Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News Science

Embattled Superconductivity Scientist Is Out (msn.com) 21

Ranga Dias, a physics professor who made headlines with claims that he had discovered a room-temperature superconductor and then was found to have engaged in research misconduct, is no longer employed by the University of Rochester. WSJ: A spokeswoman for the university confirmed on Monday that Dias is out but declined to comment on the terms of his departure. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Rochester President Sarah Mangelsdorf had called for terminating his position in an August letter to the chair and vice chair of the university's Board of Trustees.

Dias leaves the university after years of accusations that he had misrepresented data in multiple papers. He is a senior author on at least five papers retracted in just over two years. One of those, which identified a material that functioned as a superconductor at room temperature, was pulled by the journal Nature after several co-authors told the journal that Dias had misrepresented information in the paper. Dias didn't respond to requests for comment. He has previously denied manipulating or misrepresenting data.

His departure follows a monthslong university investigation completed in February that was led by three outside experts who reviewed documents and data from Dias's laboratory computers and interviewed Dias and his collaborators. The investigative panel found evidence of misconduct in four papers in which Dias is a senior author and in a grant proposal he submitted to the National Science Foundation. Then-provost David Figlio accepted the conclusions and referred his case to a faculty committee "for potential removal." Dias sued the university in February claiming that the probe into his work was biased and didn't follow university policies.

Embattled Superconductivity Scientist Is Out

Comments Filter:
  • Ranga Dias (Score:5, Interesting)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @01:28PM (#64957961)

    I've posted about him specifically before .. the reason he does this .. and gets away with it is simple. When he was at Harvard, he and his professor (Isaac Silvera) made a claim that they had created "metallic hydrogen" and subsequently lost the sample in a lab accident and were unable to recreate it. Doesn't matter though .. they still got published in the journal Science. So of course that may have made him realize that if you submit from a top institute like "Harvard" you can make any wild claim and get published easier (and that in turn gives you an upgrade as well). But maybe there were no investors looking to invest in metallic hydrogen production, so he must have thought superconductivity is the way to go. And so he makes a wild claim about achieving room temperature superconductivity under high pressures .. and sure enough Nature published his work. Shortly afterwards Nature had to retract it when nobody else could reproduce it and there were inconsistencies. Nature though, rather than learn its lesson, a year or two later AGAIN accepts a publication from him! No checking, nothing! Oh and he has a company Unearthly Materials .. not sure if he got investors though. Though I'll bet he has. I know 20 years ago, any Nature publication was on average capable of generating $1 million in investor money.

    A lot of people say "you can't really blame Nature or Science .. the article reviewers can't run costly experiments themselves so they have to assume the submitters are not engaged in willful fraud!" .. A somewhat worthy point, but I believe these journals of high prestige must make exceptions for extraordinary claims. They should go visit the lab and obtain a sample. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. (that's a quote btw, I can't remember from whom). You don't just publish a claim about room temperature superconductor discovery based solely on the word of the submitter.

    • On the face of it, Dias's idea for high temp sc seems interesting. Too bad that it has the stink of malarkey about it now.

  • I am not a scientist, but I love science and the pursuit of knowledge.

    I want to be sickened and angered by a scientist cutting corners to get published, but I can see a scenario where after decades of work, the future of someone's scientific pursuits start to look bleak. The private and public money wells are drying up and the university is telling you they need to see results or they will allocate your funding to more promising endeavors. You're feeling that the progress people want to see won't be realize

    • Re:Desperation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @01:41PM (#64958001)

      Sort of like trusting that the guy who cut you off in traffic had a good reason for it. It's not a bad way to live, assuming that everyone's intentions are good. It's maybe just a different delusion that most people are operating under.

      • You don't have to assume everyone's intentions are good just believe on the whole they are. It helps if your intentions are generally good.

        As for people cutting you off in traffic, I assume its probably a mistake, I know I make mistakes so I shouldn't judge other people too harshly for theirs. Sure I am sure some people are just jerks some of the time, but I have no idea which are which so it just makes my life easier to assume the best, its less stressful that way.

        • by Targon ( 17348 )

          You have it wrong, on the whole, humans are horrible selfish creatures, and the worst examples of the species reproduce faster than the better examples. This is why the world is getting worse, we are overrun with horrible people who would probably have gotten themselves killed if there weren't warning signs EVERYWHERE saying what not to do.

          • It feels like that, but most people are sheep (in a more or less good way) who just want to live without anyone hassling them.

            Then there are people trying to improve the world and people trying to exploit it. Two minorities on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Yet despite it being easier to destroy than to create, we seem to be making things gradually better on average over time. My conclusion is that 'good' people must outnumber the 'bad' ones by enough margin to allow creation to outpace destruction.

    • For me it's hard to wrap my head around this being intentional fraud rather than optimistic bias simply because, in such an area of intense interest, you KNOW people will try to replicate it, and being discredited is going to be very bad. Which is just what did happen.

      That said, if somebody is incapable of separating hopes from facts, then they do not merit a job in research, nor publication in Nature.

    • by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

      I hate to be the one to break your bubble but scientists are just people. If you look at any organization, there are some who work and contribute and some who do not; scientists are no different. Not only that but big science is big money and money is power and power corrupts.

      not to even mention ambition, bureaucracy, classism, corruption, greed, institutionalization, vanity, self-gratification and the peter principle.

  • Next (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @01:48PM (#64958019) Homepage

    He'll be appointed to head science.gov.

  • by PackMan97 ( 244419 ) on Tuesday November 19, 2024 @01:57PM (#64958055)
    ..it just so happens my room is 30 Kelvin. It's very cold in my room.
    • by rossdee ( 243626 )

      Theres an old joke about a room temperature superconductor being made in Fairbanks, Alaska

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Working...