Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74

[EveLGenius]

Oooooh boy, someone (actually multiple someones) just committed PD in a BIG way. 

Someone published an article in a scientific journal.  In that article, there's a simple line of text that somehow wasn't caught by the primary author, the primary author's boss, or the EDITOR of the journal.  That simple line of text instructs one of the authors to "make up an elemental analysis"- as in, fake the results.

A blog entry describing the problem can be found here:
http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/a-disturbing-note-in-a-recent-si-file/

And for anyone interested in organometallics, the entire article can be found here:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/om4000067/suppl_file/om4000067_si_002.pdf

[Elfmama]

Oooooh boy, someone (actually multiple someones) just committed PD in a BIG way. 

Someone published an article in a scientific journal.  In that article, there's a simple line of text that somehow wasn't caught by the primary author, the primary author's boss, or the EDITOR of the journal.  That simple line of text instructs one of the authors to "make up an elemental analysis"- as in, fake the results.

I am reminded of Dr. Jane Robinson's "Drivel." http://www.thedance.net/~roth/SONGS/drivel.html

[TootsNYC]

...   While I could report him, I have nothing other than my word against his and that probably won't count for much.   ...

I'd report him.  Even if you need to do it anonymously. 

If he has an accident in that vehicle, particularly one which causes injury or death to another person, the company is liable.  It could cost your company literally millions in settlement.  You'd be doing your employer a favor by getting this guy off the road or at least on some kind of probation before it ends up badly for everyone concerned!

You work there--you're an employee in good standing. Why wouldn't they pay attention to what you say? Of course, were I his manager, I think it would be smart to try to verify something about his driving skills, but at the very least I would say, "we've received a complaint about the safety of your driving. Shape up."

[Jocelyn]

Oooooh boy, someone (actually multiple someones) just committed PD in a BIG way. 

Someone published an article in a scientific journal.  In that article, there's a simple line of text that somehow wasn't caught by the primary author, the primary author's boss, or the EDITOR of the journal.  That simple line of text instructs one of the authors to "make up an elemental analysis"- as in, fake the results.
 

'Make up' is a rather ambiguous phrase. It could mean 'fabricate out of nothing'...or it can mean 'construct', as in 'Before I left the house, I made up my bed.'

[CrazyDaffodilLady]

An acquaintance “Doug” is extremely socially inappropriate, especially about women. He frequents strip clubs and often claims that the strippers are his friends (which they are, as long as the money keeps flowing).

Doug has a PT job as a media “personality” for a conservative non-profit organization, which gave their “personalities” pages on the organization’s web site.  Doug posted photos and stories about his stripper “friends”.  He was immediately ordered to delete this material, but his page links to his blog, which is a stripper fest.  I’m guessing that the organization hasn’t yet noticed the link.

Doug once blogged about helping a stripper move and giving her rent money.  In the next paragraph, he whined about not being able to afford his prescription medication.

Doug is actually a nice guy, but any suggestion that he needs to tone things down is met with indignation and cries of “I’m just being honest”.

[gramma dishes]

... “I’m just being honest”. ...

Well, Doug.  You're certainly being something, but 'honest' wasn't the first word that came to mind. 

I can think of lots and lots of adjectives to describe you.  'Honest' would not be among them.

[Jocelyn]

Someone needs to tell Doug that honesty doesn't mean telling everyone everything.
We're not interested in hearing about that big boil on his posterior, either. 

[Twik]

He's being honest about his delusion that all those women are really his girlfriends, just because they undress in his presence.

[PastryGoddess]

Oooooh boy, someone (actually multiple someones) just committed PD in a BIG way. 

Someone published an article in a scientific journal.  In that article, there's a simple line of text that somehow wasn't caught by the primary author, the primary author's boss, or the EDITOR of the journal.  That simple line of text instructs one of the authors to "make up an elemental analysis"- as in, fake the results.
 

'Make up' is a rather ambiguous phrase. It could mean 'fabricate out of nothing'...or it can mean 'construct', as in 'Before I left the house, I made up my bed.'

Thats an extremely charitable view of the situation.  I'm not an expert on clinical trials or articles, but I have read a quite a few due to a past job.  Typically if data that exists is supposed to be inserted in to an article.  The actual location of the data is given.  e.g. insert data from trial abc-123 or insert data from [specific article].  An actual scientist could explain it much better than I. 

[Dr. F.]

Oooooh boy, someone (actually multiple someones) just committed PD in a BIG way. 

Someone published an article in a scientific journal.  In that article, there's a simple line of text that somehow wasn't caught by the primary author, the primary author's boss, or the EDITOR of the journal.  That simple line of text instructs one of the authors to "make up an elemental analysis"- as in, fake the results.
 

'Make up' is a rather ambiguous phrase. It could mean 'fabricate out of nothing'...or it can mean 'construct', as in 'Before I left the house, I made up my bed.'

Thats an extremely charitable view of the situation.  I'm not an expert on clinical trials or articles, but I have read a quite a few due to a past job.  Typically if data that exists is supposed to be inserted in to an article.  The actual location of the data is given.  e.g. insert data from trial abc-123 or insert data from [specific article].  An actual scientist could explain it much better than I.

In the context, it pretty clearly means, "invent out of whole cloth." The elemental analysis doesn't match the compound they're supposedly describing. So, not only did they fabricate it, they fabricated it BADLY.

I don't know they journal, but I assume it's peer reviewed. How the heck did 3 reviewers, the EDITOR and the copy editors miss such an egregious error? I actually once had someone send me in what was clearly the wrong version of a manuscript (I was co-editing a book at the time). It had about 6 different colors of track changes in it, along with comments among the various authors. I rolled my eyes and sent it back to them to fix. They were suitably embarrassed.

[*inviteseller]

This one is a case of PD that got fixed because she cried "poor me"..it was on Dr Phil today (a repeat I think).  Pretty woman was being cat fished by some guy who told her he could get her a modeling contract and he needed pictures.  So, dumb Dora, who has an internship (her dream job she said) with ESPN sends him pics, including some racy ones (they showed them with the bits blurred) taken (and this is such a pet peeve of mine) in front of her bathroom mirror.  So she, a college graduate, takes these pics of her bits and pieces exposed and sends them to some guy she only knows on the computer..and he posts them on TheDirty.com.  Cue her getting found out and losing her internship.  She cried about the injustice of it all and Dr Phil, who usually is a bit more gruff about making stupid mistakes, got the site to take them down (which was very nice of them) and talked ESPN to give her another chance. 

So to sum this up, she is an adult taking nude pictures of herself and sending them to some guy she has never met who promises her a modeling contract (oldest line in the book!), he takes them and posts them on a racy website, she gets caught and loses her dream job and she cries, on national tv,  about how horrible it is for her.  My own DD knows better than to listen to a strange guy online asking her for pictures, let alone nude ones (she reports it) and she is 18 and not always known for good judgement.  When will people start using their brain and taking personal responsibility for their colossal mistakes instead of crying poor me??  And does this woman realize that once this got out and before the site took them down, all the people she worked with and wants to work with again probably went and looked at these pictures and now  have seen only what her SO/spouse and gynecologist should see.  I would be too embarrassed to not only have these shown on national tv, but to show my face back up at the office Monday morning!

[gramma dishes]

^^^  And if I were the business where she was interning, or any other business she applied to for work, I'd automatically assume she couldn't be trusted to have the maturity and wisdom necessary to handle a real job.  She's demonstrated that despite her education, she has absolutely no common sense!  I would not want to hire someone like that.

[Hillia]

Just because the one website took them down, doesn't mean they won't crop up again somewhere else.  How  many people downloaded those pictures and posted them to their Tumblrs or other websites?  Once something hits the internet, it lives forever.

[*inviteseller]

Exactly Hillia..all it will take is to google her name (which most employers do now a days) and even though she isn't on that site, the story on Dr. Phil will come up along with those pictures.  It is a conversation I started having with older DD when she got her first phone.  Her own friend got caught doing it and suffered some serious consequences at school along with her family personally because all her friends suddenly disappeared.  But this woman didn't even say she made a mistake..she wanted that modeling contract.  I have had numerous friends who did modeling and not one of them was asked for nude selfies taken in their bathrooms! 

[dawbs]

I dunno, it smacks of 'victim blaming' to imply that since her poor decision was a part of her being conned (and, essential, there's no argument that she was conned, right?  She, albeit foolishly, trusted someone with titillating pictures--this someone intentionally worked to deceive her in order to obtain and sell/distribute those pictures) she actually deserves the eternal professional darwinism of being perpetually unemployable.