Researcher Jailed for Falsifying Research 195
Caldeso writes "For the first time in U.S. history, a researcher has received jail time for falsifying research data to obtain federal grants. Eric Poehlman pled guilty to defrauding the government to the tune of nearly 3 million dollars by changing and making up research and was sentenced to a year in a federal prison work camp and a lifetime ban on further federal grants."
Now for the real issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, but first you have to prove it.
And no, linking to sites which claim that the moon landing was faked and that the US bombed Jupiter with anti-matter weapons doesn't count as "proof".
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the burden of proof is not on the critics of the CIA, it's on the CIA and the administration; they have to prove to the public that they spent public money wisely and justifiably. We all can listen to their case and decide every four years at the ballot box whether to believe them.
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
In any case, the burden of proof is not on the critics of the CIA, it's on the CIA and the
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
UN inspectors = Could not find WMD that were not already accounted for and not deactivated. Demanded more time to inspect.
As for the intelligence community most of them said that there no weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq, including the CIA who gave bush a report detailing it.
There is a very good free documentry called "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War". Contains a whole range of famous and professionals in the area who detail that Bush was full of crap in regard
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
What version of history have YOU been reading? From UN resolution 1441 [un.int]:
Sure sounds to me like they thought Iraq had WMD's.
As for the intelligence community most of them said that there no weap
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
You do know that UN resolution was written by USA and England. You also know that the US couldn't get the resolution through until they removed the part that detailed they could go to war if the resolution failed.
> If you have any evidence at all to back your assertions, please, feel free to post it.
I guess you didn't even watch the documentry? How about you watch that and refute what actual EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD said at that time.
k.thx.bye.
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
Well, how could I ever hope to refute that argument. You've deffinitely convinced me!
I'm not going to watch your documentary because I can't access it through the firewall. And your comment on the UN resolution is both wrong and irrelevant to what we're discussing. Wrong in that it most certainly was not "written by USA and England", and irrelevant in that we weren't discussing the wording concerning going to war. The only important bit to the topic at hand is that resolution 1441 clearly sh
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
I doubt anyone could convince you to be honest, but I'd prefer people actually saw the facts then actually believed some of the stuff you were spouting.
>Like I said, if you have any relevant info which backs up
> your statements, please feel free to link to it.
> Preferably not in video format.
I have already posted a link to an hour long documentry which has a large number of famous people in various government/Military departments of various countries that were di
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't the CIA. Cheney and Rumsfeld created an "intelligence" office in the pentagon to produce the answers they wanted to hear.
The CIA intelligence seems to have been fairly good, with it only being dismissed/corrupted when it got to the highest levels.
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, you should worry about being modded troll, because Slashdot is so well-known for its pro Bush attitudes.
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
Re:Now for the real issue (Score:2)
Actually, he has enough power to give us the freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice? Where does someone who dies in a hurricane get a choice to avoid it?
If I saw a person about to step out in front of a bus, I'd pull them out of the way. If there's an omniscient, omnipotent god who doesn't do the same thing, then it's clearly malevolent. Don't give me that "freedom of choice" religious bullshit as an excuse why no-one's seen or heard from your 'god' for over 2000 years. Either your god doesn't exist or h
Fair pay... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I could tough that out for 3 million...
Re:Fair pay... (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, after getting caught, any remaining money left in that budget would be confiscated as well. Plus, this probably means the end of his career, especially considering he'll never eligable for future grants. NOT worth it IMHO (especially as someone who has spent time as a researcher).
Re:Fair pay... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh? At my local university, professors buy pc hardware for use around the office when their grant is about to run out. I know of one instance where nearly $10,000 was spent on laptops... who the hell needs 10 laptops for research, especially three days before the grant expires?
Now, not to say that all grant money goes to waste (and, this was a $3.2 million grant, so it's not like it was a large percentage), but it could've paid for 1/100,000,000 of the budget for the new stealth bomber or whatever it is. I mean, come on!
Re:Fair pay... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to spend all the money you were given.
If you manage to save some, you won't get as much the next time, and next time you might not be able to save that much.
Re:Fair pay... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fair pay... (Score:2)
Re:Fair pay... (Score:2)
You'd get 'computers hookers' that way...
Then again, this looks like BASIC code... so why do I bother?
Re:Fair pay... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fair pay... (Score:2)
Fair Punishment 'coz Fake Medical Research Kills (Score:5, Insightful)
Based solely on this quote, we can conclude that faking the results of medical research could potentially kill people. Faking research about a new method for vectorizing signal-processing algorithms might result in a poorly performing compiler for a multiprocessor. Faking research about a medical therapy might result in real people being subjected to a lethal cocktail of drugs.
The doctor who faked the results of his medical research deserved prison time. For once, justice was served.
Re:Fair Punishment 'coz Fake Medical Research Kill (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fair Punishment 'coz Fake Medical Research Kill (Score:2)
Re:Fair Punishment 'coz Fake Medical Research Kill (Score:2)
It's all linked. As the article said, a break in the chain can destroy the validity of everyone's results further down.
Re:Fair Punishment 'coz Fake Medical Research Kill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fair Punishment 'coz Fake Medical Research Kill (Score:2)
I guess it is more like the soft and fluffy research about the benefit of exercising to various groups of people.
Funny thing (Score:4, Insightful)
But Lay and a number of the very wealthy CEOs who stole BILLIONS will get 6 months to maybe several years at a very easy going federal prison. Amazing. It is all who you know.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Funny thing (Score:2)
Re:Funny thing (Score:2, Interesting)
If she had cooperated, she'd probably had faced even more jail time. Law enforcement isn't necessarily about getting to the truth, but to make a case against you, which makes anything you say "make be construed against you." That quote that goes something like give me six lines from anyone, and I'll find a reason to hang 'em.
Most things come down to whether the law enforcement person "like you" or not, not the claims you make or are
Re:Funny thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing as how neither Skilling nor Lay have yet to be sentenced, I'm presuming that you're getting your info from your palantir. What did The Eye tell you about revealing such info to mere mortals, hmmm?
Either that, or you're completely ignorant and don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Re:Funny thing (Score:2)
Or you have a basic inability to read English. He said: "will get". He was predicting that billion-thief CEOs WILL GET 6 months based on past experience that this is what these guys typically get (they might get a sentance of several years, but suspended). So based on those past realities it's quite likely t
Re:Funny thing (Score:3, Informative)
If you view it's purpose to offer proportionate punishment, then they should probably both do about the same time.
If you view the purpose of the justice system as merely to deter crime, then the punishment divided by the probability of getting caught should be greater than the payoff (the 'equivalence' point).
Personally, I'm a fan of rehabilitati
Re:Funny thing (Score:2)
------
I'm more like this: rehabilitation vs deterrance. And my view of "rehabilitation" is very narrow. It's aligned with actual facts: som
Re:Funny thing (Score:2)
Among others, you can have two persons performing equal white collar crimes, resulting in wildly different damages.
There are crimes more evil than other crimes which are more profitable. White collar crime is an example itself, as petty thieves who use or threaten with violence on the streets are punished harder.
Re:Funny thing (Score:2)
Re:Funny thing (Score:2)
libelous summary (Score:5, Informative)
The slashdot summary is not only inaccurate, but libelous. By the article, he pleaded guilty to one $542,000 grant. So, he's only been found legally accountable for that amount, not the $2.9 million claimed by the prosecution:
In an agreement with prosecutors, he pleaded guilty in connection with one $542,000 grant; the government said he defrauded federal agencies out of $2.9 million.
Re:libelous summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:libelous summary (Score:2, Informative)
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, let me get this straight.
Defraud the government, with devious intent, for a tune of 3 million USD and receive a 1 year sentence in a work camp.
Copy a movie and get fined up to 250,000 dollars and face upto a 10 year sentence? After, getting beaten up by people who dress like cops but aren't, in public?
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Section 1204 of DMCA has:
First offense: up to $500,000 or five years imprisonment
Second and subsequent offenses: up to $1,000,000 or ten years
From what I can gather, this applies to commercial copying. Also, non-profit libraries, archives, and educational institutions are not subject to criminal sanctions.
Re:Again... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
The key to a successful police state is not to jail the entire population. This would be expensive and inefficient.
You must be able to use discretionary enforcement and create the criminals as needed, thus keeping everyone in a state of constant fear.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (Score:3, Insightful)
An essay regarding the mentioned topic, and I thought it might be interesting to a few people. The are many non-technical paragraphs that draw to the author's conclusions, and those should be readable by all.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request= get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [plosjournals.org]
Summary:
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (Score:5, Insightful)
This is well summarized in this response [doi.org] to the article, which has the added bonus of quoting "Mudd's Women" to support the argument.
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (Score:2)
Re:Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (Score:2)
If you conduct 20 studies of a statistical relationship that each accept significance at the 5% level, then the probability is excellent (64%, actually) that at least one of them will show a positive result completely by chance.
Since positive results tend to get published and negative results do not, too many studies of a hypothesis will likely show it to be true, completely spuriously.
why are we surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:why are we surprised (Score:4, Informative)
It should be noted that the power for the federal government to fund scientific research is granted under the accepted interpretation of the "general welfare" clause of Article I, Section 8 [cornell.edu] of the US Constitution [cornell.edu].
This should be distinguished from pork [wikipedia.org], which by definition does not provide a "general" benefit.
Re:why are we surprised (Score:2)
There is a great deal of money involved, as you suggest, but these grants are not at all easy to get and involve a lengthy review process. The competition for them is very fierce. Unfortunately, as an academic researcher your career may depend on your ability to win awards that are denied close to 90% of the time on average. Hence the incentive to bend the truth or commit outrig
poor guy (Score:4, Funny)
Depends what you are falsifying (Score:4, Funny)
it was the bibliography that gave him away (Score:3, Funny)
But the big question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe I missed it. (Score:2)
Re:Maybe I missed it. (Score:5, Interesting)
oh, it's really embarrassing (Score:3, Insightful)
Think, that the sentence was "soft".
Then i read the article, and start thinking...
OK, I don't know him, but imagine the embarrassing situation of send retraction and correction letters to (in some way) HIS community.
IMO In this kind of "criminal acts" the worst is just leave the guy in society.
It's the society who really condemn him, think that every scientific guy will know that he is a fraud. Ok, maybe when he goes to the supermarket not everybody knows who is him, but he will be asking himself "Does he recognize me?".
Mod parent up... (Score:3, Insightful)
That, and this kind of disgrace will more or less ruin his career. It doesn't matter whether he spends his life inside a jail cell or on the streets; everything he's ever worked for is gone, permanently. His life's work is now less than shit because he got too greedy... that's a hard pill to swallow. I mean, seriously, what's he going to do now?
Re:Mod parent up... (Score:2)
Become a congressman. Or president.
String him up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Restitution, not prison... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nearly six out of every ten federal prison inmates are there for non-violent drug-related offenses, it's clear that drug prohibition is the primary source of this over-crowding. It has been estimated that every drug offender imprisoned results in the early release of one violent criminal, who then commits an average of 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 auto thefts
We should dramatically reduce the number of these early releases by eliminating their root cause - prison over-crowding.
Restitution, even if enforced through court action, deters criminals and decreases the necessity of actually going to court. Japan, which has such a system in place, is the only industrialized nation that has seen a consistent decrease in violent crime since World War II. Litigants normally come to a settlement before coming in front of the judge, so very little time is spent in court.
Why should victims have to pay taxes to feed, clothe, and shelter those who harmed them? Why should criminals get a free ride at the further expense of their victims?
People have a right to their life, liberty and property. Anyone who takes these away has an obligation to restore them as much as possible. Such restitution will not always be perfect, but the punishment fits the crime much better than today's system does.
In addition, restitution is a more effective deterrent than prison. During informal surveys, inmates claimed that they much preferred jail time, which they saw as 'time off,' than restitution, which they saw as 'work.
Restitution through productive work is the most successful rehabilitation known. Even if the victim can't be fully compensated, something is better than the nothing that they receive today. Also, repayment to the victim allows criminals to truly right their wrongs. "
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_lis
Re:Restitution, not prison... (Score:2)
Right. The Enron guys too.
I'm sure this guy will just pull the $3 million out of his ass, now that he can't work in his main profession any longer. How much does McDonalds pay?
Re:Restitution, not prison... (Score:2)
No. They should be required for a specified time to be physically present for a variety of community help-type efforts and be forced to deal with the people they purported to be serving (i.e., not shareholders). And no taking Limos to/from the forced work zone, they have to integrate with those whose trust they abused. That might make a difference in the long run.
The problem with federally supported science. (Score:2)
What does being a succesful grant writer entail? Interesting problems or past happy results?
Re:The problem with federally supported science. (Score:2, Informative)
Writing a *good* grant is not that easy. I don't live in
AHEM, GLOBAL WARMING ANYONE!!! (Score:2)
now lets talk about all that global warming research funded by the EPA?
Re:AHEM, GLOBAL WARMING ANYONE!!! (Score:2, Informative)
You are proving that you are the idiot by showing at the very least that you are ignorant about anything else. Like this petition signed by 17000 scientists saying global warming research is a fraud. http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm [sitewave.net]. Of course, I'm sure you will find a way to blow that off too, don't let the facts get in the way of your
Re:The problem with federally supported science. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really (well, except politically charged areas of research like recreational drug use, environment, and the heredity of human intelligence). Other things being equal (researcher's reputation, clinical relevance, novelty) what granting agencies look for are results that tell some kind of self-consistant story, whether it extends the prevailing consensus or overturns it. If it overtur
Retraction Most Important (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad research in some fields doesn't just waste time and resources and careers,
Bad research can kill.
There are enough honest mistakes and statistical glitches and wishful thinking
without adding fraud to the mix.
Work Camp, Eh? (Score:2)
Fraud gets punished, GOOD! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great, more ammo for the anti-evolution crowd. (Score:3, Funny)
First goal: Build a seaworthy ark of the dimensions cited in Genesis, populate it with two (or seven!) of every species currently on the planet (because the diversity of species can't be proven by evolution over less than six thousand year
Re:Great, more ammo for the anti-evolution crowd. (Score:2)
Re:Great, more ammo for the anti-evolution crowd. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing $3mil sounds pretty attractive. (Score:2, Insightful)
*This comment
Re:Correction (Score:2)
1 yr jail time and a f
must be something in the air... (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see what he ends up getting from the judges...
In further news ... (Score:2)
I agree (Score:2)
Re:At last! (Score:5, Insightful)
The so-called scientists involved in the the oil-and-gas disinformation campaign are indeed guilty of fraud. Only now are the scientists involved in the Tobacco disinformation campaign starting to be held to account. Let us hope that in this situation the wheels of justice move quicker.
If you think there is any legitimate question as to the relationship between CO2 and climate change, or as to humankind's contribution to CO2, or as to the acuteness of the problem, please cite reviewed scientific articles.
If you don't believe in science, say so. But don't dismiss the scientific evidence as "voodoo science" without offering some of what you consider "real science." Testimonials are not science, regardless of who makes them.
For those who bat about the words "proof" and "theory" I suggest you determine what they mean in a technical context. Americans are perfectly happy to kill their own citizens with a standard of proof known as "beyond reasonable doubt." And to kill the citizens of other countries on mere suspicion. There is no reasonable doubt about the relationships stated above. In terms of the popular legal use of the word proof, the case is proven.
There is some uncertainty as to how fast the climate change may cascade out of control. Just like when I turn up the volume control on a PA system, I know that I will eventually get horrible screeching feedback but I can't point to the exact position on the dial where it will occur. This does not make feedback "a theory" or "uncertain" at all. In the case of global there is strong evidence that this feedback has started to occur; we just don't know when it will be outright out of control.
Giant Scientific Conspiracy (Score:2)
Apparently you don't believe in logic much, either: I will gleefully ignore all of your peer reviewed papers when Deutsche and Dresdner Bank are doing the funding. This is a strawman [wikipedia.org] fallacy. Can you point to any of the scientific literature funded by these banks? And even if you can, is the conclusion any different if you discount these sources? Can you point to a
Your hyperbole, not mine (Score:2)
Are you saying that our imagination is just as good as science at predicting the effect of CO2? Qualifies as dont' believe in science in my book.
I don't believe in models clearly built to serve socio-economic interests.
State strawman. Repeat until believed. You dismiss all peer review while providing no evidence that any is so influenced.
Cast as
You're a hoax, right? (Score:2)
Argument vs contradiction (Score:2)
Apparently one of us is in the wrong room.
Re:Only a year? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if you hadn't beaten them up in high school, they wouldn't have the self-esteem problems they have now and *would* be able to hold down a job and beat substance dependancy.
Re:Everybody's a victim, right? (Score:2)
They're not the ones blamings others. We're blaming you. You're the one trying to justify the fact that you beat them up by calling them "losers" and saying that they deserved it. Ironically, you're shifting the blame of your actions from yourself to them. You should listen to your own advice.
Parent comment is not off-topic. (Score:2)
Re:Parent comment is not off-topic. (Score:2)
Re:When the first (Score:2)
Why shouldn't the researcher (or anyone else for that matter) lie to get the thing he wants if he sees that it works for any huge (governmental) operation. E.g.: lie about WMDs in some country and get a backup for your own military plans. Pushing through your corporate plan to outsource thousands of jobs (or to ease layoff regulation) because it's good for the economy.
People get away and get huge rewards for talking bullshit everywhere.
Re:When the first (Score:2)