Science without scruples
-
There is an assumption in your statement that nothing useful comes out of play, it's not an assumption that I hold.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I'd prefer non-commercialized science funded by grants than those funded by companies who include clauses the bury any results they don't like. If we in the US did something similar to Australia where Government (i.e. tax) funded grants are licensed and used for more research. Instead of being used by private companies to earn obscene gobs of money, especially NIH funded ones for new medicines. Yes I'm straying dangerously close to old soapbox territory but my issues is with how the system allows the companies to exploit our tax dollars for their profit. Plus unless you think outside the box how else will you think of new, novel ideas and approaches to solving problems? If you follow the same path as everyone else you will get the same answer as everyone else. I'm choosing to ignore some of the more off the wall projects out there although the recent study about dealing with shaken beer cans[^] was quite informative. Thank you Denmark!
-
It has to do with the rules around federal grant money. To get it you agree to a very strict set of rules. When doing dev work for a medical research foundation, I worked on a number of federal grant funded projects. In the agreement we signed it specified that over-reporting (lying about) time worked on the project could be considered a federal offense and result in jail time. You are also required to report if you own stock worth over a specific amount in any companies that might be affected from your work. Morals, ethics, and all that to try our best to keep research scientific and not influenced by biases. Most of it is best effort and operating under the assumption you are trying to be honest about it, slip-ups do occur, questions are asked, and if it turns out to be an honest mistake, no harm no foul but your next grant application might get extra scrutiny. As others have mentioned, he got nailed for lying to federal authorities about money he received from foreign governments in concern with research he was conducting paid for in part by federal grants. If he had just said "Yes! I received money from them and here is why," up front I suspect he would be in the clear.
Good info, cheers. The saddest part of this story is that they way this trivial "offence" (which is probably perfectly innocent, but he's just not good at dealing with confrontational situations) has been blown up, probably to score political points, his career will be pretty much in tatters, so he'll have little choice but to emigrate. Way to give China the best Western brains, witch-hunters! At least he'll have access to a state-of-the-art 5G network.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Greg Utas wrote:
He's not in business. He's a prof at an Ivy League (=woke) university.
I had to look up what woke means; didn't realize one injustice is more important than others. And whether or not he "is" in business, I can see a clear transaction, a payment in return for services.
Greg Utas wrote:
It sounds like he lied to federal investigators, which is a crime in the USSA.
That sounds weird; someone who broke the law (a criminal) is expected to be truthfull to police, because they're "federal"?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Harvard chemistry chief’s arrest over China links shocks researchers[^] Did he not take an "Ethics 101" course?
