Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hgaterms t1_ixvjol8 wrote

Come on JAXA, you're better than this!

> Sasaki admitted JAXA did not have the personnel with sufficient knowledge and experience in the medical field to adequately carry out the project

So they just started making shit up. Classy.

230

MaelstromFL t1_ixvldve wrote

Yep, we need to start severely punishing fudged science. Either make them pay back the grants, sue them, or send them to jail for fraud. They continue to do this, because they know they will just get a slap on the wrist.

131

TheKingPotat t1_ixvs7rk wrote

To my knowledge what they did is a violation of japanese law. Especially if they misused government money to do it or lied about their credentials

42

salamilegorcarlsshoe t1_ixw1fyb wrote

Are they gonna die?

−1

FrostyTheH0eman t1_ixwnju3 wrote

I’m no expert, but I think eventually they’ll die

41

buttholetruth t1_ixwsoom wrote

I took a college biology class and I can confirm, they're all going to die.

18

FuBaReD2 t1_ixzmbmp wrote

Think you missed bio 201 where they teach photosynthesis. Just start sunbathing at 60 and you won’t die.

2

rocketsocks t1_ixw3jl2 wrote

We need to change the whole system of how research is conducted, especially the economics of it. This sort of thing (along with the whole reproducibility crisis) is caused by "publish or perish" norms. As long as there is intense pressure to not just get work done but get "the right" results then there are going to be individuals who give into the pressure and fudge things. The problem is that a great many folks are fudging things, cutting corners, jazzing up results, "p-hacking", etc. The vast majority of this is arguably not that serious, but when it's so prevalent it leads to a whole culture of focusing on the wrong things and a deterioration of rigor and intellectual honesty, which again will lead to the inevitable case of something squeezing out through the cracks in a way that is egregious enough to be a serious breach of ethics.

25

Apostastrophe t1_ixxq0p5 wrote

As a medical professional and someone trained in the scientific method I actually find this concept rather distressing and have considered it before.

Like say we have X issue and there are grants to do scientific studies on it but 99% of the money is there to do studies proving X angle and only 1% of the money is there to just to consider Y angle, you’re going to end up with an information bias. I don’t want to get into controversies but I’ve seen this sort of thing happen within other scientific fields and it concerns me greatly. To clarify, I am 100% believing of anthropogenic climate change phenomenon, BUT there is now a huge amount of money there specifically to study how almost anything is caused by climate change and very little about things that are not and I have a friend who did a type of geography postgrad who pointed out that some of them are basically just mindlessly choosing such funding for research trying to find stuff that might’ve been affected by it as its always there and other areas aren’t to get money for their research and postgrad studying. I won’t insult them by saying that they’re deliberately fudging data (I would never know though) but when you overwhelmingly fund for one particular type of evidence you’re only really going to have that type of evidence if that makes sense.

Clarifying again. I Do believe in fairies climate change I do I do I do. I just query the way a lot of the funding is managed and how it’s affecting science.

9

Still_Ad4634 t1_ixym5aj wrote

Fortunately, this isn't true - because oil companies drop frankly huge sums into funding research into climate change to the point where there's been attempts to put together a research group (Fossil Free Rearch) in order to operate without the influence of funding from sources that are heavily biased against results that show fossil fuel impact on climate change.

We have a history of fossil fuel companies doing the research themselves - including as far back as 1971 (Total, scientific article for internal corporate magazine) - proving their direct detrimental impact, and then hiding the results from the wider world. Exxon had a secret climate research program that even the wider oil industry didn't know about until 1984, which predicted that fossil fuel controls were going to be needed and determined that an international response from IPIECA would be needed to keep fossil fuels top of the heap.

tldr; The companies most invested in finding that fossil fuels and related issues (runoff, byproducts) are not affecting climate change are funding huge amounts of research and are /still/ finding the same results, to the point where the risk is that we are underestimating the issue - not overestimating.

1

SnooConfections6085 t1_ixyyc0b wrote

You don't need to be scientist to know that we used to drive cars on the lake to go ice fishing as a kid, nowadays that same lake hasn't been driven on it in the winter in years, the ice doesnt get nearly as thick as it used to.

−1

Whatifim80lol t1_ixvmsg4 wrote

We already do all that. It's serious business to defraud the government.

23

calmwhiteguy t1_ixwo3wi wrote

Typically all data is expunged, scientists are fired and typically never rehired in Academia. If you want to go down as a respectable researcher, I would think that the above is pretty rough.

In a lot of cases it has been unlawful too.

2

dioxol-5-yl t1_ixx7u58 wrote

Or not reward the lead investigator with a trip to space? That would be a good start.

1

[deleted] t1_ixvng0j wrote

[deleted]

−4

Gramage t1_ixvtwz5 wrote

Very messy in zero g I'd imagine. You'd need to invent like a seppuku bag you could climb into for space seppuku.

1