Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iowa State AIDS Researcher Admits To Falsifying Findings

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time dept.

Medicine 141

theodp writes "'With countless lives depending on their work,' writes Brett Smith, 'it seems unthinkable that AIDS researchers might falsify their work. However, that's just what Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han has admitted to, according to federal documents.' Han resigned from the project in October after admitting to tampering with samples to give the appearance that an experimental vaccine was causing lab animals to build up protections against HIV. According to the NIH, Han apparently spiked rabbit blood with human blood components from people whose bodies had produced antibodies to HIV. 'This positive result was striking, and it caught everybody's attention,' said the NIH. However, researchers at other institutions became suspicious after they were unsuccessful in duplicating the ISU results. The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years. Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years."

cancel ×

141 comments

humans cannot be trusted (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810759)

Is it any surprise that extraterrestrials want nothing to do with us?

Re:humans cannot be trusted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810865)

Terrestrials want nothing to do with you either. Jerk.

Not humans, Koreans ! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810969)

Dr. Dong-Pyou Han is a Korean.

He cheated.

So was Dr. Woo-suk Hwang, who fake the data on cloning back in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk [wikipedia.org]

Koreans can never be trusted.

Never !

Not all Koreans cheat (5, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45811047)

Dr. Dong-Pyou Han is a Korean.

He cheated.

So was Dr. Woo-suk Hwang, who fake the data on cloning back in 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk [wikipedia.org]

Koreans can never be trusted.

Never !

While it's true that both Dr. Hwang and Dr. Han are Koreans, not all Koreans are cheaters.

Similarly, not all non-Koreans are non-cheaters either.

But I sense something terribly wrong in the set-up at Iowa State U.

You see, Dr. Han's immediate superior is Dr. Michael Cho, and as the supervisor of Dr. Han, Dr. Cho has failed to keep a close eyes on the researches being carried out by his subordinates.

And while Dr. Han has had his wrist slightly slapped (only ban for 3 year). Dr. Cho, the boss, never was reprimanded for his own dereliction of duty.

Re:Not all Koreans cheat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811551)

hahaha. Every Korean school I worked at had about 80% of the students cheating. After reporting said cheating, or taking away their tests during their exam guess what happened? The school did nothing, and just let them take it again.

Re:Not all Koreans cheat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811839)

Did you work for a public school, or one of the many private after schools? If it's the latter, I wouldn't be surprised if the people running the place wanted to futz with test scores in the name of profit. Hardly a Korean or Asian trait.

Re:Not all Koreans cheat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811949)

He's probably just Japanese. The nips hate Korea and use every opportunity to insult them.

Re:Not humans, Koreans ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812639)

Would you like a list of Americans, English, Germans, French, Spanish, etc who have falsified data as well? Guess you can't trust anyone without their results being reproducable.

If only we had a method for that..

free the innocent stem cells (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810767)

little miss dna cannot be wrong & never fakes it when it counts

Poor Han (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810771)

Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years.

That's it? I would expect a little more than a slap on the wrist.

Re:Poor Han (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810793)

The bigger the fraud, the smaller the punishment. Han got a slap on the wrist for only $19 million in fraud. In contrast, the Iraq War was $845 billion in fraud, and Bush received no punishment at all.

Re:Poor Han (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810883)

... In contrast, the Iraq War was $845 billion in fraud, and Bush received no punishment at all.

President Bush wasn't the only party to the war. The UK was as much a driving force if not more. On the other hand, Benghazi blood is all on Obummer's hand...

Re:Poor Han (-1, Offtopic)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45810989)

On the other hand, Benghazi blood is all on Obummer's hand...

It's more like the Benghazi blood is on that old Hillary bitch's hands.

She was the one who lied about everything.

Re:Poor Han (-1, Offtopic)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#45811213)

I've not seen anyone point out any lies. She got mouthy to a rude freshman senator in one hearing, and so that uppity bitch must be lying. That's the best I've seen, and it's severely lacking. The timeline is consistent with the official story, and a couple of news places seemed to get time zones wrong, indicating we did things before we did them, which was never the case.

Re:Poor Han (0, Offtopic)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#45811963)

I've not seen anyone point out any lies.

Susan Rice said quite a few things about Benghazi that were false. Her defense was that she had been misled by others and believed she was speaking the truth at the time.

But this is all silly in the context of "blood on hands": The "lies" (if you want to call them that) were made after the fact, and did not cause the killings.

Re:Poor Han (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#45812731)

Oh, we are getting modded down for defending Hillary. But yes, I keep getting told about the "blood on the hands" and the best I can find for even a lie by Hillary is that she never answered the questions about why she acted how she did while it was occurring, when there's no indication she did anything "wrong" at the time.

You mean Blair. Not the UK. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811175)

Because, like Shrub, Blair just said "You dont understand and I can't tell you because National Security" and ignored millions protesting against the war.

France refused to join in and what did they get? "Cheese eating surrender monkeys".

"You're either with us or with the terrorists" for everyone not buying the fraud.

So Two guys, BOTH wanted by a large portion of the world to be put before the Hague.

Shrub and Poodle.

Re:Poor Han (-1, Offtopic)

cusco (717999) | about 7 months ago | (#45811219)

Actually it should be on Rummy and whoever at the Shrub State Department (Rice, I think) decided to farm out the protection of embassies and strategic consulates to mercenaries. They used to be guarded by US Marines, now embassies are guarded by Blackwater (or whatever its name is today) and consulates are guarded by the local lowest bidder. If a mob attacks a detachment of Marines the next thing that happens is a fleet of helicopters full of pissed off rednecks armed to the teeth shows up. If a mob attacks a couple of security guards their supervisor, once he has been woken up, has to figure out who he can call in to do some overtime.

Re: Poor Han (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812021)

Off topic but Blair got away with it too

Re:Poor Han (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810823)

Let's motivate him to find a real cure. I've got a needle full of encouragement with his name on it.

Re:Poor Han (2)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 7 months ago | (#45810937)

In contrast, teenagers that break windows with a total worth of $550 get felony jail time [criminalde...lawyer.com] .

Re:Poor Han (1, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#45811085)

Poor people MUST be punished to the extent of the law.

If you think there is anything "fair" in justice, then you are incredibly Naive.

If you are rich you get away with nearly anything, if you have the ability to fight back they tend to not push you into the ground as hard. But if you are poor and stole a loaf of bread? Expect the death penalty.

Re:Poor Han (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811247)

Most scientists are certainly not rich, it's not a profession you go into for the money.

Re:Poor Han (0)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#45811347)

They have far more money for a legal defense than some street rats. Or are you suggesting that the Researchers live in their car's and rummage through dumpsters for food?

Re:Poor Han (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812321)

YOU have more for a legal defence fund than some street rat.

Are you suggesting that you can avoid the law?

Re:Poor Han (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45813219)

Academics routinely scavenge for food [phdcomics.com] and raid junk piles for equipment.

Re:Poor Han (2, Funny)

jo_ham (604554) | about 7 months ago | (#45811351)

It's really cute that you think academic research-based scientists are rich.

Is this overspill from the whole "climate change is just a cover for scientists to get rich off the back of lucrative grants" stuff?

Re:Poor Han (2)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 7 months ago | (#45811973)

Because the evidence shows that scientists have no bias, are moral, and simply throw money from grants to the poor street rats when they receive it. /sarcasm

From the summary... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 7 months ago | (#45812295)

The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years.

There's money in it for someone. And plenty of it.
"Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han" may not have the money for fancy lawyers but "Iowa State AIDS research project" or the "Iowa State University" most probably have some on they payrolls.

Correction... (0)

denzacar (181829) | about 7 months ago | (#45812307)

*their payrolls.

Re:Poor Han (3, Informative)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 7 months ago | (#45812349)

Principal investigators are paid fairly well. Research assistants and technicians might not. A good PI brings in millions of dollars to a state university and that is how they fill those budget voids. Our research overhead is 55%. That is money taken right off the top for the privilege of working in a university owned lab building. All equipment and supplies come out of the rest. Those grants need a good PI name to get funded.

Re:Poor Han (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 7 months ago | (#45812467)

I am also funded out of such a grant (and the PI is my direct supervisor), but my point was that in the context of this discussion, the oft-repeated cliche that poor people are subject to different rules to rich people is somewhat affected by the fact that very few scientists are rich. Especially research scientists.

When that trope is commonly used, the difference in wealth is usually poor person vs investment banker/senator/etc. By that standard, we're nowhere on the curve.

Re:Poor Han (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 7 months ago | (#45811143)

In China, he'd probably get a bullet. (Or perhaps not, it's possible that scientists could get a pass there, unlike more ordinary embezzlers.)

Re:Poor Han (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | about 7 months ago | (#45811045)

He will, however, be the darling of pharmaceutical and private medical clinics for his research methodologies.

Re:Poor Han (0)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 7 months ago | (#45811277)

The government never does anything to any established university or the elites that populate them. This has to be counted as an industry, like the Too Big To Fail banks and the oil companies and the telcos, whose members are elites and have an entirely different set of rules applied to them.

  Consider the price of university; it's purely a product of government subsidies with no relation to either the overall economy or the customer's ability to pay. In order to sustain these prices, bankruptcy protection has had to be removed from their customers. This would be the same bankruptcy protection enjoyed by Lehman Brothers after they were their first of the banks to implode during 2008 financial fraud, and which allowed Lehman Brothers CEO take a taxpayer funded deca-million dollar golden parachute out the door.

There are not even ordinary consumer protections for a lousy product. If I buy something and it's just terrible, I can take it back. If I take a class and it's a joke and the prof is unintelligible , I have no way of getting my money back.

A slap on the wrist? You don't say? The scales of justice will make up for the imbalance. We'll jail-for-life some inner city kid in California who's third strike is selling a dime bag and whose first tow strikes were a schoolyard fight and shoplifting. After all, THOSE people are the ones committing crimes form whom society desperately needs to be protected....

 

Re:Poor Han (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 7 months ago | (#45811365)

It's not. After this no one will touch him; his career as a researcher is over. For professors, three years of no federal grants is generally enough to kill the entire lab, and a three-year lapse in publishing is enough to kill any career on its own, with the possible exception of the most hard-boiled tenure.

Re:Poor Han (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812963)

For every research position like this there are 10 highly qualified candidates looking to fill it. Therefore you need an excellent CV and/or good connections to get anywhere. Han doesn't have that now - he might as well have gotten a life-time ban from research, as that's the net effect anyway. Which in itself isn't necessarily so bad, a large proportion of researchers quit academia every year (only to be replaced by freshly minted PhDs), but it's probably the worst they could do outside criminal proceedings.

The university should have to pay back the grants (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810801)

...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER. Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

Re:The university should have to pay back the gran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810813)

cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

When the President does it, it's not illegal!

Re:The university should have to pay back the gran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810957)

cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

When the President does it, it's not illegal!

And apparently murder is not illegal for the President either (Benghazi).

Re:The university should have to pay back the gran (3, Funny)

Coeurderoy (717228) | about 7 months ago | (#45810873)

...Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

You got that right, this is the kind of offense regularly done at the Capitol..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol [wikipedia.org]

Re:The university should have to pay back the gran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811039)

...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER.

No use, the kid will end up with a great job in politics.

small potato (-1, Troll)

harvey the nerd (582806) | about 7 months ago | (#45811189)

...in conmparison to the climate frauds in research, 1990-2010. Billions mishandled, shopping for trillions and power.

Re:small potato (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 7 months ago | (#45812809)

LOL, what is shows is you can't get away with cheating in science in the long run. There is always the underlying reality that will catch up to you sooner or later. The fact that in 20+ years no one has been able to show any substantial fraud in climate research means you aren't likely to find any. The thought that all of the thousands of climate researchers are in on a multi-decade conspiracy to hide the truth is ludicrous. It puts you firmly in the camp of conspiracy theorists. [wikipedia.org]

Re:The university should have to pay back the gran (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 7 months ago | (#45813159)

...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER. Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

Or just give him AIDS and let him decide if he wants to fuck with the research again.
[Sorry, that was really mean.]

Unsurprising. (1, Troll)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 7 months ago | (#45810829)

It is the same society, or should I say global system of power, which features:
- pollution for a theoretically and practically impossible continuous growth model;
- introduction of new substances with incomplete testing;
- laws against honest labelling...

Scum like that should be infected with HIV (-1, Flamebait)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 7 months ago | (#45810831)

I am sure she would think twice to fake results then.

Unconscionable (2)

Miranda Rhys-Jones (3478841) | about 7 months ago | (#45810833)

ISU cannot afford to allow such a small punishment for a breach in their scientific intergrity. Oh no, no government funded research projects for three years. How about ever? And a requirement to disclose this information before taking any position. Peoples lives depend on this research. Maybe false hope is better than no hope to the average person, but that doesn't fly in science.

Re:Unconscionable (3)

jma05 (897351) | about 7 months ago | (#45810913)

It likely that this is just a standard procedure which fits the general category. Since this is pretty eggregious, I doubt that he will ever get a research grant again. For one, he will need to be a part of a research institution to get a grant. Which research university will hire him now, given the competitiveness of these positions? He might be able able to teach in some low level place, but his research career has ended.

Re:Unconscionable (4, Insightful)

jovius (974690) | about 7 months ago | (#45811017)

Well, surely lives should not depend on unverified and non-peer reviewed research as the summary sensationally implies. Because of the due process the falsified results were revealed before any actual danger. Most likely the falsified results were also publicized for immediate consumption well before any verification, which actually created new ground for false hopes.

Wait, 3-year ban? (5, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | about 7 months ago | (#45810845)

For many researches it takes more than 3-years to get a federal grant (if they don't falsify results that is), how is a 3-year ban from federally-financed research any sort of punishment for such dishonesty?

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (5, Insightful)

martinux (1742570) | about 7 months ago | (#45810985)

It's a defacto lifetime ban. Short of moving to another country he will have the stigma of this for as long as he tries to get a job in science. Any research he previously reported will now be subject to significant scrutiny.

Just imagine him, or anyone attached to a group he's attached to, trying to get future federal funding; "We've decided to turn down your application for [insert any reason]."

He's now a liability to any university or research group. The only people who might hire him are some unscrupulous company who need a yes-man who will provide 'sympathetic' findings. Even then the work will most likely be under a pseudonym and will have to survive all of the extra scrutiny a 'sponsored' research study gets.

Thankfully, science is a self-correcting mechanism as this uncovering has demonstrated.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811173)

There should be an explicit lifetime ban, as well as fraud charges.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 7 months ago | (#45812843)

I'm reminded of a saying... "justice without mercy is tyranny".

I agree there needs to be a penalty, but in the end, this was caused only by very poor judgement on his part about what is really important. I'm not saying he should just be let off without penalty, only that while trying to carry out an appropriate punishment, that room for eventual forgiveness be present.

That said, I think that the ban should be long enough that when he's allowed to try to do it again, he'll basically be starting from zero, and he's going to have to work for at least just as long as he did before just to get back to where he already was. To that end, I'd suggest that a decade may be more apt than just 3 years.

Hopefully, he will have learned his lesson by that time. If he does it again, I could probably abide a lifetime ban.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811271)

So what you're saying is that his academic career is over but he has a bright future in industry "research"?

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811333)

Dream on. In reality no one cares about quality of research these days, its all quantity at this point. Nothing has been done about the 90% of junk (some fake) in vitro cancer studies [nature.com]

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (4, Interesting)

martinux (1742570) | about 7 months ago | (#45811679)

I would agree to an extent that quantity of research is being pushed as the be all and end all (as Prof. Higgs lamented). In the UK people are attending university to get a sheet of paper that proves their marketability. There are an increasing number of 'fluff' degrees requiring an increasing number of lecturers who can teach 'fluff' who are being pushed to prove that their fluff not only is valuable fluff but is the best fluff by the accountants and marketers running the universities. As a result you get researchers pushing out reams of crap in journals with low impacts simply to give the illusion of productivity and allow marketers to print a long list of studies beside their photos in university profile pages.

The knock on result is that all researchers are being pressured to publish an equivalent number of papers as anything less just proves they're lazy and unproductive in comparison to the fluff producers by bureaucrats who equate all studies as equal.

You're nodding along with me now as I'm painting a pretty bleak picture that agrees with your assessment. However, your blanket statement that nobody cares about research quality is profoundly incorrect. I know many many scientists who get their work done despite the aforementioned pressures and who 'care'. I know it's easy to tar everyone with the same brush but many of us are still doing science because we want to learn and report new things.

Taking a cynical view is easy but as TFA points out, there are more than enough people that care ensuring that fabrications are discovered.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812357)

This guy was discovered after NINE peer-reviewed papers. And this is with utterly fabricating what he was doing, not some more subtle lie as many researchers are undoubtedly doing.

You can claim there are some mythical scientists who still care and who are not cheating, but from this example and others it sure seems like the entire field of academic research is filled with lying pieces of crap.

It seems like it's time for some kind of Truth Panel to take a fine-tooth comb to ALL federally funded research - and if you want to use the term "Witch Hunt" that is fine, because from where I'm sitting the sky is clouded with brooms.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 7 months ago | (#45811459)

It's a defacto lifetime ban.

Absolutely. No matter how he spins this, everyone will know Han shot first.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810993)

It doesn't take 3 years to get a grant accepted, it takes 3 years to fail to get a grant a few times before it is accepted. Also, 3 year ban basically wipes out any of the current students that the researcher may be working with, forcing them to start with a clean slate.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (1)

sirambrose (919153) | about 7 months ago | (#45811329)

I think most researchers usually start submitting grant proposals 3 years before their previous grants run out to ensure continuous research funding. The researcher in this article already had federal grants, which have now been revoked. The 3 year ban on participating in federally funded research will ensure that the researcher will not be able to get any new grants to replace the funding that was just revoked.

Re:Wait, 3-year ban? (1)

iroll (717924) | about 7 months ago | (#45813053)

The ban is for participating. He will certainly never be awarded a grant as a principle investigator ever again, which has already crippled his career. At best, in the future, he might be able to limp along somewhere as a second-rung researcher.

What this means he can't work for any federally-financed research in any capacity (as an employee, collaborator, in-kind supporter, etc.) for three years. Since pretty much all research in his field includes some federal component, that's a three year exile from his entire career, and about as close as you can get to a career death sentence.

shame shame shame (2, Insightful)

blooddiamond (3469183) | about 7 months ago | (#45810851)

sounds like a conspiracy to me. There has to be more to this story than just a professor doug tampering with samples and resigning

has agreed to be banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810911)

Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years.

WTF??

Re:has agreed to be banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810931)

It's one of those offers you can't refuse. Agree to be banned, or be shot out of a cannon into the sun.

Han? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810927)

Sounds asian.

All the Indians and Chinese in my EE program lied and cheated outrageously. My favorite bit was when the indian girl just brazenly used her phone to look up answers each test (EE 5710/4710 IIRC, Telecommunications). It was great when she got handed a 0 at the end of term. The look on her face was worth every bit of effort I put into that course.

It seems to be cultural. As in, I know plenty of indian and/or chinese descended students who worked super hard. But the exchange grads were just perfect examples of pathetic sacks of crap. The teachers were too, for the most part. Was some kinda SE asian dude that got in trouble for stealing his undergrad's papers and trying to publish them as his own. He got caught 'cause his english skills sucked.

What I'm saying is, this doesn't surprise me in the least. Academic dishonesty is a *right* in china.

Re:Han? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810979)

You seem to think Caucasians are different. They're not just different, they're better. Better at not getting caught cheating. But they're still lying cheating sacks of fucking shit.

Academic dishonesty is how academia functions. There's no return on investment for actual work, only the perception of work. Hence liars get funding and research does not occur.

Re:Han? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811097)

When a caucasians fucks an Asian woman, she cries and squeals out of ecstasy. When it's with an Asian man she cries out because of disappointment at his micropeen.

Han may sounds Asian ... (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45811067)

But "Han Dong Pyou" is not a Chinese.

Chinese names do not have any spelling that even approaching "pyou".

I am a Chinese, I know.

BTW, I never cheat in my study. I don't have to.

Re:Han may sounds Asian ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811625)

Indeed. If I had to guess I'd say the name is Korean.

Re:Han? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 7 months ago | (#45811303)

academic dishonesty is treated as an entitlement among the wealthy in all countries. you won't really think all those senator's sons really have what it takes to graduate from Harvard do you?

(well technically they do, #define what_it_takes Daddys_money_buying_a_new_gym)

banned 3 years for 19M (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810977)

3 years are enough to spend on holidays. Sure he agreed to that, lol. Wasn't this a fraud that potentially endangered lives?

Re:banned 3 years for 19M (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811015)

Calling it "fraud" is a stretch. Saying "potentially endangered lives" is a wildly fanciful leap of hyperbole.

What about the $ 19 million ? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 7 months ago | (#45811093)

Calling it "fraud" is a stretch. Saying "potentially endangered lives" is a wildly fanciful leap of hyperbole.

While I agree that what Dr. Han did was not "endangering lives", you gotta tell us what about the $19 million grant that he got because he falsified his test data ?

Dr. Han has cheated. No matter how high that guy has achieved in his academic study, he has failed something much more important than scholarly status - he does not have even one iota of moral cell in his body.

Re:What about the $ 19 million ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811157)

I wasn't defending the guy, merely pointing out that the GGP was hand-wringing and hyperbolizing out his ass. As for the "grant he got because he falsified" bit, you have it backwards. Had there been a follow-up grant based on these (falsified) results, then yes, we'd be in fraud territory. I'm saying yes, he cheated and is a sleazeball, but he didn't defraud.

This is why you should do your own work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45810991)

This is why those like McIntyre and the rest of the knuckle-dragging morons are wrong to demand that raw data on a climate paper be made available when doing your own work and refuse to do any work themselves without it.

Because if people had just taken the raw data from this test and run ANY statistical analysis on the results, THE RESULTS WOULD STAND.

But REAL scientists wanting to test a claim DON'T just run the maths again with the same numbers, hoping for a different answer, they try themselves.

However, it's a hell of a lot more worthwhile for someone who has absolutely no interest in science to just demand of the wrong people information they don't have and claim that not being obeyed in their every whim is "proof" of conspiracy and fraud.

Re: This is why you should do your own work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811057)

Yeah! From now on everyone has to cure their own AIDS.

That wasn't a cure for aids, retard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812401)

And not doing the experiment again but checking that the sums added up would not make one.

So quite how your retardedness managed to jump to that conclusion is something only you and your arse will understand.

I don't like that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811041)

Aids history [youtube.com]

It is disgusting...

He should be in jail (2)

acoustix (123925) | about 7 months ago | (#45811121)

He basically stole $19M. That's $19M that could have been used for *real* research to help people.

He's a piece of crap.

Re:He should be in jail (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812015)

There is no 'real' research into 'AIDS', because anybody who dares to question the 'party line' (i.e. Peter Duesberg, etc.) CAN'T GET FUNDING. Nobody is allowed to do experiments which would prove the 'official' hypothesis is incorrect - which, of course, it is...

Millions of people in the U.S. should be 'HIV positive' by now, since all other STDs are rising year upon year, yet we see no increase in the number of people dying from so-called 'AIDS'. How is that possible? Most of the people who are 'HIV positive' don't KNOW they are 'HIV positive', and MOST people don't use condoms, therefore there should be hundreds of thousands of people dying from 'AIDS' every year.

Do any of you even know what 'AIDS' is?

Re:He should be in jail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812167)

How about some priorities, then.

Let's first worry about jailing the bankers who've stolen trillions before we concern ourselves with pipsqueaks who've stolen merely a CEO's annual salary.

Re:He should be in jail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812773)

And the crime? Falsification: results. No falsification: no results. The person with results is the criminal but the other one is not?

As bad as this is, there is WORSE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811137)

Much more societally damaging: Wakefield [wikipedia.org]

This problem is more common than you think... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811153)

in 2009, the FDA paid for a test on electronic cigarettes. The test came back screaming formaldehyde, acrolein and heavy metals. What the public later found out, the tests were done on dry e-cig cartridges (ie: no liquid was used, so the cartridges burned up), but to this date, the FDA claims that "they don't know what's in them". The recent CDC study on teen e-cig use is also as equally flawed.

Re:This problem is more common than you think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811439)

1. See above.
2. In 2013, the e-cig companies decided to pay for some astroturfing...
3. ???
4. Profit.

Should have researched global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811177)

In global warming research, when someone tries to duplicate your research they are called a denier and their reputations are trashed instead of you for falsifying data. At least thats what has happened so far with people like Phil Jones.

When you encourage people to lie in science in one area, and do everything to protect their invalid research, why would anyone be surprised when it goes into other fields? This has been a trend over the last few years. Every time a scientist has a "breakthrough" and someone tries to duplicate it, the person doing the duplication is attacked as a non-beliver, and then if they are funded by anyone even remotely attached to the GOP it suddenly becomes a "GOP is anti-science" story. This kind of thing is just what you would expect to start happening commonly now. Until people pull politics out of science it will continue to get far worse before it improves at all.

Re: Should have researched global warming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812361)

If he was a climate "scientist", he could just say he was making "corrections" to the empirical data.

Re: Should have researched global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812523)

So when data is corrected for known biases, that's fraud.

When data is not corrected for known biases, that proves that it's the Urban Heat Island, not global warming.

Nice circular logic you have there, moron.

You are a denier, dude. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812373)

" when someone tries to duplicate your research they are called a denier "

Nope, but it's a common self-image in public of denier morons, though.

"At least thats what has happened so far with people like Phil Jones."

You mean the Phil Jones who was asked by McIntyre for data McIntyre ALREADY HAD, asked for data Phil Jones DID NOT HAVE and then whined and bitched about how the data wasn't available because Phil Jones had to give it to him, rather than the arsehole do some damn work and get the data himself like Phil Jones did?

Evolutionary behaviour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811231)

Fraud hurts the integrity of the scientific community and especially in this case, society as a whole. A soft punishment does not reflect the gravity of the felony. As a professor in bio-related science I am sure he is well aware of how our species treats cheaters.

Evolution is next (0)

Sam36 (1065410) | about 7 months ago | (#45811253)

It is full of fraud and fake monkey men http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/pdf_dl/book/resource.PDF [unmaskingevolution.com]

Re:Evolution is next (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811331)

The theory of evolution is a valid scientific hypothesis, but the facts are that it has not been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be proven valid, the theory of evolution must undergo the scrutiny (rigours) of the scientific method. This, however, cannot be accomplished because the millions of years required for experimental testing are beyond the reasonable limit of human observation.

The current 'evidence' for the theory of evolution would not stand up in a court of law while undergoing judicial scrutiny. There would be indications that biased interpretation of data had occurred, as alternative theories could be presented to account for observed and tested facts.

Comedy Gold (tm).

Segue to an older topic (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 7 months ago | (#45811387)

I wonder how many peer reviewed papers he has had published?

Re:Segue to an older topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811805)

at least 9: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cho+mw+han+dp
according to:
http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/22/former-iowa-state-researcher-faked-hiv-vaccine-findings-ori/
The search is useless if reduced to "term=han+dp" because other researchers have the same name and initials.

Criminal fraud? (3, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 7 months ago | (#45811503)

I don't understand why he's not being charged with criminal fraud.

No Deposit, No Return? (1)

magusxxx (751600) | about 7 months ago | (#45811683)

Didn't they also get 'more' money to continue the research? If so, when are they going to give it back? In another article I read on this it stated to the effect, "It's not customary for universities to return such funds." I also found this quote interesting... “As a matter of fact, I think the team came up with more novel ideas during the past four months than the past four years I have been at Iowa State University,” Cho wrote. Translation: "Han's work got us the money, but we weren't counting on him to bring us a win."

one thing's for certain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811923)

One thing's for certain. He'll be buggered if a group of aids sufferers get hold of him.

What a joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45811957)

"it seems unthinkable" - only to braindead idiots who actually believe that MOST 'researchers' or so-called 'scientists' actually give a shit about anybody else.

HIV is not the cause of 'AIDS', and 99% of the idiots on Slashdot don't even know what 'AIDS' is.

Here are five simple examples of just a fraction of the massive FRAUD that most of modern 'research' is, funded by the NIH:

When an agency like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) throws about $15 billion each year—nearly half its entire research budget—at thousands of experiments on animals, it's impossible for the public to keep track of all the cruel and useless projects for which its tax dollars are being squandered to cause animals pain and suffering.
And even though public opposition to experiments on animals is greater than ever, there is apparently no project too trivial or too stupid for NIH to throw money at.
Case in point: Right now, NIH is funding dozens of bizarre, stomach-churning sexual behavior studies in which animals have the sexual pleasure area of their brains damaged and their genitals mutilated. Animals are sexually stimulated by experimenters, observed having sex, and subjected to other twisted procedures.
NIH has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on these sex experiments, and these five are just some of the most upsetting projects currently receiving funding:

1. Mice and rats electrically stimulated after penises mutilated and injected with chemicals
Location: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Experiments: Experimenters cut all the skin off the penises of live mice and rats, electrically stimulated their penises with electrodes for up to five minutes, and injected their penises with various chemicals to see if they'd sustain an erection. The animals were then killed, and their penises were cut apart.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,792,144

2. Mice's sex drive tested after brains burned
Location: Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
Experiments: Experimenters locked female mice into restraint devices, drilled holes into their skulls, and burned lesions into their brains. The females were then presented with urine samples from castrated and intact males, and the amount of time they spent sniffing each urine sample was recorded. In a subsequent experiment, the females were placed with males and the females' sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. All of the mice were killed and dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,505,173

3. Rats' sex drive tested following Prozac injections and removal of ovaries
Location: Texas Woman's University, Denton, Texas
Experiments: Experimenters injected female rats with antidepressant drugs and placed them with male hamsters. The females' sexual receptivity, as indicated by the downward arching of their backs, was observed and measured. The experimenters then manipulated the female rats, surgically removing their ovaries and injecting sex hormones, and again observed the rats' sexual behavior.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,024,949

4. Hamsters' sex drive tested following brain damage
Location: University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Experiments: Experimenters cut into the skulls of female hamsters and implanted tubes into their brains and pumps into their scalps. Saline or hormones related to sexual behavior were pumped into the females' brains, and the animals were videotaped as they were able to see, smell, and hear—but not touch—a male hamster. The sexual receptivity of the females to male hamsters was measured through their vaginal scent markings. Experimenters used brushes to stimulate the female hamsters, and the extent of sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. The animals were then killed, and their brains were dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,817,502

5. Rats' interest in drugs tested following brain damage and sex withdrawal
Location: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Experiments: Experimenters measured the time taken for male rats to mount females, insert their penises, and ejaculate. The experimenters then restrained the rats, cut into their skulls, implanted tubes into their brains, and pumped in a chemical that would block the rats' ability to process sexual pleasure. The experimenters then watched the rats having sex, withheld sex from the rats for seven to 28 days, and noted the rats' increased interest in an amphetamine reward. All the animals were killed, and their brains were dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $4,547,605

Do you think those sick animal torturers actually give two hoots about you and your health?

Wait, there is something here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45812377)

According to the NIH, Han apparently spiked rabbit blood with human blood components from people whose bodies had produced antibodies to HIV. 'This positive result was striking

Perhaps we could spike human blood with rabbits blood components from those whose bodies had produced HIV antibodies. Bunny ears are know to help for night terrors so why not bunny blood for HIV?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...