Reading this story of Dianne Feinstein’s apparent dementia reminds me of when she was first running for the Senate, a few decades ago, and advertised herself as the only Democrat favoring both abortion and the death penalty.
I understand the general principle—most voters want legal abortion, most voters want the death penalty, so if you’re the only candidate supporting both these positions, it makes sense to announce this—; still, there was something funny about the juxtaposition.
One of the frustrating aspects of the Feinstein story is not just that she’s been sitting in Congress for who knows how long being propped up by her aides like some old-style Politburo member, but also the idea that, even now, there doesn’t seem to be serious talk of her resigning. Congress has the ability to force her to leave, but if anything happens it seems that it would have to be her stepping down voluntarily, or her staff making that decision for her.
What to do in a setting where everyone agrees there’s a problem?
This situation—there’s an obvious problem, there’s an existing mechanism to deal with it, but the people in charge of the mechanism don’t want to use it—I’ve seen this before.
It came up a few years ago with a scholarly journal. There was an issue with a paper that the journal had published a few years earlier. Problems had been pointed out with that published article: the analysis had been done incorrectly, and that changed the results of the paper. The author of the article was asked to write a response to the criticisms, and the journal editor judged the response to be deceptive and incomplete. In addition, the results could not be replicated with the data that had been provided with the article.
The question was, what to do about it?
One of the members of the editorial board wrote:
While this is unfortunate, I do not see deliberate research misconduct, which is basically the only reason to force a retraction of an article (see COPE [Committee on Publication Ethics] guideline).This just seems like incredibly sloppy work. . . .
I replied:
From the COPE guidelines (I just looked up online):
“Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:
• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error) . . .”
So, no, the COPE guidelines do not require misconduct for a retraction. Honest error is enough. The key is that the findings are unreliable.
Someone else on the editorial board responded:
I am not sure a retraction is necessary if this wasn’t academic fraud but an honest mistake or sloppiness. We shouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that this was misconduct.
I replied again:
Again, retraction does not require fraud or misconduct. The COPE guidelines explicitly say that journal editors should consider retraction if they have clear evidence the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct . . . or honest error.”
If we don’t want to retract, fine. But if it’s clear that the findings are unreliable, then I think we should retract. Retraction does not imply fraud or misconduct.
Another board member added:
Retractions are actually good in that they mean we are policing ourselves for honesty and accuracy and therefore retain credibility.
Another board member then wrote:
My opinion in that retraction should only be used in a situation where there is clear evidence of research fraud or misconduct.
As the journal does not have a policy on this, we should be very careful with discussion of retraction.
Retraction of an article is a career-altering, or career-damaging, move. Most people in the field will assume that retraction is generated by fraud or misconduct, no matter how
much or how loudly those associated with the journal might say to the contrary.
I don’t see why retraction should be a career-altering, or career-damaging, move—except to the very minor extent that it damages your career by making that one paper no longer count.
That said, I also don’t really see a difference between “retraction” and “correction” (which I’ve done 4 times for published papers of my own).
In posting the above discussion, I’m not at all trying to say that I was right and the other board members were wrong. There’s no requirement that a journal retract a paper, and I continue to think that all retractions could be relabeled as corrections with no harm, as long as the correction is clear and unambiguous, with no wiggle room, as for example here:
My point is that, even in a case where there is “clear evidence that the findings are unreliable,” it was still difficult to get much done. Retraction was taken to be such a big step. It seems like something similar is going on in the Senate: removal of a senator is so rare that nobody wants to do it.
I’m not sure that the analogy to the Feinstein situation holds. If Feinstein leaves office, Republicans may block any replacement of her by a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. That in turn would prevent many of Biden’s nominees from being approved. This may be the main reason why Feinstein and many of her Democratic colleagues are reluctant to see her leave. I don’t see an analogous issue where retractions are concerned.
But your basic point about reluctance to retract articles still holds.
The point is that the person isn’t competent to be in office and there is a mechanism to remove that person. The self-interested motives of Democrats for not acting to remove an incompetent legislator aren’t any more relevant than the self-interested motives of other researchers for not acting to retract an erroneous paper.
It was also in the interests of Republicans to block the impeachment of Trump, and it’s currently in the interests of Republicans to attempt to block prosecution of Trump. Does that make it OK?
Chipmunk –
> The self-interested motives of Democrats for not acting to remove an incompetent legislator…
As the other commenters in this thread have discussed, the determination of who is or isn’t “competent” is highly subjective (is Louie Gomert competent?). It’s problematic to conflate opinion with objective fact.
Secondly, Demz tried to temporarily replace Feinstein and the Republicans blocked that attempt. They did so out of “self interest.”
“self interested motives” is human nature and equally affects the Demz and Pubz in Congress. In fact, there are Demz who want Feinstein to resign and there are Demz who want her to stay on, and we could easily say that the Demz who want Feinstein to resign, as well as those who want her to stay, have “self interested motives.”
Although I will note it’s certainly a good thing that exemplars like yourself are above acting out of “self motives.”
” a good thing that exemplars like yourself are above acting out of “self motives.””
I missed where I made that claim?? :) Everyone acts out of self interest. Here’s an example of you unwittingly expressing yours:
‘Secondly, Demz tried to temporarily replace Feinstein and the Republicans blocked that attempt. They did so out of “self interest.” ‘
The “Demz” wanted to replace Feinstein *temporarily* on one committee where they needed a vote when she wasn’t present.
So thanks for providing yourself as an example of people who intentionally misrepresent things to protect their interests.
> So thanks for providing yourself as an example of people who intentionally misrepresent things to protect their interests.
Because I left out “of one committee?” That displays acting out of self-interest?
That’s what you consider a “misrepresentation?” How would leaving “one committee” reflect an interest I have? Whether it was one committee or across the board (which could never work logistically anyway) nothing about it relative to my “interest” would change a bit.
Either way the demz and the pubz would be wrangling for political leverage – which is exactly what all politicians do by definition.
I’m noting that Andrew writes a basically non-partisan post and typically you weigh in to express your political antipathies
And again…
> The self-interested motives of Democrats for not acting to remove an incompetent legislator
There are demz who want to remove her and there are demz who don’t. It’s not just the ones who don’t want to remove her who are acting out of self interest. That would also be the demz who do. The pubz who don’t (are there any who do?) also.
It’s banal to note that a pol is acting out of self interest. But you sign on to selectively identify one group acting out of self interest among the entire legislative body acting out of self-interest.
Why?
Replacing her temporarily across the board wouldn’t work…
Looking at the story you linked to, I don’t think it is appropriate to talk about her dementia. It is asserted by a blogger – not quite the same thing as a diagnosis. To the extent that she is exhibiting behavior consistent with dementia, then I also think it would be appropriate to see how widespread it is among other political office holders. And, what do we make of those holding office that may not have dementia, but are possibly stupid, evil, or compulsive liars.
Seriously, your point about resistance to acknowledge and act on evidence of unreliability, particularly in the case of journals, is well taken. But I think the comments of Feinstein are inappropriate here.
Don’t you think there’s truth to the other commenter’s note that: “Most people in the field will assume that retraction is generated by fraud or misconduct, no matter how
much or how loudly those associated with the journal might say to the contrary”? To me this seems accurate in an environment where retractions are primarily done in cases of fraud or misconduct (regardless of whether this should be the case)
Imo in such a situation a correction notice (“the editors note that this was incredibly sloppy work and even with data and code provided the results reported are not reproducible.”) is more than enough.
Andrew, I saw some poll numbers that claim that 53% of the country supports student loan forgiveness. Care to comment, as you did about abortion law and the Oklahoma legislature, about how the court isn’t following the will of the people? Is the executive branch allowed to exploit every grant of minor budgetary discretion to add 5-10% to the budget? Should the separation of powers be undermined to serve the majority? Does SCOTUS have legitimate power to enforce laws, or should it be a rubber stamp for popular opinion?
These questions are of course beyond statistics. But you seem happy to talk about the will of the people as expressed by opinion polls. Shouldn’t you also address the will of the people as expressed by their endorsement of the framework of laws that are the foundation of the country? Doesn’t this framework also express the will of the people?
What do you think? Is the tripartite balance of power outmoded? Should the executive rule over the legislative and the judicial branches? What would the people say today?
Chipmunk:
This is a topic much studied by political scientists, the alignment or lack of alignment between opinion and policy. Obviously when a policy is favored by 53% of the people, it could go either way. But more generally public opinion is complicated, as is policy, and they won’t always line up. Sometimes this comes from different partisan control of different branches of government (as in the student loan example), but there are all sorts of reasons that policy won’t always line up with opinion.
Your other question involves the role of the courts in our system. That’s another big topic with no easy answers! I see my own role as not to offer any solutions here; rather, I want to clarify what is known about public opinion and voting. I’d like decision makers to at least be aware of the facts.