Embattled Superconductivity Scientist Is Out (msn.com) 28
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.
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.
It wasn't manipulation (Score:0)
I just kept getting it wrong over and over
Remember that old quote "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity?" Ha ha oops! Silly me.
Re:It wasn't manipulation (Score:0)
Maybe one to do with ethics.
Ranga Dias (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ranga Dias (Score:2)
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.
We Need to do Better (Score:3)
Nature though, rather than learn its lesson, a year or two later AGAIN accepts a publication from him! No checking, nothing!
I do not think that is correct. My understanding is that they put far more reviewers on the paper than they normally do and none of them could find any issues with it and so they did eventually decide to publish it. While I would agree that it was a bad decision to publish more outlandish claims from someone who you had already forced to retract a previous paper on the same topic due to allegations of data manipulation (frankly I do not care how much checking you do I'd just not trust them a second time), it is wrong to say that they did "no checking" and nothing different.
The problem I have, as a physicist myself albeit not in the same area, is the treatment that those raising all the red flags about Dias' (and others) results were treated appallingly at conferences and elsewhere. One of them, Hirsch, was even banned from posting papers to arXiv for a period because they objected to one of his papers that raised serious concerns about the validity of Dias' results. It was not rude or unprofessional but did raise some serious questions and point out some serious issues. Banning someone just because they dare to question in a reasonable, scientific fashion the results of someone else is incredibly anti-science.
The inability of many in physics to respond appropriately to valid scientific criticism of their work was quite an eye-opener for me. Those raising criticisms of the work were shouted at at conferences, had people withdraw from conferences simply because they were attending and even had hate hate-email campaigns against them.
Mind you, I did mention to one of them at the time that this sort of reaction suggested to me that there was something very dodgy going on because that's not how someone who had published a genuine paper would rationally react. An honest scientist would know that the worst possible result from theorists asking questions is that they find a flaw in the experimental technique or analysis that could then be corrected leading to a real major discovery or result. At worst that is annoying but the pay-off is that we all learn something new. A dishonest scientist has no interest in having their paper investigated fully and will fight it tooth and nail because they have so much to lose as this case has just shown.
I'm glad that this matter seems to be now largely resolved but those of us in physics, or indeed science in general, need to take a cold hard look at the way this was handled and how the whistleblowers were treated and resolve to do much better next time this happens.
Re:We Need to do Better (Score:2)
How would additional reviewers help? Not all lies are revealable by scrutinizing the lying statement. If I state I was abducted by aliens, you can't assume it's true just because I said it. If I claim I had a lump of sulfur and it turned into gold when I farted over it, how would you disprove it just by adding more people to read my statement over and over? All they had to do was require a sample, or if he was unwilling to part with his own sample allowed reviewers to test the sample (while he watches).
Re:Ranga Dias (Score:2)
There are good theoretical reasons to believe that metallic hydrogen is a room-temperature superconductor.
Plenty of investors would be very interested.
Too bad he lost it.
Desperation (Score:2)
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 realized in your lifetime, and you don't want your work to become a "hobby" while you pay the mortgage by running a cash register (no disrespect to those that do). So maybe you cut a few corners just to show something, and the notion you are undermining trust in science is too far a view for you to see.
When I think about it like that, and I have no idea of that was the reality of Dias' situation, I'm not angry...I feel sorry for that person and for the field. Scientific work isn't free and I would guess it's very difficult to researchers to keep going back to those wells with no progress to show.
But I can also picture someone who just writes up research projects with no chance of success, and that's how they choose to live their life. If they exist, those people do make me angry.
Re:Desperation (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Desperation (Score:0)
"HA HA HA! I'm the king of the road!"
t. the guy who cut you off
Re:Desperation (Score:2)
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.
Re:Desperation (Score:3)
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.
Re:Desperation (Score:3)
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.
So that guy who cut you off? Probably made a mistake. Unless he's weaving and tailgating, then he's an asshole.
Re:Desperation (Score:2)
That said, if somebody is incapable of separating hopes from facts, then they do not merit a job in research, nor publication in Nature.
Re:Desperation (Score:0)
Re:Desperation (Score:2)
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.
Re:Desperation (Score:2)
Lying is still wrong, in your scenario, and it still causes harm. It not only causes a big waste of money but it can draw attention and funding away from legitimate science, thus slowing progress (including on very practical things like medical treatments).
I can understand that scientists are under pressure, and that presents temptation. Maybe they have mouths to feed. The temptation can be very strong. But none of this justifies lying and causing the kinds of harms that result from that.
It is very unfortunate that the world is like this. Scientists who don't show results get the boot, and all the debt that they accrued for their education still weighs them down, and all the knowledge and skills they acquired are now almost completely unmarketable. That is a nightmare scenario and it is wrong and sad that we put our scientists into a position where they must all face this risk. I think the world would be a better place if we could do something better that allows us to continue to utilize (and, of course, pay) scientists even if their first few projects wind up being busts. But even with the world being harsh and brutal like this, lying is still wrong and harmful and never justified.
On the flip side, I contend that we have too many scientists. There isn't enough science funding to cover the aspirations of all the scientists that our schools churn out. The presence of scientists doesn't make science happen. The funding makes science happen. This nightmare scenario is one of the very few economic counterweights that we have to avoid flooding the market with scientists that have no useful work to do. So, while I do think that we can and should do better, we still need to focus on the primary need: funding for science.
Next (Score:5, Funny)
He'll be appointed to head science.gov.
Re:Next (Score:2, Insightful)
And why not? We have an anti-vaxxer/anti-medicine assaulter being appointed to head HHS.
Re:Next (Score:3)
That was my point.
Re:Next (Score:2)
He played it wrong, he should have come out as a strong Trump supporter. That's what Vivek Ramaswamy did to cover up his failed Alzheimer's drug that he got paid $800 million for.
I have developed room temperature* superconductors (Score:3)
Re:I have developed room temperature* superconduct (Score:2)
Theres an old joke about a room temperature superconductor being made in Fairbanks, Alaska
could his results be reproduced or not? (Score:0)
the rest is just drama and noise.
Re:could his results be reproduced or not? (Score:0)
Makes the other 5% look bad (Score:0)
University of Rochester (Score:3)
Does the University use H-index for hiring decisions?
Is it a publish-or-perish environment?
Most of the incentives in The Science are completely upside down so it's no wonder that fully half of papers are retracted, withdrawn (the sketchiest scenario) or unreproducible.
Rochester may have dealt with an acute symptom but have they fixed their problems?
Next Trump appointee ... (Score:1)
He has all the right credentials to be in trump cabinet and lead the US into the next scientific frontier ... what are we talking about here