Stephanie Lee tells the story: “She Sued the Sleuths Who Found Fraud in Her Data. A Judge Just Ruled Against Her.” Good touch in the headline to say “Found” rather than “Alleged.”
Further background here (“Ted-talking purveyors of fake data who write books about lying and rule-breaking . . . what’s up with that?”), and lots more links here.
P.S. More here from Gideon Lewis-Kraus.
I have read the memorandum of decision in Gino v Harvard on which this post is based. In short, the claims against the Data Colada professors are dismissed in their entirety. The claims against the Harvard defendants are not dismissed in their entirety: The Title IX claim is not addressed at this stage. Breach of contract is not denied. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not dismissed ‘to the extent that the FAC alleges breach of the implied covenant arising from the research misconduct investigation conducted under the Interim Policy and the Research Integrity Policy’ (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67659904/gino-v-harvard-university/). In short, the court allows litigation to continue over Harvard Business School’s interim research misconduct policy, which was put in place after the allegations against Gino arose but was nevertheless applied to her case, and the ensuing investigation. Interestingly, the court ruled that two years’ unpaid leave, with no certainty of reinstatement after the two years, was tantamount to revocation of tenure. This ruling seems to be key to the merit of the remaining claims. I, for one, will no longer be following this case. I followed it because I found the Data Colada blog posts persuasive and was shocked that the Data Colada professors were being sued over them. The court let them off the hook, basically with a pat on the back: ‘You have been so careful with your language, guys!’
Many more battles are fought against those who seek to rid the scientific literature of fraud. But for now, I am happy that the sleuths have come out on top in this particular dispute.
“Good touch in the headline to say “Found” rather than “Alleged.”
Gino toyed with the idea of blaming QRPs but that was a nonstarter, so she had to eventually come up with an anyone-but-me defense which was no less doomed. Her change of tactics was a tacit concession that there was fraud.
With all the bad behavior at Harvard, I feel like the process with Gino went about as well as anyone other than Gino could have hoped. It certainly went much better than Duke’s investigation of Dan Ariely, who must feel like he was lucky to get shot in the ear.
The one aspect that Gino might eventually win on is statute of limitations. Harvard argued that she was still talking up her fraudulent papers and so that extended the S of L, but that argument is objectively dubious and so may not hold. Duke claimed their hands were tied for the same reason.
As for Data Colada, it’s just too bad that Massachusetts has such weak anti-SLAPP legislation.
‘With all the bad behavior at Harvard, I feel like the process with Gino went about as well as anyone other than Gino could have hoped.’
Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but I think the standard reaction of a university is to deny, ignore and wait for it to blow over. I have read many stories like this:
Sleuth: Scientist ABC has published a series of highly suspect research papers.
University research integrity officer: (to sleuth) Thank you, I will definitely look into this! (to accused researcher) Did you falsify your results?
Accused researcher: Absolutely not! The dog ate my homework, the research assistant (alternatively: colleague) maliciously manipulated the data, the editor is responsible for the obviously fake picture, and so on. Therefore, the conclusions are not affected!
Research integrity officer (to the sleuth) We have reviewed the case and are absolutely convinced that there is no research misconduct. There were a few minor errors that will be corrected with errata, but there is nothing to see here.
End game: Sleuth vents on his/her blog, errata may or may not be issued (usually the latter), misconduct continues.
I think it is rather rare for professors to be thrown under the bus by their university for misconduct – much rarer than it should be. Just think how long Paolo Macchiarini was protected by his institutions, a man who flouted ethics rules and literally has blood on his hands.
Raphael:
Agreed. Here’s one of many many many examples: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2023/11/22/in-all-seriousness-whats-usc-gonna-do-about-its-plagiarizing-professor/
And here’s another: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/03/24/why-we-sleep-a-tale-of-institutional-failure/
That last example illustrates your point because an outsider actually went to the trouble of informing the offender’s university. But nothing happened.
Other examples are when I wasted some time a few years ago informing the American Statistical Association and the American Political Science Association that they’d given major awards to plagiarists. Both organizations gave me the runaround; nobody wanted to deal with it. Or when the Association for Psychological Science printed lies about me: that was even worse, as I was met not just with indifference but by hostility. I just hate when people lie or even when they make mistakes out of confusion but refuse to correct themselves.
The disparity between Gino’s treatment and those other cases does involve gender – and gender is part of her lawsuit. I’m not saying she is correct (and I don’t find her case convincing), but it is part of what she claims. So, the idea that Harvard “as well” as could be expected compared to the other cases could be evidence that they acted responsibly or that they were discriminatory.
I have posted this link to a video clip at least once before. Nevertheless, I encourage you to watch this very short video
https://www.instagram.com/p/CsykXWdupge/
It shows Francesca Gino playing “hoops” with her family in her backyard and appears to be dated just before the allegations descended. My wife, unlike me, finds this warm, charming view of her home life irrelevant when it comes to the question of Gino’s innocence or guilt.
I, however, take a different position because it somehow heightens the comparison of her supposed behavioral science sins compared to the truly harmful, i.e., life and death data manipulations via Photoshop software, going on in neuroscience blot photos –authored by a (male) university president on the West Coast and a (male) Nobel Prize winner on the East Coast. Each of the two males is still employed–the Stanford President stepped down but is still a member of the faculty..
Paul:
I kinda know what you mean, but . . . nobody is owed a job at Harvard. There should be nothing stopping Gino from having a busy, happy, and productive life working at some other job, probably something that does not involve training people to do research. Nobody was talking about sending her to prison or fining her, and I don’t even think there was any move to force her to repay her research grants. Your email would seem to imply that as long as it’s not life or death, she should have lifetime employment at Harvard business school. Just speaking in general terms, I don’t see that a university or other employer should be required to continue the employment of people who are unproductive and violating their employment contracts. And Harvard has gotten rid of media celebrity male tenured professors too, for example Marc Hauser of the psychology department who misrepresented his data, denied all wrongdoing in the face of evidence, and dismissed picky critics as schoolmarms.
Hmm, I took his meaning to be that the high status males should be losing their jobs too, and if they aren’t then it’s a double standard.
Daniel:
Yes, that’s why I gave the example of Marc Hauser, a high-status male professor who got kicked out of Harvard in a situation very similar to Gino’s: an academic and media star doing psychology research who was then questioned and could not come up with a plausible explanation other than fraud or data manipulation for his results, resulting in a scandal that was reported in the press. Hauser was arguably more of a superstar than Gino and had more powerful friends, but Harvard still forced him out. I don’t think Harvard owed a job to Marc Hauser either! He had a job and threw it all away because doing straight science wasn’t enough for him; he had to misrepresent his data too.
Ah, I had forgotten Hauser was at Harvard.
Here he is. It’s hard to tell, but he could be engaged in a sincere effort to help with the education of disadvantaged kids. Maybe he’s been chastened after his fall from the pinnacles of Harvard / NPR / Edge Foundation, etc. and has decided to spend the rest of his time doing good in the world.
Paul Alper wrote:
My wife, unlike me, finds this warm, charming view of her home life irrelevant when it comes to the question of Gino’s innocence or guilt.
I, however, take a different position because it somehow heightens the comparison of her supposed behavioral science sins compared to the truly harmful…”
I saw your comment before, and now I’m scratching my head on why you would double down on this irrational take. Gino was making tons of money going around telling everyone such things as that creative people are more likely to be dishonest. She contributed to the government changing written forms to sign an honesty pledge at the beginning. Her message was like the vodka used for tinctures, distilled thirty times into the purest bullshit.
There is still some nattering about gender issues here, but if someone takes the time to read the investigative report in all its devastating detail, they will not be thinking about gender anymore. Her case has very few direct parallels and so our natural desire to make comparisons is failing us.
Matt Skaggs wrote: “There is still some nattering about gender issues here,” so his choice of the word “nattering” tends to poison the well of discussion. As it happens, I am not a Francesca Gino fan, partly because her stuff seems so trivial–in one of her books, she even discusses how wearing tennis shoes, instead of her customary power footgear, made her a more successful lecturer and thus, she impinged upon my one claim to statistical fame.
To return to “gender issues”–Sholto David and Elisabet Bik have amply demonstrated how widespread–literally coast to coast–pictorial data fraud is in neuroscience, an area of endeavor dominated by males of considerable power and funding. I believe some of David’s assertions are destined to appear in this blog in the near future.
I’m still shaking my head over Gino’s defamation claim against Data Colada.
In the US, it is almost impossible to get a defamation conviction if you are a famous person. Famous people have to prove “actual malice,” that the defendant knew what they said was wrong. (The election workers in Georgia were not famous and so did not have to prove that Guliani knew what he said was wrong, only that it was in fact wrong.)
Defamation was always going to be a longshot no matter what Gino did. But to have any chance at all, she needed to argue that she is NOT famous, just a humble researcher who has had some success. I think she was in a good position to argue that she is not famous by legal standards, but that is not what happened. Here is the first sentence in her formal written legal complaint:
“Professor Gino is an internationally renowned behavioral scientist, prolific author, researcher, and teacher who has received many awards and considerable media attention for her academic research regarding people’s decision-making.”
Considerable media attention! One of two things happened here. Maybe her legal counsel was utterly incompetent. But realistically, this is Lawyer Stuff 101 and that seems very unlikely. The only other explanation is that she overruled her counsel and steered this course on her own. I’m guessing she wanted the defamation claim for appearances and wasn’t too worried about what the law required. Meanwhile, the “renowned behavioral scientist” was something that she thought necessary to include so that she could eventually argue that she is someone a jealous rival might want to take down. And in the end, after trying a few things to see what might stick, the jealous rival defense was the one she settled on.
Matt:
It upsets me when any scientist—famous or non-famous—objects to people questioning their claims. Open questioning is what science is all about.
Regarding your last point: Yeah, I’ve noticed this sort of thing when scientists are on the defensive regarding indefensible work, and they oscillate between playing the victim (so that the critics are powerful bullies, “punching down”) and playing the role of superior being (so that the critics are jealous “second stringers”).
I’m not a lawyer, so take this for what it’s worth: I don’t think there was ever any doubt as to whether Gino would qualify as a “public figure” here, given her fame and prominent position. The only thing which would come of denying that, would be a big waste of money, as it was litigated and then lost. I don’t believe there was anything about “overruled her counsel”. Rather, they knew what would be futile to argue, and constructed the case accordingly.
Seth wrote:
“they knew what would be futile to argue, and constructed the case accordingly.”
I couldn’t completely follow your comment, but this is wrong I think.
Gino’s lawyers did in fact argue deep down in the complaint that she is NOT a public figure, in contradiction to the “considerable media attention” in the first sentence. Here is the Data Colada guys talking about this very thing on their website:
“…a good and straightforward example of a public figure might be someone who is “an internationally renowned behavioral scientist” as well as “a highly sought-after author, consultant, and researcher”. That was how the Gino attorneys characterized their client in the very first court filing. If you’re confused as to how they could subsequently claim that their client was not a public figure, you are not alone. It continues to be a bit of a mystery.”
To be clear, I am not arguing that the lawyers did not know what would be “futile to argue,” I’m arguing that they did in fact make a contradictory and therefore futile argument for some reason. I’m trying to figure out how they ended up arguing in circles when they are probably competent enough to not do that on their own.
Matt –
Someone could be an “internationally renowned behavioral scientist” as well as “a highly sought-after author, consultant, and researcher” where the vast, vast majority of the public would have no idea who they are.
Would they still be a “public figure?” Seems at least arguable, to me.
Matt, I could be wrong, but I checked over the court documents I have on the case (not everything, but several). I initially couldn’t find any mention of “public figure” at all except in the recent decision, and that section is brief. What are you referring to in “Gino’s lawyers did in fact argue deep down in the complaint that she is NOT a public figure”? I might have missed it, but I don’t see it.
I got the April 26 hearing transcript, and found a couple of mentions in it, but that’s really minor. As I read it, it’s just her lawyers not conceding the argument.
My impression is the sequence is something like this:
Complaint: Gino is a famous researcher, who is been defamed according the standard of a public figure (note, doesn’t say “isn’t a public figure”).
Defense: Aha, you say she’s a famous, so you ADMIT she’s a public figure, right?
Gino lawyers: We don’t admit that at all.
[Wait, wait, how can this be? Isn’t it a contradiction? Well, sort of, but it’s more that they’re saying “make us” (even though they know it’s true)]
Judge, later: She’s a public figure, shrug.
The question of whether Gino qualifies as a public figure is addressed in this week’s ruling, pages 23 and 24 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.74.0.pdf
The ruling quotes the part of the complaint about Gino’s fame, as quoted in part above by Matt Skaggs. It then states that Gino is a public figure. It cites some precedents of people being considered public figures to a limited audience (a priest and hedge fund manager named Lemelson who was featured in the WSJ; and the supposed inventor of email, Shiva Ayyadurai, better known these days as an anti-vaxxer). This was the part that struck me the most: ‘Dilworth v. Dudley, 75 F.3d 307, 309 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[A]nyone who publishes becomes a public figure in the world bounded by the readership of the literature to which [she] has contributed.”)’
It took me a while to process Andrew’s response but now I get it.
The defense against fraud (or malpractice) is often:
1. I was persecuted by powerful bullies punching down.
– or –
2. My work was sabotaged by jealous second-stringers punching up.
But, there’s no reason to conclude all critics necessarily must belong in one class or the other. Both claims could have truth to them if there’s a time sequence. That is, get into a bad situation via being bullied by powerful figures, then jealous second-stringers pile-on. Or have some second-stringers draw a bit of blood, then more powerful figures see someone wounded and hence easy target to attack. The problem with Gino’s case is that the detailed evidence seemed to refute her story, not that her story had implausible internal contradictions on a gross level. It’s such a standard mystery plot: “I was sabotaged by a jealous rival below me, and then railroaded by misogynists above me” is something which would be claimed by an initially presented as sympathetic woman seeking aid from the private investigator hero. And later it all fails apart.
I’m trying to construct an even longer recursive noun phrase. How about:
“B-school prof data sleuth lawsuit blog post comment thread controversy update”
B-school prof data sleuth lawsuit blog post comment thread controversy update noun phrase challenge.