Re:The Legacy of Lies in Alzheimer's Science
by atombender on Sunday February 02, 2025 @07:06PM
(#42913253)
I think that's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
First, keep in mind that while those scientists were originally convicted, they were exonerated on appeal. The appellate court's opinion was that the responsibility was on the public official who announced that the area was safe without first consulting the scientists.
Secondly, this case isn't clear cut. Some still fault the scientists for not correctly interpreting the seismology data and not speaking up against the public official who was supposedly to blame. There's a big question around whether these scientists were correct or not in their judgement.
At any rate, this is pretty far from scientific fraud. Seismology (as far as I, a layman, understands it) is not a science where you can make exact predictions. Being wrong about the future isn't fraud, it's just unlucky.
First, keep in mind that while those scientists were originally convicted, they were exonerated on appeal. The appellate court's opinion was that the responsibility was on the public official who announced that the area was safe without first consulting the scientists.
Secondly, this case isn't clear cut. Some still fault the scientists for not correctly interpreting the seismology data and not speaking up against the public official who was supposedly to blame. There's a big question around whether these scientists were correct or not in their judgement.
At any rate, this is pretty far from scientific fraud. Seismology (as far as I, a layman, understands it) is not a science where you can make exact predictions. Being wrong about the future isn't fraud, it's just unlucky.