Author Topic: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74  (Read 1238104 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Deetee

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5481
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4185 on: August 12, 2013, 07:20:57 PM »
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.

I've published and reviewed a few papers and so I can answer how this could happen. The incriminating section "Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis…" was not in the main body of the paper, but was in the supporting info.  It used to be that supporting info (which often is much longer than the original paper) was never published and was only available if you requested it from the author. Now it is always available with the paper, but only someone who really, really cares will read it. There is rarely anything interesting there; it's more of a glorified blibliography. You might check it if you make the same compound and want to check the nmr data etc...

Anyhow, the reviewers job is to make sure the science is good (generally this means interesting, novel, significant etc..). But the supporting info doesn't tell you anything interesting so as a reviewer you might not look at it or look at it in any detail.

However, the main thing is that it is a separate file than the paper itself.

Timeline
Author: Paper and Supporting Info submitted to website
Editor: Looks over and rejects outright or sends to review
Reviewers (2-3): Look over and give comments, edits and recommendation (accept, accept with revisions, reject) note: reviewers are anonymous to author, but known to editor
Editor: Looks over comments and sends reviewers comments to author with editor's decision (eg: accept with revisions)
Author: Revises paper; may include new experiments.
Author: New Paper and New Supporting Info submitted to website
Editor: looks over (may send to reviewers again, but unlikely)
Editing staff: Proof the paper (comma, spacing, abbreviations etc..) May or may not proof the supporting info.

Paper and Supporting Info published.

So, even though multiple people seriously, seriously screwed up, I can see how someone could upload the wrong version of the supporting info late in the process and no-one would notice.

I was part of a group that completely failed to upload the supporting info in the initial run through and then wondered why all the comments referred to info that was clearly laid out in the supporting info. (It wasn't really anyone's fault. There were multiple files. They all got emailed to the person who was uploading. Then 3 of the 4 files got minor edits and were resent so the uploading person only uploaded the 3 new files )

Another time, a friend got a paper where all the comments on the side were left with the discussion between the authors.

None of those involve fakery of course but I can see how these mistake can happen.

Dr. F.

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 887
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4186 on: August 12, 2013, 07:32:23 PM »
These were supposed to be photos so she could become a model right?  Wouldn't it make sense that if it was legit she would then pose for similar photos to be distributed?  I don't see it as a huge privacy violation, as I would if they were sent to an SO,  but her taking a chance that the deal was legit and then not profiting as she had hoped to from a modeling career.

Random thought: I wonder if she signed a release, given that it was supposed to be an audition for modelling. If so, that would reduce my sympathy for her.

As a potential employer, I wouldn't care much about the photos, so long as she was upfront about them when asked. "Yeah, I was stupid and naive, and I've learned from it." I'd have more of an issue with the Dr. Phil show. Who would know what she would tell the media if she had a conflict with me?

jedikaiti

  • Swiss Army Nerd
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2658
  • A pie in the hand is worth two in the mail.
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4187 on: August 12, 2013, 07:56:03 PM »
I'm thinking that perhaps the Unfortunate Intern discussion belongs in its own thread.
What part of v_e = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} don't you understand? It's only rocket science!

"The problem with re-examining your brilliant ideas is that more often than not, you discover they are the intellectual equivalent of saying, 'Hold my beer and watch this!'" - Cindy Couture

LazyDaisy

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 994
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4188 on: August 12, 2013, 07:59:14 PM »
If she had been photographed without her knowledge, say at the gym locker room, then I can see her being blameless in this, but she took her own nude photos and distributed them, and then is upset that nude photos of her are being distributed?

My choosing to walk around naked in front of my husband in no way mitigates the actions of the peeping Tom, even if I did leave the windows open a crack.

She consented for him to see the racy pictures.  She did not consent for him or anyone else to distribute them.

Quote
No, I don't think she's all that embarrassed to be honest. I think she's upset that ESPN let her go from her internship, which is usually a temporary position anyway

Why should she be embarrassed?  She was neither the one who took the illegal action, nor the one getting their jollies looking at non-consensual pornography.

ESPN had no business firing her over someone else illegally distributing an image of her.  Their prudish reaction to something she did not consent to have occur was the problem and she had every right to be upset.

Quote
I know it's not a popular concept these days, but sometimes victims do contribute to their victimhood and it would do the next potential victim some good to understand that actions have foreseeable consequences -- sometimes permanent ones -- and can be avoided with simple choices. That's not a moral judgement about "deserves it",  it's just recognizing cause and effect.

The only reason a nude picture of her is on the internet is because someone else placed it there without her consent.

There is a difference between you letting someone peek into your dressing room, and someone choosing to throw open the curtains so everyone gets a good look.  Even if those two 'someones' were in fact, the same individual.
If she was looking for a modeling job by sending nude photos, one could argue that she implied consent to passing on her resume/portfolio to other interested parties. The only reason there is a nude picture of her at all is that she took it herself, which is completely different than a peeping tom watching someone through the curtains.

People do have a responsibility to try to mitigate their damages including preventing them in the first place. Mitigate is usually used in reference to the consequences or punishment. I don't usually see it used to describe lessoning the offensive action. So if you knew there was a peeping tom in your neighborhood and you didn't take any proactive measures to guard your privacy, you don't deserve to be oggled, but it's reasonable to assume you will be, and he will probably have a camera too. It's similar to knowing there is a leak in the plumbing and choosing to let it do more damage rather than fix it.

ESPN did have every right to terminate her for this reason -- "displays poor judgment" is not a protected class unless she has a medical diagnosis of developmentally disabled.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." — Douglas Adams

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5979
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4189 on: August 12, 2013, 09:00:28 PM »
These were supposed to be photos so she could become a model right?  Wouldn't it make sense that if it was legit she would then pose for similar photos to be distributed?  I don't see it as a huge privacy violation, as I would if they were sent to an SO,  but her taking a chance that the deal was legit and then not profiting as she had hoped to from a modeling career.

Random thought: I wonder if she signed a release, given that it was supposed to be an audition for modelling. If so, that would reduce my sympathy for her.

As a potential employer, I wouldn't care much about the photos, so long as she was upfront about them when asked. "Yeah, I was stupid and naive, and I've learned from it." I'd have more of an issue with the Dr. Phil show. Who would know what she would tell the media if she had a conflict with me?
Don't models usually wear clothes?  Aren't they paid, and sometimes paid highly, for wearing a particular designers lines?  Why would a prospective employer want to see nekkid pictures, unless they were hunting for the next Miss October?
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

AnnaJ

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 570
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4190 on: August 12, 2013, 09:32:47 PM »
Elfmama, had to laugh when I saw you commenting on this and then saw your avatar...play nakid!

Slartibartfast

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11606
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4191 on: August 12, 2013, 09:36:57 PM »
I want to know what prospective model sends out nude photos of herself and doesn't know that *most* nude photos of models - even ones taken for legitimate publication - end up on porn and fetish sites.  How exactly was she planning to have a career in that type of modeling and still keep a job in an industry where having nude pictures online would get her fired?  Unless she thought those particular pictures would never be seen by anyone else - and then we get back to the "don't you know anything about the modeling industry?" thing again.

Jocelyn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2878
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4192 on: August 12, 2013, 10:27:20 PM »
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.

I guess it depends upon how a person uses idioms. I always thought that my research assistant made up the tables and charts for my reports...meaning that she took the data and inserted it into the tables, then made charts of the data. I probably said something to that effect more than once...I hope people didn't assume that I meant she was faking anything. It's just an idiom I'd use.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7912
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4193 on: August 12, 2013, 10:28:52 PM »
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

Well not exactly.

Yes, someone lied to her.  But the fact that she actually WILLINGLY took naughty photos of herself and sent them to this person she'd never seen?  That's all on her! 

The fact that she actually thought such photos would help her get a real modeling job?  Also on her.  Surely most of us would know better than that.

Unlike the car you mention, her "privacy" wasn't stolen.  He didn't surreptitiously take nude pictures of her through her bathroom window and post them.  She provided the pictures herself.  She was both the photographer and the delivery agent sending her 'private parts' pictures to a total stranger.  He didn't steal them.  She gave them to him.  Huge difference.

  This would honestly be more understandable if she were a naive fourteen year old, but this is a college educated adult who should certainly have known better than to take naughty-bits photos of herself and send them out like that.   She had to have had at least some knowledge about how the web works and should have been able to predict something like what happened would indeed happen.

It's not the nude pictures that will prevent her from getting a job.  It's the incredible display of the total lack of common sense involved here.


bloo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4194 on: August 12, 2013, 10:53:27 PM »
Someone tricked her into sending him photos, then illegally posted said photos, violating her privacy and humiliating her while making it easy for others to do likewise, and she should lose her job and all future prospects as well?

Wow.  Never park your car in a bad section of town.  It will be all your fault when it gets stolen and you should lose your license on top of it.

Well not exactly.

Yes, someone lied to her.  But the fact that she actually WILLINGLY took naughty photos of herself and sent them to this person she'd never seen?  That's all on her! 

The fact that she actually thought such photos would help her get a real modeling job?  Also on her.  Surely most of us would know better than that.

Unlike the car you mention, her "privacy" wasn't stolen.  He didn't surreptitiously take nude pictures of her through her bathroom window and post them.  She provided the pictures herself.  She was both the photographer and the delivery agent sending her 'private parts' pictures to a total stranger.  He didn't steal them.  She gave them to him.  Huge difference.

  This would honestly be more understandable if she were a naive fourteen year old, but this is a college educated adult who should certainly have known better than to take naughty-bits photos of herself and send them out like that.   She had to have had at least some knowledge about how the web works and should have been able to predict something like what happened would indeed happen.

It's not the nude pictures that will prevent her from getting a job.  It's the incredible display of the total lack of common sense involved here.

Yeah, I agree. The fact that she willingly delivered the photos to a stranger for a business opportunity and then cried about the consequences on national tv shows pretty poor judgment. Not a resume I'd jump on if the hiring position requires good sense and good judgment (and, frankly, what job doesn't?).

Stormtreader

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4195 on: August 13, 2013, 10:59:47 AM »
I'm thinking that perhaps the Unfortunate Intern discussion belongs in its own thread.

Seconded, could we move the Intern-specific debate to its own thread please?

MommyPenguin

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4112
    • My blog!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4196 on: August 13, 2013, 11:39:51 AM »
I think part of it to me is the phrasing "just make up the elemental analysis."  Not, "make up the elemental analysis" or "please make up an elemental analysis."  "Just" implies "only do this," which seems to imply that rather than do it the proper way they should "just" make something up out of whole cloth to fit there.  And, as others have said, it's not just the phrasing, but an actual examination of the elemental analysis itself shows that it was faked, as it isn't at all what it should have been for this project.

gollymolly2

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4197 on: August 13, 2013, 12:05:42 PM »
If she had been photographed without her knowledge, say at the gym locker room, then I can see her being blameless in this, but she took her own nude photos and distributed them, and then is upset that nude photos of her are being distributed?

My choosing to walk around naked in front of my husband in no way mitigates the actions of the peeping Tom, even if I did leave the windows open a crack.

She consented for him to see the racy pictures.  She did not consent for him or anyone else to distribute them.

Quote
No, I don't think she's all that embarrassed to be honest. I think she's upset that ESPN let her go from her internship, which is usually a temporary position anyway

Why should she be embarrassed?  She was neither the one who took the illegal action, nor the one getting their jollies looking at non-consensual pornography.

ESPN had no business firing her over someone else illegally distributing an image of her.  Their prudish reaction to something she did not consent to have occur was the problem and she had every right to be upset.

Quote
I know it's not a popular concept these days, but sometimes victims do contribute to their victimhood and it would do the next potential victim some good to understand that actions have foreseeable consequences -- sometimes permanent ones -- and can be avoided with simple choices. That's not a moral judgement about "deserves it",  it's just recognizing cause and effect.

The only reason a nude picture of her is on the internet is because someone else placed it there without her consent.

There is a difference between you letting someone peek into your dressing room, and someone choosing to throw open the curtains so everyone gets a good look.  Even if those two 'someones' were in fact, the same individual.

Of course she didn't consent to it. But in life, more things happen to you than just the ones you consent to.

Victim blaming is a real thing, and it's a real problem. Warning people not to engage in foolish, high risk behavior is not victim blaming. And to conflate the two things is to undermine the work of people who try to educate others on real victim blaming.

If you send nude pictures of yourself to a stranger, there are good odds that those pictures will end up on the Internet. It's stupid to do it. He was wrong to post them. She was stupid to send them.

Your car analogy is not the same, because it doesn't carry the same high risk of unintended consequences. Sure, someone MIGHT break into your car if you leave it in a bad neighborhood, but that's not your fault. Just like someone MIGHT hack into your phone and steal any nude pictures of yourself from your phone, but that's not your fault.

But if you leave a stack of cash on top of your car overnight in a bad neighborhood, then it's not entirely your fault if it gets stolen, but you played a part. And if you send nude pictures of yourself to a stranger, it's not entirely your fault if those pictures get used in ways you don't want, but you played a part. 

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28254
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4198 on: August 13, 2013, 12:38:41 PM »
I agree. While the person who posted the pictures is the one morally at fault, I think that people need to remember that you cannot rely on the morality of others - you need to take steps to protect yourself.

To extend gollymolly2's example, letting nude photos out of your control is like leaving the keys to your car in the ignition when parking at the mall. It does not excuse the person who takes the advantage from their moral or legal responsibility. But it's not a wise thing to do, and people need to be reminded now and then why it's not a good idea. Yes, in a perfect world we could leave our keys - heck, in a perfect world we wouldn't need keys in the first place. But the world is pretty imperfect, and those who don't take reasonable precautions may get hurt.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

pierrotlunaire0

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4124
  • I'm the cat's aunt!
Re: Professional Darwinism: Update to OP on p.74
« Reply #4199 on: August 14, 2013, 01:11:53 PM »
And to use the car in a bad neighborhood example: if I park my car in a bad neighborhood, and leave the keys in it, only to have it stolen, and eventually it is returned, badly damaged: I might very well have to pay some consequences.

The person who stole and wrecked my car is looking at criminal prosecution. I, however, may be forced to pay the deductible, and will probably have to pay higher insurance premiums.  I did nothing illegal, but for my foolishness, there are some consequences.
I have enough lithium in my medicine cabinet to power three cars across a sizeable desert.  Which makes me officially...Three Cars Crazy