←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: 0s | 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 #
Lammy ◴[16 Jan 25 18:06 UTC] No.42728665[source]▶
So sick of Hanlon's Razor. It's just a gift to the actually-malicious. If the outcome is the same then intentions don't matter.
replies(3): >>42728799 #>>42728837 #>>42729311 #
1. dec0dedab0de ◴[16 Jan 25 18:53 UTC] No.42729311[source]▶
I consider it a reminder to stop and think before getting swept up in outrage.

Sure, bad actors will maintain plausible deniability, but I would rather let some people slide than get worked up over mistakes or misunderstandings.

replies(1): >>42729583 #
2. Lammy ◴[16 Jan 25 19:14 UTC] No.42729583[source]▶
Letting the people slide is not the same thing as letting the action/outcome slide. I do think it's reasonable to let intent inform one's feelings toward the person, but if it's easy to accidentally do fraudulent science then the system should still be criticized and the systemic problem should still be addressed.