try to embezzle away the funds, Duke would have kept the misappropriated funds, because Duke University administrators need to admit the misappropriation took place otherwise they couldn't sic the police and prosecutors after their former employee.


A previous story said she embezzled $25k but she was apparently making up results that would keep the grant money flowing.
 
2019-03-25 02:04:43 PM  
Now multiply that by every university and hospital and non profit.
 
2019-03-25 02:06:07 PM  
Now multiply that by every university and hospital and non profit. Ok, not every one but a lot of them.
 
2019-03-25 02:11:58 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Probably find out that if the "technician" (what job title would that be, wouldn't it be "research professor"?)


If you read the article, you would have noticed it was for falsifying data related to gathering data on laboratory mice.  Generally, faculty don't do that sort of thing.  Sometimes grad students do it, but you almost always hire someone to do grunt-work jobs like that.  The professor works on analyzing the data and overseeing the study.  Unless a study is the dissertation of a particular grad student, they generally aren't around enough to follow through with a full study - a dedicated technician has a full-time job, has the expertise and experience over several years, and is supposed to work with the professor(s) to ensure the validity of the study.

Well, mostly.  But if the technician gets lazy, or in over their heads, or is worried about results not matching expected outcomes (studies where observed results don't match expectations don't get published anywhere near as often as those that do match regardless of validity of the results, and publishing is often the only criteria on what keeps you employed), then they can futz the data - and I expect the last of the three was the driver.  As long as you don't make the results too obviously bullshiat and they support the expectations, most people are not going to audit you too hard - even if the professor thinks something is off, they have a built-in incentive to whistle at the ceiling and not worry too hard if another study ten years down the road finds somewhat deviant results; being right and unpublished gets you bounced for insufficient grant income, while being wrong and having a list of published articles the length of your arms gets you a deanship.
 
2019-03-25 02:16:35 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-25 02:19:14 PM  
We are out of money, they should revoke all these grants
 
2019-03-25 02:26:50 PM  
How long before Duke to raises tuition and service fees?
 
2019-03-25 02:29:34 PM  

phalamir: DarkSoulNoHope: Probably find out that if the "technician" (what job title would that be, wouldn't it be "research professor"?)

If you read the article, you would have noticed it was for falsifying data related to gathering data on laboratory mice.  Generally, faculty don't do that sort of thing.  Sometimes grad students do it, but you almost always hire someone to do grunt-work jobs like that.  The professor works on analyzing the data and overseeing the study.  Unless a study is the dissertation of a particular grad student, they generally aren't around enough to follow through with a full study - a dedicated technician has a full-time job, has the expertise and experience over several years, and is supposed to work with the professor(s) to ensure the validity of the study.

Well, mostly.  But if the technician gets lazy, or in over their heads, or is worried about results not matching expected outcomes (studies where observed results don't match expectations don't get published anywhere near as often as those that do match regardless of validity of the results, and publishing is often the only criteria on what keeps you employed), then they can futz the data - and I expect the last of the three was the driver.  As long as you don't make the results too obviously bullshiat and they support the expectations, most people are not going to audit you too hard - even if the professor thinks something is off, they have a built-in incentive to whistle at the ceiling and not worry too hard if another study ten years down the road finds somewhat deviant results; being right and unpublished gets you bounced for insufficient grant income, while being wrong and having a list of published articles the length of your arms gets you a deanship.


Or the tobacco industry just REALLY pays well.  And makes family members disappear when you don't publish with the results they wanted...
 
2019-03-25 02:38:56 PM  
Made up numbers are way nicer and easier to get than sloppy real world data.
 
2019-03-25 02:42:00 PM  
Maybe spend less on Basketball and more on ethics classes.
 
2019-03-25 02:43:26 PM  
i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2019-03-25 02:52:31 PM  
 
2019-03-25 03:22:14 PM  
That's a lot of mouse lung data.

I wonder how much Brain was able to spend?  Narf!
 
2019-03-25 06:22:34 PM  
Not a good time to be a collage right now.
 
2019-03-25 08:02:43 PM  

stuffy: Not a good time to be a collage right now.


it may seem like a lot of broken pieces, but it all comes together in the end.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report