Fernando Martel Garcia writes:
So I am applying for a DC driver’s license and needed a translation of my Spanish license to show to the DMV. I go to https://www.onehourtranslation.com/ and as I prepare to pay I see a familiar face in the bottom banner:
It appears Stapel is one of their “over 15,000 dedicated professional translators” (or maybe they put his picture there unauthorized). Either way now worried I may get a made up/plagiarized translation.
There are worse ways for a multilingual person to make a living . . . .
Perhaps they could get Bruno Frey to do some translations too. He’d only have to do it once, then he could just copy it over and over and over.
All shadenfreude aside, the man has a right to earn a living…
Mike:
Yes, I agree. Stapel has acknowledged what he has done and should be able to move on.
Yes, but with posts like your current one, does it get easier for him to move on?
Rahul:
Stapel didn’t seem to mind the publicity for his fake studies before they got exposed, so I don’t see how he could object to publicity for them now. Beyond this, he’s publishing a memoir about his experience, so if he’s going to be continuing to talk about it, there’s no reason for the rest of us to stop.
Yes, but this post doesn’t really have a topic, at all – it’s little more than gloating about… what, exactly?
What will be next u? A photo of Stapel looking silly when biting into a hot dog – caption:”Ha ha!” – and the subsequent justification of this obvious Schadenfreude (about nothing, at that) by including a hollow allusion to his plagiarism scandal? If you want to direct attention to the latter, do it, but don’t pretend that posts like this here have anything to do with it.
+1
And you really should direct attention to the scandal, because obviously there are dorks who thing it was about plagiarism…
Martin:
I think you’re reading too much into this. I looked up Schadenfreude and all I can say is that I feel no joy in Stapel’s harm. I also feel no joy in the system by which junk science is publicized. What happened is that Fernando sent me an amusing email which I posted along with a little joke about Frey. I continue to feel that, to the extent that Stapel and Frey were willing to bask in the attention and accolades deriving from their publications in prestigious journals, it is also appropriate for them to get this sort of publicity after they’ve been exposed. These guys weren’t exactly J. D. Salinger!
Setting aside his personal behavior, what Stapel was doing was trading off the general respect of science and of the peer review system. He was, in essence, chipping away at an asset that had been built up over many decades by thousands of scientists, and taking to get glory for himself. So, yes, it’s good to remember this case. It’s not about someone looking silly when biting into a hot dog, it’s about someone who betrayed a system based on trust. As I wrote above, I think that Stapel personally should be able to move on but I don’t think there’s anything at all wrong about us making jokes about what he did. Mockery is an excellent way to show disrespect for his behavior. It’s nothing personal, and indeed if you look carefully you will see that Fernando’s joke relates specifically to Stapel’s fraudulent actions.
Again: no one is talking about stopping this guy from earning a living, and he’s not in a Monica Lewinsky-like situation of being unwittingly dragged into (and kept in) the public eye. Stapel chose to go for fame, and he got it under false pretenses. He doesn’t get to turn off the fame now that he’s been exposed. He made a mistake, that’s too bad, now he can go on. Meanwhile the rest of us have to continue to work within the system of scientific communication and I think it’s appropriate for us to show our disrespect to behavior that exploited the trust that existed within the system.
P.S. I stand by all that I wrote above, but I also recognize that different people have different tastes, and I understand and respect that you feel that my post about Stapel is inappropriate, and that you would not have posted it. I’m not trying to claim that my post is the right thing to do in some absolute sense, I’m just explaining where I’m coming from, and it’s perfectly reasonable that you would do things differently.
“Stapel didn’t seem to mind the publicity for his fake studies before they got exposed, so I don’t see how he could object to publicity for them now.”
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I confess myself boggled by this line. You really don’t see why Stapel might want less publicity for his studies now than before they were exposed as fake? Really?
Yeah, I was boggled by it too. It’s one thing to say, I don’t forgive him so I’m still hounding him. But this sounds like saying I’ve forgiven him but am still doing him a favor by pestering him.
I’m boggled that you take this line literally.
Rahul:
I don’t think I’m doing Stapel a favor (nor am I “hounding” or “pestering” him), I’m just saying that if he was willing to take the publicity for his fake work (thus degrading the public perception of science in his country by some small amount), I don’t see that it makes sense for anyone to object to the publicity continuing now. Again, he’s not someone like J. D. Salinger who tried to keep out of the public eye—indeed, he’s just published a memoir about his fraud!—and he’s not someone like Monica Lewinsky who never sought fame. Stapel (and Frey, and Goodwin, and Hauser, and . . .) grabbed the fame and the glory under various degrees of false pretense, and I don’t think it’s necessary to turn off the spotlight when it turns out that they are not the heroes that they were presented as.
Andrew:
Maybe it’s just a matter of taste or opinion. Like, if you focused on Stapel a few years ago, or while the scam hadn’t been unearthed I wouldn’t have minded at all. I’d have been glad. Or while a fraudster was defending his work.
But now that Stapel has been thoroughly investigated, disgraced etc. to harp on the issue seems annoying. He’s just an easy target coz’ he was so egrigiously bad.
Perhaps if you tried hunting out more such unearthed fraudsters or covering not-so-publicized cases it’d be more interesting. Again, a matter of opinion.
Rahul:
Yes, I agree.
I’d add that this is not about downplaying Stapel’s deeds or victimizing him – but there is a difference between serious engangement with the topic itself and scorn and derision, and it gets odd when the latter poses for the former. And even without victimizing him I think it’s a reasonable position not to endlessly heap scorn on derision on sombody who has been – following his very deeds and bearing the sole responsibility himself – in psychological treatment for years and has extensively thought about suicide (though not any more, as I gather), just because of some principled position that he had it coming that his narcistic behavior be rubbed under his nose forever.
Martin:
It’s been an interesting discussion and I hear what you’re saying. This blog has a mix of serious engagement and humor; I think they complement each other. But I recognize that in any particular case there are people who would do things differently.
Andrew,
glad that I got my point across, even if we seem to differ on the conclusion.
For my part, I think I should add that your point about e.g. Lewinsky did not go unnoticed – and neither am I confused about who is the guilty party in the Stapel affair or unaware of the victims (my not getting Fernando’s point below notwithstanding). But compassion is not the same as misunderstanding the victim/culprit distinction – and I think, very strongly indeed, that neither his victims nor the much more egregious and undeserved treatment of Lewinsky absolves anyone of considering the very real suffering the – repentant – culprit has brought about himself, and by his own deeds.
Mike:
I agree. I was mostly taken aback by the coincidence.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as an official translation in the U.S. thought some associations claim to provide “official certification”.
It so happens that the person attending me at the DMV had one such certification. Accordingly, he demanded that everyone submit an “official translation”.
The lesson for me was that you don’t need to be head of state to be a tin pot dictator. Managing a DMV office in Washington DC is enough.
There is also another story here of how barriers to entry are built, and the rise of the regulatory state.
As for Diederik, I am sorry he is now a translator. At the same time I wonder whether other young would-be academics are not also making a living as translators bc their make or break article was rejected in favor of one of Diederik’s confabulations.
PS And unlike Diederik, who can now appeal to our desire to forgive, no one will feel sorry for those failed would-be academics. To us they shall forever remain faceless.
They are simply forgotten.
On the other side, I know quite a few non-academics (“failed would-be” and other) who’d have a whole series of preconceptions (?) about academics confirmed if they read that to “you” (whoever you are) they “shall forever remain faceless” and are “simply forgotten” because they are not academics, even if it’s all Stapel’s fault. You know, there is a life outside academics, and people who fail to get tenure do not necessarily spend the rest of their lives in solitary desolation, forever expunged from the face of history or from wherever defunct 19th century stylistic bloopers have their graveyard.
Anyway, forgiveness is overrated: as Camus and very probably a zillion before and after him knew: humans (and elephants… I just googled it…) might forgive, but they never forget. As this blog entry demonstrates.
Martin:
Yes there is a life outside academia but that is to miss the point, which is about fairness and justice.
Presumably academia was the first choice of these silent victims. And unlike Diederick, who may even get a second chance, they wont.
Sure, they can get a second life as translators but not a second chance of the sort: “let us look at that paper we turned down, or that hiring decision”. Or, you’ve suffered enough as translators is now time to bring you into the fold. Sure, they can write a bio or set up a website but nobody will ever pay attention. So there is an obvious asymmetry in how we treat the victims and the victimizer.
Besides it seems to me that in your comments you are trying to minimize the harm suffered by his victims. Who are you to decide that?
And btw the email I sent to Andrew was not at all about schaudenfraude. I just thoughy it amusing that Diederik’s photo would be on the landing page.
https://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/HCR/Detail.aspx?id=5677
On the difference between named and statistical victims
Fernando,
yes, this was a serious misreading of your point on my part. My apologies.
Fernando:
If you must feel sorry for the faceless, nameless, failed-would-be academics there’s more damage being done by all those respectable academics in the system writing crappy papers, doing p-hacking, fishing for pliable journals, doing half-ass reviewing, shirking editorial responsibilities, pushing grants towards friends, mutual back scratching at seminars & funding reviews et cetra.
Diederik Stapel was indeed bad. But he’s an easy victim. He got his just desserts. But let’s move on an focus on the other malaise that does need more dedicated cleansing. Proportion is everything.
It’s like that drunk searching for his keys under the streetlight. We go after the easy targets.
Rahul:
1. Two wrongs don’t make a right. It is silly to require that someone adress all problems in the world before he can focus on anyone in particular.
2. I am not going after anybody, and it is annoying you keep insisting we are. Hell I even ordered a translation from his employer. If I really was after him I would have boycotted. I just think it amusing/curious that his portrait should feature so prominently in the landing page.
3. The fact that you are now calling Diederik an “easy victim” and me, by implication, the victimizer, and that you seem to not care for the faceless victims whose pictures we cannot see just shows the moral issues at stake. I don’t think you have thought through this carefully.
although this site uses my name unauthorised, I am happy to translate or edit texts, if that is a way to make a living.
see my site (diederikstapel.com) to see what i do and to contact me.
Hi Diederik,
So, you didn’t authorize the photo, and you aren’t in fact employed by the translation company? Fascinating. Apparently, you just look like someone multilingual.
And no comment on the discussion above?
and if you prefer american over british: change it into unauthorized.
Notwithstanding my contempt for (the old) Stapel, I have to admit that the guy shows remarkable resilience. I imagine it is not easy to get on your feet again. Assuming he still lives in the Netherlands I imagine that he is reminded on a regular basis of his past…
I read the report on the Stapel-case (one of the reports) and what he pulled is really mind blowing. However, I also always felt a bit awkward with the storm unleashed upon him after his acts got exposed… if you read the local press you would appreciate this I guess. Also, his name is now attached to bad scientific practices and each time a reporter writes some story remotely related to scientific malconduct, his name lurks around the corner.
I would not be afraid that the light turns out on him… that is not likely to happen soon.
That his pic shows up as above is nothing less than cosmic humor. Also, I think it would be a nice Google-like question to give a guesstimate of the probability that one known face would show up… (known as in discussed on this blog).