Lmao

Youre part of the problem mate - these video titles are click-baity grifting. Calling Academia broken, confirms the suspicions of paranoid populists who spend too much time online, that all academia is therefore likely broken. Please be responsible with your platform

they good, but lackin, it's like a Beta version. 99% of Newspapers aren't even on there. Also they see billionaire media and business publications like CNBC as neutral, when they're clearly right leaning with their neo-liberal POV.

Funny how when I saw Pete using Ground in this video I thought: well if he's using it maybe it's valuable. Maybe I should consider buying it. The whole feeling vanished as soon as he said it was sponsoring the video. Any behavioural scientists want to explain the phenomenon?

I wouldn't trust Ground News if they captioned this lawsuit "Harvard vs. Gino". She's the plaintiff. Should be "Gino v. Harvard"

I know! I could fake data way better than that. (Corrupt academics call me for my reasonable rates.)

Most people who get caught faking data are found out relatively easily. The problem that allows them to get away with it for years or even decades is that almost no one bothers to look because there is zero - and I mean absolutely zero - incentive structure in place to maintain the integrity of *other* people's work. The scientific community operating almost entirely on the honor system is kind of... bad. But if you were to make any suggestion to change how the scientific community operates, you'd get wailing and gnashing of teeth because some variation of "I don't fake the data, so why should I be punished by having to have my stuff scrutinized even harder and therefore take longer to be published."

I bet she didn't expect the research to be that exciting to anyone and to fade away like most papers. She's probably been gritting her teeth waiting for the day someone discovered it

Psychology is almost always fake. Even if they don’t fake their data, their sample is almost always students from their own university, which is not representative

yeah she literally went into her exceedingly simply excel spreadsheet and changed every outlying value that made no sense to a random value that fell in line with the other values. for those unaware, for example: if your data had the numbers 2 2 3 2 2 18 2 3 3 50 2 3 you can clearly see that 18 and 50 are outliers that disprove any theory that this data is consistent. so Gino just erased the real 18 and 50 values that were generated using scientific methods to 2 and 3 values that she just made up. that's basically what occured - that's why people are saying the data manipluation was so lazy.

They did till now....no one is innocent....

How would covering it up be a malicious attack on her? They did try to cover it up, until her guilt was clearly undeniable. How much falsified data across the entire system of academia is required before it becomes undeniable that the entire system should be reexamined?

@@jswets5007 He meant malicious to us, not to her.

Why can’t they sue her for fraud, employment expenses and damage to reputation?

​@@jswets5007until people riot in the streets or actually insight fear in those actively lying to the public for personal gain, political or monetary. I'm serious nothing else will actually make these people stop, they're addicted to the power, and its unbelievably obvious its corrupted them.

Lawsuits aren't easy or cheap by any means. It takes some ridiculous hubris to play the victim in the courtroom for somebody in Gino's shoes. Ivy League, more like Ivory Tower League, etc.

​@@WK-47For a grifter, 25m is a good gamble

What is crazy is that she didn't just walk away with the millions she already completely based on lies, she wanted 25 Million more. She really is one of the worst humans.

​@@WK-47It's bc that scammer is rich from "upper society" and they tend to be more entitled to things they don't deserve/didn't earn. That's a fact of human nature. Somewhat paradoxically the poorer someone usually the less they feel entitled, even to things they earned.

Perhaps, but if they in anyway violated procedure, they can be held liable.

And even showing more in her act of storming her way out of Harvard and Academia while trying to grab some cash. Not even trying to really defend herself, just the final maneuver on her career before most likely disappearing from the public.

@@Robert.101typical aristocrat, really.

​@@Robert.101 I think she was trying to grasp at the same straws that had Stanford's now ex-president keep a job (he still has his lab).

@@Heyu7her3 What happened at Stanford with ex-pres?

@@Robert.101 By not sueing back you are basically declaring you're guilty. So I would assume she has a lot less to lose attempting to do so. Not sure. What do you think?

One of my biggest pet peeves. You’re 100% correct when you say it makes it harder for people subject to real sexism. Hope it gets called out

Its understandable to use any weapon on your arsenal on a lawsuit of this calibre. Even if the weapon is just a stick.

@@DreamVikings No, it is not understandable; it is extremely selfish. But evidence suggests that's just how she is.

I agree but I realised that when women professors are either abusive or fraudulent, they get much more hate in general and are usually fired immediately. It's because people can finally let out their misogyny. Look at all the videos made about her, meanwhile there are none about for example Paolo Macchiarini who literally killed people with his fraudulent research 💀

I'd say it's not quite so cut & dry. & For a high profile case against Harvard, a claim of Sexism is probably one of the most rational claims to make in order to expedite the forthcoming settlement she will be awarded. Because Harvard will never ever make a counter-argument to allegations of Sexism whilst standing before a Jury in Civil Court so long as the allegation is legitimate (i.e., it's a real Court filing) & merely has the slightest face value hint of being true. Namely, because Harvard would be destroyed -- their history has burned into it as being that of an elite Men's only University that Women really did have to fight to even gain entrance into. & Yes, that was some time ago; but, I guarantee, an attorney given the opportunity to bite into that one...?! Holy s***! For this reason, Harvard will be making a settlement with this Woman; this is her strongest play to indicate to Harvard she's willing to negotiate. She has other, more traditional & usually stronger arguments presented as well that almost guarantees her a sizeable settlement, but pressing on the wound that will not heal -- it is in their pain where the true guarantee sits. Harvard only needs to determine how much pain they are willing to tolerate before they break. & They will break; or, like I said, it will literally destroy Harvard to take this all the way to a Jury.

I disagree. She has nothing to gain but money from this. She’s guilty, people know she’s guilty. Her dumbass lawsuit isn’t going to convince anyone with half a brain (everyone she knows) that she isn’t guilty.

You actually make sense!

The two opposing legal teams are like "we good? We get paid? Let's give them a show."

@@jamesboulger8705 You just described 85% of court cases. Our legal system is just as broken as academia.

Yes, this is so true! I can't duplicate experiments/results in many 'groundbreaking' published research!

I too, have a BS in biology lmao

I am interested in my feild and I would love to keep studying it for the rest of my life but, I too changed my mind about getting into academia after finding about "publish or perish" phenomena.

Modern academia is broken. It's all a roll of the dice whether you make it in to begin with, and once there the politics around publishing has driven the most groundbreaking research to ArXive, which drops peer review all together. And it's not even academia doing the research. It's all the cast of academics that went to industry that changed the world. Congrats science, you played yourself.

I agree, and I am surprised a University like Stanford or Oxford, who have some reputational competition with Harvard don't re run all of their ground breaking experiments to try and disprove them to steal some of their prestige. Not in a malicious way, but in two students competing kind of way if that makes sense.

This could be a good job for a future AI bot

​@@privatename1250came here to say this 😂

Greater than 10,000 peer reviewed publications worldwide. Greater than 2.5 million published articles between them per annum. The problem is there is so much published work there is no way to read, let alone verify even a sliver of it. We have made being published the most important angle in a scientific career. Tenure is given to people who publish a lot and are cited even more. "Publish or Perish." The median download count for these 2.5 million articles is 10. Most of this work is never even read past the peer review. Nothing more then pure incentive to cheat as the likelyhood of getting caught is low. As for the AI, I am looking forward to this. You know how individuals who committed heinous crimes in the decades past are being caught now due to DNA evidence that has caught up? The same will happen for academia. AI will actually be able to shake all that past published horse manure and hold these fraudsters accountable. Science has a lot more quackery in it these days then it has in a long time. Sad really. For context, i am a Theoretical Physicist with 32 years of experience. I do not work in the academic system and chose to work on my research alone with private funding. When I publish my work, it will be impactful. I did not spend a career trying to make anything stick. Selling my soul for funding. Science isnt about fame, it is about answers. Academia is to Science what Religion is to Faith, a structured organization to bring the massed to the least common denomonator. Great change and advancment doesnt come from these organizations. It never has. It always comes from ouside. A great read on these ideas is Thomas Kunz 1962 writing titled "Principals of Scientific Revolution." Worth a read or watch a lecture about it on you tube. Great video, thanks!

@@privatename1250 seeing ideas like this makes me fairly convinced that to most people AI is basically a crystal ball. No, this is not something that any AI following currently existing AI development paradigms could reliably perform.

Good idea. Go ahead, do it.

As if she shouldnt be fired, anyway, for not screening her assistants adequately or verifying the raw data. Of course she's lying about that regardless. Wonder if she can have a civil suit filed against her for trying to frame someone?

ur mom HAH GOTTIM

Journals should require the lead authors to sign declaring that they have extensively reviewed the dataset and have made sure it is accurate and not tempered with.

​@@ReyoVRyep. If people want to take credit - albeit in a socially sanctioned way - for other people's hard work, then they should be willing to take credit for any wrong doing that they failed to take reasonable measures to stop.

I worked as a research assistant and my principal didn't trust a damn thing I did, rightly so as I was just a grad student doing grunt work preparing data and coding simulations based on formulae he developed. He still basically did all of it on his own side-by-side to make sure what I was telling him was correct and true. Only later in the project did I earn a limited degree of trust and input, and I was still audited regularly.

Haha I didn’t even think about Harvard Law, Gino is so going to be toast

That is exceedingly common in labs, is it not?

@@lijohnyoutube101you don’t usually get first author if it was mostly an RA/grad RA project

@@lijohnyoutube101 not in the labs where I’ve worked, in a very related field to Gino’s. If you contribute significantly in the way Gino claims the RAs contributed, that warrants being added as a co-author. Or at least offered the opportunity.

That is very toxic

My pleasure! Glad you feel that way mate.

I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by Jocelyn Bell Burnell a few years back. What a truly impressive, yet humble individual. She has rightly received a number of awards in recent years, but she should have shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for the discovery of pulsars. For that matter, IMHO, Lise Mitner should have shared the 1944 Nobel Prize for the discovery of Fission and Rosalind Franklin should have shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA. I wish you the very best in your future career.

Right? This is such a meme.

And I hate the people who let these things slide....the whole system is flawed....I am telling ya...

Joclyn Bell Burnell was a grad student working on someone else's project. SHE said herself: "I believe it would demean Nobel Prizes if they were awarded to research students, except in very exceptional cases, and I do not believe this is one of them." The only reason you think she didn't "get credit for her work" is the exact same reason this lady thinks she can just play the sexism card. You're doing the exact same thing she did.

Idk man. There's sooooo much push for women going into STEM, literally just being a girl (where I am from) pays you to go into STEM. Women who don't get noticed, don't get noticed because they're just not as good, simple as that. It has nothing to do with being a women. It would be even less fair to give notice just because they're women, even if they haven't done anything relevant Take this from somebody who has generations of mothers/grandmother engineers who say the same. I say this as one who speaks for his ancestors who claim there was not an issue.

‘Crime’ is a bit strong. She didn’t commit a crime, and she’s not a criminal. But Gino is definitely an academic fraud whose name deserves to be dragged through the mud.

She is clearly defaming these four men. Calling them sexist could cause material harm. I would counter sue with a quickness.

Low in your universe. For a normal person that's several lifetimes worth of earnings. Heck, it's several lifetimes worth of earnings even for the average university professor.

That number is incredibly high for a researcher. Depp sued heard for $50 million and he was a top tier celebrity with the data to back (lost contracts etc.). The arbitrarily high number posted is just so she can get in the news for the reasons you have mentioned. The other reason is to entice prior collaborators to come to her defence (none have wisely done so and have retracted most collaborated journals immediately)

​@@freebornfloor1600she makes 1 mln from harvard per yeae, lost her job bc of this, had 25 years left of employment. That's my guess for the way the number was calculated using relevant data.

im not so sure about the "genius" part

Because grants are in part used to pay other people and travel, that would be impossible. In principle I agree with you but I think it’s just going to have to be written off as a loss

Very good argument! 8 years difference!

That would be so based.

I am not sure what the legal standard would be to show that Gino did her job not just incompetently, but recklessly or even maliciously. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think being incompetent at one's job is sufficient grounds to be held liable, unless there is something like gross negligence involved and definite harm can be demonstrated from Gino's actions. Showing that the result of research did definite harm, in something as squirrely as the results of behavioral research, is probably going to be very difficult. The best they might be able to do is to show that funds or resources were misappropriated to do the fraudulent research.

If they cared so much about their reputation, they would have been the ones to uncover it. They did not care as long as she was reflecting well on the university as a noted authority.

@@stanwoody4988 I have been told by university administrators that they aren't policemen and if there's wrongdoing, they don't want to hear about it. Having to deal with the fallout from a scandal is the last thing an ambitious administrator wanting to climb the greasy pole wants to do.

@@profdc9501 Agreed. We all learned in kindergarten that you do not snitch/call out. But, knowing the university is made of kindergarten graduates, I would have hoped that they headed off this sort of thing with review boards etc. But even that becomes "peer review me and I will peer review you. "

😂😂😂😂😂 👩‍⚖️

I've heard that you list the owners of news corporations alongside articles, and I think that's great! My question is, who owns Ground News?

Hi@@animesuxxxx, we understand that readership varies greatly between publications and we are looking at incorporating this data in the future. Our main goal is to gather as many related articles as possible so readers can compare coverage, while also providing context about the source of the information.

Hi@@Noreen_Ni_Riain, great question! We are an independent company supported by our subscribers and a small group of individual investors.

Yeah, that was a relief, even though i also watched it. I forgot about the sort-crime and only the image manipulation, which didn't come up I guess. Maybe i'm wrong and it was someone else who was doing western-blot Ctrl-C/V and i'm mixed up.

Glad that a few people have taken notice.

Thanks for teaching me that.

It doesn’t take being a rocket scientist to see that this is obviously the end of her academic career. It would actually be preposterous if it wasn’t. No half respectable institution can hire someone who has been charged with data fraud, that’s just not going to happen. What could happen after this would be her opening a KZfaq channel and going fringe. Writing a tone of books and selling pop psychology to the masses. I can easily see her do that. Lay people don’t care if there’s any truth to what she says, if she’s charismatic enough, with the title of Harvard Dr. before her name, she’ll make money. That’s all people care about, she’s a Harvard PhD and she gesticulates a lot while she talks, that’s good enough for the gullible masses. Look at Jordan Peterson, curiously enough another psychology grifter! 🤷🏽‍♀️

This is such easy accusations to make w hindsight. Telling she's "narcissist" is just ridiculous since you're not her psychologist. I understand something might been "off" but saying she seemed "narcissistic" without any proof at all just your FeEliNg I'd just ridiculous

My dictum; we humans too easily mistake charisma for knowledge

@@shelterit👍🏻 x1000.

​@ghostoflazlo Exactly. Narcissist or no, either the DATA is real or it is not. She might be a saint in a dozen ways, however unlikely that may be.

Actually in this case I'm not sure there is. The optics of a settlement , even if the details are kept secret, would cause additional reputational damage or even result in pressure for a truly independent inquiry with a wider scope.

On the other hand, this is a chance for Harvard to show that they are serious about fraud. Though I could completely believe they will take the easy way out.

Meh, harvard's fault for not checking on who's publishing in their name, and everyone else's for appealing to authority rather than verifying themselves.

Unreal... can't wait to see this backfire even more.

Nah, frivolous lawsuits are filed all the time. Her career being permanently ruined will be punishment enough. Moreover, her status as a multimillionaire will quickly evaporate once her salary and speaking fees drop to $0. I would not be surprised if she spent money under the assumption that her income would never decrease. Something about her suggests she indulges in the finer things life has to offer.

@@50PullUps Separate crimes are punished separately. Whether she will be broke is independent of her weaponizing frivolous lawsuits.

@@50PullUps WRONG. She literally has undermined society. She should be hvng. Do you not understand cause and effect? It is people like you that are also the problem.

Slapp suits are a Hallmark of the US justice system $$$

Gino is slightly unethical... :D

When you reach a point where you claim the Guardian is not "slight left", you are probably reading too much right-wing media.

true

I found that weird. What was there that was sympathetic about what she did? She lied and put out fraudulent data over the course of years. This wasn't an impulsive decision. It was deliberate and not an isolated incident.

Academia has had problems with replicating studies for years. Much more effort is put towards new research vs verifying existing research, which is ridiculous from a scientific viewpoint.

The replication crisis is a real shame....one of the prime tenants of the scientific method is pretty much ignored.@@cameronhoglan

Now you have a goal

Agreed. I noticed that too.

The Harvard "interim policy" stating that the paper should not be more than 6 year after the university being aware of the allegation of the data fraud does not make her argument strong in anyway. It appears that Harvard learnt of this fraud less than 6 years before they commenced their investigation. She will not succeed on this score.

of course.

@DeclanMBrennan that's a very interesting question. Shouldn’t the laws around fraud and misrepresentation be a sufficient legal remedy? If we were to criminalise such acts within the academic domain, the standard of the "Burden of Proof" has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". I'm sure that in itself that is difficult to prove as it would go further than just proving a data set wasn't used correctly. There has to be intent and that could be difficult to prove. As such, I would hate to think that academics and more importantly, their researchers could potentially be criminals because of their poor understanding or use of statistical methods! Still, this is a very valid and interesting question to ask.

Just focus on the data. See what it says then move from there. Learn to quickly and effectively gather data then you'll have time to do it right.

@@shutout951 are you involved with the field? Would love to hear more about it.

@@SpinodoDragon I do chemistry research using a lot of data analysis, but we also have a temptation to look for what we seek in the data. As for human problems, those are harder

They obviously will. And who files a law suit against Harvard law anyway?! Is she ok?! Lol Does she think that she can actually take on Harvard law?!

Probably hoping they'll settle.

Pete Judo said the weird data points were at the extremes, AND supported her conclusions. If correct, that’s mighty convenient. (Especially if they happen to drag the data over the threshold of significance? Be interesting to know that.) And even if these were purely random transcribing errors, that doesn’t say much for the quality of her research. “ I’m not evil, just incompetent” is not a great argument.