Slashdot Log In
Bell Labs fires Hendrik Schon for Data Falsification
Posted by
chrisd
on Wed Sep 25, 2002 07:58 PM
from the 1-down-118-to-go dept.
from the 1-down-118-to-go dept.
Raiford writes "Bell Labs has fired physicist Hendrik Schon for falsifying scientific data. Schon was thought to be a likely candidate for the Nobel prize based on the promise his reported research findings had for the advancement of molecular scale computing. In a Reuters report the dismissal was described as the only conclusive case of scientific misconduct ever identified in the history of the prestigious laboratory."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Now if only the rest of the company could claim the same. I'm still pissed at them for stealing my companies customers. We would sell people ISDN back in 1998 and two weeks after the install our local baby bell would come to their door pitching their services. It turned out they were flagging our orders and sending their dsl sales team out to steal our customers.
Bastards
Re:hmmm (Score:3, Informative)
Lucent was spun off in 1996, thus Bell Labs wasn't part of your incidents in 1998.
BTW -- There are claims of Verizon, Qwest and others doing exactly the same thing today. Sad.
The system works? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its odd that they make a big thing out of finding the forgery though. What does that buy them? Why not say "Ouch!" fire him and move on?
Re:The system works? (Score:3, Informative)
It's fairly big news. Fraud of this scale is reprehensible. Plus I'm sure they want to make sure he never works again.
Re: The system works? (Score:4, Funny)
> I think because that type of forgery has a huge impact on their bottom line. I mean they were spending millions on what this guys claimed, and would have spent millions more.
Shouldn't they hope he goes to work with their competitors?
Parent
Re:The system works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The system works? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:The system works? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its odd that they make a big thing out of finding the forgery though. What does that buy them? Why not say "Ouch!" fire him and move on?
It buys them them the sort of respect in the scientific community that being open about bugs and security flaws buys Debian or OpenBSD in the hacker community. Quietly sweeping this under the carpet would create among scientists the sort of sentiment MS and others recieve from hackers and admins when those companies hide or ignore security holes.
Parent
3rd time telling this story on /, (Score:2)
thusly, im impressed. way to can the liars. now if only we could do this with sales teams
Re:3rd time telling this story on /, (Score:2, Funny)
Oh... that was a typo!? Nevermind..
T
Re:3rd time telling this story on /, (Score:2)
In other news.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news.... (Score:2)
"Throw yourself at the ground and miss"
Re:In other news.... (Score:2)
It isn't that simple. When you throw yourself to the ground, something has to catch your attention in a very large way. You cannot simply throw yourself to the ground and miss, you will land face first into the dirt.
For example, if you throw yourself to the ground and see a translucent purple dancing octopus fly by in a miniature P38 propeller-driven fighter plane, you will probably so surprised that you forget to land. Once this happens, as long as you do not consciously realize that you haven't yet landed, you'll be airborne.
For further reference, please see the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy entry on "flight."
Hey Schon! (Score:2, Funny)
Questionable (Score:3, Interesting)
I dont know what he was working on, but I would like to give the guy the benifit of the doubt until I can read the report and experimental data.
At least he's not moving the Lab's money into offshore shell companies to show earnings..
Re:Questionable (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not a sin to come up with seemingly crackpot theories. In fact that's almost synonymous with ingenuity. What is a horrible, unforgivable crime is to tamper with data to fit it to model and not vice versa. To a scientist, real data is (or should be) holy and must be treated with due reverence.
Parent
Re:Questionable (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the hunch that usually leads scientists to study the phenomena/theories in question in the first place. The hard part is devising an experiment to prove/disprove what you're looking for without too many intervening factors that can get in the way. In fact, sometimes just coming up with the experiment itself is worthy of a Nobel Prize.
But scientists should NEVER EVER fake data, no matter HOW STRONGLY they believe they are right. If they're that sure, then they can publish all the theoretical articles they want. But NEVER publish fraudulent data as true. Science is about truth, truth is about absolute, not about hunches. That's why scientists do (or should, if they don't shy away from it) report estimated uncertainties for all experimentally-determined values and data points. If scientists didn't adhere to these lofty expectations, one wouldn't be able to believe any of the journals, which would be a major setback for all fields of science. If you had inherent mistrust of scientists, then science would become just like politics [whitehouse.gov].
I dont know what he was working on, but I would like to give the guy the benifit of the doubt until I can read the report and experimental data.
Sorry, this guy WAS given the benefit of the doubt for many years. His results were irreproducible, which as you know, is one of the main characteristics of science. Everything must be reproducible. He claimed to grow Aluminum Oxide films that could withstand far greater electric fields before breaking down than anyone else on the planet, which is odd considering people mimicked his exact sputtering/growth techniques. For years nobody could reproduce any of his experiments. Much of the discord boiled down to a specific sputtering chamber Schon had back in Germany, where he claimed he was able to grow his thin films. Eventually Schon tried to regrow some films again in this chamber, and said he was unable to repeat his earlier work.
I worked in a physics lab [harvard.edu] this past summer where nearly every day at lunchtime the professor (Dr. Michael Tinkham, who's rather reknowned in superconductivity circles) would hold up a copy of Physics Today with a picture of Schon and warn us of the consequences of abandoning truth in favor of increased publications.
What Prof. Tinkham pointed out to us is that Schon became something of a minor deity in the realm of experimental physics, getting significant publications, usually quite often in the top physics journals such as Nature, Science, Physical Review, etc. The problem was that he soon had a reputation of greatness to maintain, so he may have gotten a little clumsy regarding data acquisition and analysis, in favor of keeping his astonishing rate of publications steady.
Eventually, things caught up to him. I'm not sure how much of his questionable work was little details that slipped though his fingers, how much was semi-conscious oversight, and how much was flat-out fabrication and fraud. But after he was caught then all his work became suspect.
The worst thing he did was re-use a dataset entirely, claiming it was a plot of something else, and left the exact same noise spurs and other anomalies.
Usually it's rare to find such blatant scientific fraud, but there was another recent fraud [physicstoday.org].
At least he's not moving the Lab's money into offshore shell companies to show earnings.
Sure, and at least he's also not killing people. But in the realm of science, what he's done is destroy the credibility that scientists strive for, and even NEED to be respected for. It's great that he's been caught, and hopefully it'll be a lesson to any up-and-coming experimentalists that no matter how much you believe in your theories, you have a committment to truth.
Maybe there should be some kind of hippocratic oath for scientists, that would be cool.
Parent
Re:Questionable (Score:2)
Of course, the idea behind peer review is that everyone's ideas are suspect anyway until the results have been reproduced.
Tis a shame to single out a man for damnation on the basis of one slip when damnation is the default case.
Bulltish (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Questionable (Score:2)
The purpose of peer review is NOT to wait for reproducibility but to make sure the article in question is WORTHY enough to be printed. One usually assumes the data is accurate, but one questions the math and physics behind the various deductive claims.
Tis a shame to single out a man for damnation on the basis of one slip when damnation is the default case.
It wasn't ONE case, it was SEVERAL suspicious data sets, which eventually got noticed when a graph, supposedly representing different data, was used AT LEAST TWICE.
In other words, after several slips, and finding out UTTER FABRICATION used by the scientist, then the man is 'singled out' to be judged if he is worthy of 'damnation'. Don't worry, Bell Labs gave him his trial, for the past several months, and now they have determined he is GUILTY.
Re:Questionable (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with all of this - falsification of data is the ultimate scientific crime. The analogy with recent accounting fraud is quite a good one - not only will nobody hire this guy as a scientist again (as nobody would hire some ex-CEO/CFOs from fraudulant companies) but he has destroyed much that was good (as many employees and shareholders of the bad companies had their livelyhoods destroyed) - any work based on what he did is now worthless, and old and possibly correct work he did is worthless, because nobody knows what they can trust.
For the scientist, this is like a child-molestation conviction for a teacher - it makes him completely unhirable. I think that because of the seriousness of fraud charges, scientists are very unwilling to bring them. I suspect that, like child-molestation a generation or two ago, that it very often gets swept under the carpet.
Parent
Re:Questionable (Score:2)
In many cases, though, I don't think it's because of the fear of fraud charges that keeps scientists honest.
I think what is USUALLY the case is that scientists have a tendency to be truthful to their work because that is the nature of science - finding out truth of either physics or chemistry or astronomy, you name it.
If the up-and-coming scientists were after fame and/or glory and/or riches, there are far easier and more efficient ways to achieve those goals than in science. And especially because the road to PhD and beyond is definitely not easy, that usually leaves the most devoted.
One would hope that this devotion to science would overpower any desire to falsify data. I think in Schon's case, though, he may have let the fame he had (albeit in a small circle) get to his head so he could keep up with his publications.
He got too greedy, and it caught up to him. I think this is interesting because in light of this, many professors are now scrutinizing their student's work more carefully then they may have previously. After all, if one's advisor's name will go on a publication, that advisor doesn't want to be associated with the next Schon.
Re:Questionable (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a feeling that sometimes scientists just have a 6th sense that lead them to correct hypothesises even when data does not back them up
Police and prosecutors may just have a 6th sense that can lead them to correct hypotheses about the identity of the guilty party even when evidence does not back them up, but few would want to give them the benefit of the doubt and base the criminal justice system upon their conjectures.
~Phillip
Parent
shoen (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:shoen (Score:2)
Really, isn't the last thing we want a proven liar doing going to be teaching the impressionable young physicists of tomorrow?
The scientific method works (Score:3, Insightful)
and who caught him? (Score:4, Funny)
more information (Score:4, Informative)
Unfotunately not all that uncommon (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard a story about a biological researcher who went to some lengths to forge his results. When confronted with the accusation he produced his raw data and even autoradiograms. It eventually came out that he had decided where he wanted his results, and had then used an iodine isotope to create the bands on his blot.
Due to the extreme competition that exists in most research these days, forged results are only going to become more and more common.
Lucent has been sinking for years (Score:2, Interesting)
Scientists+HR+business people==shit
People were getting laid off left and right, management had no idea what was going on, and the company was telling employees to buy stock options while the stock tanked from $60 to under a dollar. What a sad ending for one of the great American Research Labs.
Re:Lucent has been sinking for years (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, though, I'm very glad to see that they maintained the intelligence, backbone, and ethics to bounce Schon's sorry ass.
Tomas
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes!"
It turns out... (Score:3)
I cheated in Chemisty when I was a junior! (Score:2, Funny)
Stupid Reporter (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists at rival laboratories, however, had difficulty reproducing the results of Schon's work, thwarting a checks-and-balances process integral to the scientific method.
Um, no. If the "checks-and-balances process" were being thwarted, then it would have been circumvented or avoided somehow. This is an example of the process working as it's supposed to. You don't need a checks-and-balances system if everyone in the field is always going to be a good boy at all times. What happened here is that someone wasn't, and the scientific process caught him at it.
I would love it if these wire services would assign beats to reporters by taking into consideration what subjects they actually understand. They should also be fluent in the language in which they are writing, and display some comprehension of the words they're using.
Isn't This Like RIAA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop The World, I Wanna Get Off (Score:2)
Nobel Prize? (Score:2)
Shit... probably just get my ass fired.
Oh wait. =)
My favorite quote from the Reuters article... (Score:5, Funny)
Glad they specified that. Otherwise, I might have thought they were referring to some other Nobel prize, like maybe the Gertrude P. Nobel Prize in Experimental Cosmetology.
Re:That's one.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's one.. (Score:2)
Re:Shit Happens (Score:2, Insightful)
he brought it on completely himself.
people like this should burn. he took it as far as he could. he's little more than a pyramid con-artist.
hope he enjoys working as a tomato picker the rest of his life.
Re:Shit Happens (Score:5, Interesting)
of this morning reading the Beasley report on
this case. There is nothing about this guy or
his data that is not "troublesome", i.e. fake.
When your read that virtually every paper he
published is the result of scientific misconduct
it gets very hard to feel bad for the guy.
Instead I feel bad he is ruined at 32, not at 28.
Parent
Re:Shit Happens (Score:2)
Re:I would conclude... (Score:4, Insightful)
Plato once divided the ambitions of people into three categories: Reason (intellect, the need to seek knowledge), spirit (the need for recognition, honor), and appetite (the need for personal gain, such as wealth).
Real scientists are largely reason, usually with a bit of spirit thrown in. If you ever meet a greedy scientist, s/he isn't a real scientist--just like if you ever meet a hacker that can't code and uses l33t speak in his AOL chat window, he isn't a real hacker.
Parent
Re:I would conclude... (Score:2)
In my world, i.e. the real one. Scientists create Anthrax in labs, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons. Scientsts have been screwing each other from the dawn of science (Tesla/Edison).
Doctors are scientists too. I'm sure I could find warehouses full of case law in regards to legal matters with Doctors screwing each other over.
Their people just like everyone else. There is nothing romantic about it. They can be and often are just as corrupt as everyone else in the world. It's people like you that make them out to be perfect saints that let the bad ones slip by.
Re:In a MORE ironic twist... (and even more offtop (Score:2)
Re:CS Academic research ripe for this.. (Score:2, Informative)
However, the 'hot' or 'important' topics tend to get more review than most, and out-and-out fabrication of results is rare (not too rare, unfortunately; this is the second case in research physics I've heard of in my short life; the other was that mess in the lab at Berkeley).
Re:MISCONDUCT (Score:2)
Stone of Shame - Simpsons episode where Homer was a member of the Stone Cutters, right?
Didn't he eventually trade in the Stone Of Shame for the Stone Of Glory?
Re:What about the HP Sabotage? (Score:2)
To get folks up to speed, HP blamed low benchmark scores on one HP engineer. Then they fired him. Then they sued him. Makes you think twice about recommending any set of compiler flags, doesn't it? :-(
See this Register article [theregister.co.uk].
The Bell Labs case is different; it's much more a case of integrity rather than just benchmark scores. Clearly the labs felt that their integrity was being hurt by one sore thumb, but I do not see it at all as a bunch of vindictive uppity-up's taking their wrath out on a little guy.