this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
203 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37727 readers
527 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

One fraud happened and therefore everything with the word "conductor" in it is fraud afterward? The Jan Schon scandal was about single-molecule semiconductors, which have nothing to do with lead apatite superconductors.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scientific fraud is a weird phenomenon that many do not intuitively see coming. That it happens at all is worth keeping in mind, as well as the manner in which it is done. When a new finding seems to good to be true, it helps to remember that it may just be so.

In this particular case, my feeling is that an unhealthy lab dynamic led to a small group of people get carried away with their excitement. I'm betting fraud hasn't happened here, but rather scientific negligence in the pursuit of glory. All my relatively uninformed speculation of course ...

From what I've gathered the group of 3 comprise one elder and former supervisor and two former graduate students. Don't underestimate the weird sway a scientific elder can have on younger researchers, nor the strange psychology that can develop around the pursuit of one's legacy. Competing with Einstein and Nobel prize winners can be a helluva drug, and the elder/senior research can influence all sorts of decisions and aspects of the research through the amount of deference the receive from the younger researchers.

As for the two younger researchers, without knowing where their careers are up to, they're probably fairly desperate to get more papers and grants, as all researchers are. Once you've started a project, you want something out of the time you've spent on it. If you've dived in on a long shot project that might go no where, you start to really want to find something in there the longer it goes all while sunk-cost fallacies haunt you everyday and pull you along longer and deeper than you really wanted to go. Combined with respect and deference to an elder pushing them along, the young researchers may very well have found themselves in a weirdly confusing space with not entirely healthy mindsets. I'm talking about losing perspective on what matters in terms of research/scientific integrity as well as managing resources for the sake of their life and career and how much trust they have for their research group on the whole, where a good deal of weird suppression followed by dramatic outbursts in an unhealthy mental health sense can happen.

Now that is all speculation, of course, but I write it just to illustrate that these kind of situations can occur, especially in science/research, and it's helpful to be aware when dramatic confusing things like this situation arise.

[–] DreamDrifter@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

To your point, they published a method that could be replicated in less than a week in basically any college or lab in the country.

Fraud makes little sense here - this screams exuberance to me

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s fair, I could’ve easily been wrong!

[–] laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The guy behind this paper has the exact same issues as Schon. Plagiarism in his PhD thesis, faked data, retracted papers, etc.

[–] ZickZack@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

No he doesn't?
Don't get me wrong there are many places where the paper can be wrong (eg fig 1 or their magnetism exceptionally looking more similar to diamagnetism than superconductivity) but you are mixing him up with Ranga Dias who has had a history of data fabrication.
Dias has nothing to do with this paper though.

[–] keegomatic@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Got a source? When I first read about this people were cautiously optimistic partly because the head researcher was well-respected.

[–] emhl@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Btw. Schön Didn't plagiarize in his PhD thesis, the title was removed because of his other shortcomings