Judge Dismisses Superconductivity Physicist's Lawsuit Against University (nature.com) 21
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by superconductivity physicist Ranga Dias against his employer, the University of Rochester in New York. From a report: In February, a university investigation found that he had committed scientific misconduct by, among other things, fabricating data to claim the discovery of superconductors -- materials with zero electrical resistance -- at room temperature. Dias filed the lawsuit against the university for allegedly violating his academic freedom and conducting a biased investigation into his work.
On 19 April, Monroe County Supreme Court justice Joseph Waldorf denied Dias's petitions and dismissed the lawsuit as premature. The matter "is not ripe for judicial review," Waldorf wrote, because, although Rochester commissioned an independent review that found Dias had committed misconduct, it has not yet finished taking administrative action. The university provost has recommended that Dias be fired, but a final decision is still forthcoming. A spokesperson for the university said Rochester was "pleased" with the justice's ruling, and reiterated that its investigation was "carried out in a fair manner" and reached a conclusion that it thinks is correct.
Nature's news team reported on Rochester's investigation previously: three scientists external to the university conducted a 10-month probe into 16 allegations against Dias and determined that the physicist had committed plagiarism, and data fabrication and falsification related to four scientific papers, including two published in Nature. Normally, the details of the investigation would probably have remained confidential. But in response to Dias's lawsuit, the university submitted the entire report as a court exhibit, making it public.
On 19 April, Monroe County Supreme Court justice Joseph Waldorf denied Dias's petitions and dismissed the lawsuit as premature. The matter "is not ripe for judicial review," Waldorf wrote, because, although Rochester commissioned an independent review that found Dias had committed misconduct, it has not yet finished taking administrative action. The university provost has recommended that Dias be fired, but a final decision is still forthcoming. A spokesperson for the university said Rochester was "pleased" with the justice's ruling, and reiterated that its investigation was "carried out in a fair manner" and reached a conclusion that it thinks is correct.
Nature's news team reported on Rochester's investigation previously: three scientists external to the university conducted a 10-month probe into 16 allegations against Dias and determined that the physicist had committed plagiarism, and data fabrication and falsification related to four scientific papers, including two published in Nature. Normally, the details of the investigation would probably have remained confidential. But in response to Dias's lawsuit, the university submitted the entire report as a court exhibit, making it public.
In other words (Score:5, Informative)
Dias filed the lawsuit against the university for allegedly violating his academic freedom and conducting a biased investigation into his work.
The university did its due diligence and contacted people not associated with the project to perform an unbiased, factual examination of his claims and found them to be bullshit.
It seems the moment anyone's bullshit is shot down due to facts holding sway the only thing they can claim is their "freedom" is being violated. Why does this sound so familiar?
Hans Krisitan Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:3)
You cooked and ate both our children? (Score:2)
Plagiarism and data fabrication?
There is a Far Side cartoon where the parents return home to be greeted by a woman who looks like a fairy-tale witch. Flabergasted by what has happened, they scold this baby sitter with, "You cooked and ate both our children" as if she had limited herself to devouring only one child, it would have been less of a concern.
So, if you are going to fake your data, can't you at least cite prior faked-data studies by other investigators taking shortcuts?
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, dude, isn't having independent third parties review the results the entire point of scientific research?
Isn't the the most fundamental tool of the scientific method?
Re:In other words (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course it is. But the whiner is complaining that because it was done, the university was harshing on his academic freedom. That's the point. He was literally, in the truest senses of the word, arguing that their facts were impinging on his lying.
3rd party review is not the point of research (Score:3)
I once got scolded by an associate editor of a journal for responding to a reviewer by offering to show "source code" to a simplification of a formula using symbolic manipulation software.
The whole scholarly enterprise operates on trust and taking a scholar at their word. I may have misinterpreted what the reviewer was asking for. The request for clarification may have had to do that they never heard of Mathematic or Maple before and didn't know that machine simplification of algebra "was a thing." Th
Re: (Score:2)
The whole scholarly enterprise operates on trust and taking a scholar at their word.
It isn't supposed to and I never saw that in academia. When I was there, I would have seen that as the opposite of science. There is something deeply wrong with academia if this the current culture. The entire point of the scientific process is trust nothing except controlled experimental results. What someone in some professorial chair says is kinda irrelevant if the data shows something different. Every single story I have ever heard of where science goes wrong starts with someone breaking that rule
How the scholarly community actually operates (Score:2)
Scholars are "at each other's throats" all the time with respect to the interpretation of data and conflicting theories.
On the other hand, 3rd-party audits of whether a lab is faking data are rare. Your peer scientific investigators take you at your word if you say that you ran a particular experiment and observed a set of measurements.
The idea that "3rd party review" should be commonplace is like the idea that the police should break your door down at their discretion to make sure you are not hiding
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not, that is absurd. The point of science is to make falsifiable predictions concerning objective reality. Science is by necessity verifiable by third parties, but you can do science by yourself with no one to review your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this sound so familiar?
Lazy lawyers. They've probably been able to extort money out of some case in the past with the same claim, so why not try it again?
What's the thought process here? (Score:3)
"I got caught, they have evidence... I'm just going to call them all liars!"
That works in politics (sadly), not science.
Re: (Score:1)
That works in politics (sadly), not science.
He was hoping it would work in courts too.
Re:What's the thought process here? (Score:5, Funny)
That works in politics (sadly), not science.
He was hoping it would work in courts too.
It did not work because he did not have an AI-assisted lawyer pleading his case.
Re: (Score:2)
As described in the summary (because I can't be bothered to read the article), he's not even accusing them of being liars, or even wrong. He's not even claiming they are wrong, just that they investigated him.
I can see a business plan. (Score:2)
Room temperature superconductors could be a trillion dollar industry. After getting the university to state their disavowal of his "research" on record, he goes out and gets venture capital. If (as suspected) it fails, he will have enough salted away to live off for decades. In the unlikely event that it succeeds, the university won't be able to claim that it owns the research it disavowed.
6) ???
7) PROFIT!
Some chutzpah (Score:2)