←back to thread

Comment on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts

(pubpeer.com)
159 points picture | 2 comments | 16 Jan 25 17:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.476s | source
Show context
barbazoo ◴[16 Jan 25 17:54 UTC] No.42728505[source]▶
Would this imply that someone faked data in a paper they published?
replies(1): >>42728519 #
UltraSane ◴[16 Jan 25 17:55 UTC] No.42728519[source]▶
Hard to explain how else it could happen.
replies(2): >>42728552 #>>42728580 #
boogieknite ◴[16 Jan 25 17:57 UTC] No.42728552[source]▶
any reason hanlons razor doesnt apply here? honest question, im just a regular 4 year degree off to work guy
replies(4): >>42728598 #>>42728665 #>>42728900 #>>42729004 #
1. o11c ◴[16 Jan 25 18:30 UTC] No.42729004[source]▶
"Adequately" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in Hanlon's Razor. A good corollary to keep in mind is "Never attribute to stupidity what is better explained by malice." I usually apply this to politics, but science publishing is 90% politics, so it still fits.
replies(1): >>42729345 #
2. asddubs ◴[16 Jan 25 18:56 UTC] No.42729345[source]▶
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about hanlons razor. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is good, and some people don't do it enough, but there's also a lot of people that overextend the benefit of the doubt to the point that they're almost doing damage control for fraudsters