The Claudine Gay diversity-causes-incompetence affair has hardly been put to bed before I saw this article this morning.
NYT: Top Cancer Center Seeks to Retract or Correct Dozens of Studies
A prominent cancer center affiliated with Harvard said it will ask medical journals to retract six research papers and correct dozens of others after a British scientist and blogger found that work by some of its top executives was rife with duplicated or manipulated data.
The center, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, one of the nation’s foremost cancer treatment and research facilities, moved quickly in recent days to address allegations of faulty data in 58 studies, many of them influential, compiled by a British molecular biologist, Sholto David.
In many cases, Dr. David found, images in the papers had been stretched, obscured or spliced together in a way that suggested deliberate attempts to mislead readers. The studies he flagged included some published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive, Dr. Laurie Glimcher, and its chief operating officer, Dr. William Hahn.
The Harvard Crimson also has this story:
David, who holds a doctoral degree in biology from Newcastle University, alleged that three papers authored by Glimcher, 12 by Hahn, 10 by Ghobrial, and 16 by Anderson contained “data forgery,” including five co-authored by both Anderson and Ghobrial. As is typical for scientific research, all of the papers referenced by David have several co-authors, though his post focused on the four DFCI researchers.
The papers, published between 1999 and 2017, most commonly have duplications of blots, bands, and plots within images, David alleged. In a Saturday interview, David said he used a combination of artificial intelligence image analysis software ImageTwin and manual detection to look for errors in the papers.
Another case of scientific fraud with researchers manipulating data to support a desired result is in itself nothing new. The publish or perish ethos has led globally to the exponential increase of not just data manipulation but also of data “creation” where desired data points or images are just invented. Data forgery is prevalent even at the most prestigious institutions and is not just in the social “sciences”. The social “sciences” in the last 40 or 50 years have been known to have been plagued by data manufactured to support pre-determined political conclusions.
Academic cheating is as old as academia. “Positive discrimination” to combat discrimination (whether for affirmative action in the US or with reservations in India) has been misused to favour the undeserving (and thereby disfavouring some of the worthy). What is new is that the false wokeism god of diversity is not only being used to cover up for incompetence, it is also downplaying competence as a criterion for selection. And, it would seem, diversity is also used to cover up for or to excuse fraud.
Claudine Gay got her job because she was black and female. Those attributes overrode any requirements not to have plagiarised or any requirement to be competent in front of a congressional committee. I would not be very surprised to learn that Glimcher was appointed primarily because she was female. And did that allow her greater licence in manipulating or creating data?
I see all around me in Europe, cases where a religious adherence to “diversity” is allowing and even promoting greater levels of incompetence in many fields. I see it in entertainment (with TV presenters and news readers, with actors, with scripts and even musicians). I see it in media with reporters and presenters and “fact checkers” and “research staff”. I see it in academia (though my exposure here is limited). My point is that being “diverse” has become more important in selection for any post than the competence required for that post. But it is getting to the stage where being “diverse” now even compensates for a lack of competence.
And that, of course, gives us the modern versions of freak shows.



