Scientist behind superconductivity claims ousted

After claims of high-temp superconductivity were retracted, Ranga Dias lost his university job.

See full article...

 

[chs2fer]

Screw that guy. American trust in the scientific community is already at an all-time low, and we do NOT need hacks like him making science look bad. Hope he starts a new career at Walmart or Starbucks.

He'll probably get invited to the Trump administration in charge of Advanced Super Scientific Homeland Organizational Logistics and Efficiency Strategy.

 

[Faceless Man]

He'll probably get invited to the Trump administration in charge of Advanced Super Scientific Homeland Organizational Logistics and Efficiency Strategy.

That's a long walk for very little payoff.

 

[Auie]

Shouldn't be allowed to refer to him as a "scientist," anymore.

 

[sixstringedthing]

Whether the misconduct is ever regarded as criminal or not, surely institutions can at the very least start revoking their PhD awards so the person involved can no longer call themselves 'Dr.' or represent they have a PhD?

I understand the desire to strip "dodgy Doctors" of their academic title as a punitive measure for trying to publish shady research. But they still legitimately attained their qualification (assuming the misconduct didn't specifically occur during the process of producing their doctoral research/dissertation). Stripping someone of their right to use "PhD" as a title due to a couple of instances of scientific misconduct sorta feels like the legal equivalent of stripping a tradesperson of their ticket because they were arrested for DUI on the way to a job. It implies that the misconduct is due to a fundamental and irreparable flaw of character rather than simply being a really dumb mistake, and further implies that the person is incapable of realising the error of their ways and is basically just a lost cause at this point. That might be true in some cases, sure, but isn't it better to assume that the person is capable of acknowledging their failings and changing their behaviour?

Obviously that "hoping for the best" attitude can only fly up to a certain point though. People who repeatedly demonstrate that they are fully aware of the consequences of their shitty actions but keep performing those actions anyway should definitely have some kind of red flag attached to their name, such that they never get published/hired ever again. In my experience, that kind of censure tends to happen by word of mouth/group consensus in many practical fields, and I know for a fact that a similar "grapevine" exists in academia. The reputational damage incurred by repeatedly trying to insult the intelligence of other professionals in your field can stay with you for a very long time. The threat of such damage is often usually enough to keep people on the straight-and-narrow by itself, not to mention the associated risk to one's future employability.

 

[sixstringedthing]

That's a long walk for very little payoff.

An effort was made, and that's something. It got an "I see what you did there" grin from me.

 

[bugabuga]

So the end result is, basically, Nature deciding to switch from careful scientific publication to being basically TMZ of "science-like things"? Was that really necessary?

And public will now be even more skeptical of any science. "You said it was all peer reviewed and scientific process applied and end result was still crap"

 

[sixstringedthing]

So the end result is, basically, Nature deciding to switch from careful scientific publication to being basically TMZ of "science-like things"? Was that really necessary?

And public will now be even more skeptical of any science. "You said it was all peer reviewed and scientific process applied and end result was still crap"

I see what you are driving at and I agree, none of this is helpful or good. But I'd also suggest that if you were to approach any random member of "the public" (let's say, a family member or work colleague) and announced yourself with "hey, did you hear about that time Ranga Dias' first paper on room-temperature superconductors which got published in Nature was retracted but then they went ahead and published his second paper anyway, isn't that wild?", you would be greeted with either a blank stare or "What the hell are you talking about mate? Nothing you just said means anything to me".

This is very much a niche subject; as bad as this situation looks to people who care, I very much doubt that it's going to significantly alter the general attitude towards/tone of conversation about science amongst society at large. That's on the media, and they are legendary at fumbling this particular ball, so I doubt it's going to swing the needle much in any direction.

 

[Geebs]

I know why Walmart...but why do you hate Starbucks, for sure their coffee is overroasted, but does it really deserve this level of animosity?.

A legitimate expert in the application of very precise amounts of temperature and pressure might, with a bit of luck, be able to brew a cup of Starbucks coffee that wasn’t completely disgusting.

 

[j_willem]

It turned out to be a paper about super misconductivity.

 

[numerobis]

Whether the misconduct is ever regarded as criminal or not, surely institutions can at the very least start revoking their PhD awards so the person involved can no longer call themselves 'Dr.' or represent they have a PhD?

The research relating to his PhD hasn’t been retracted, so why would his degree be retracted?

It might yet be, that depends on further digging. There are occasional degrees that get un-granted. It’s quite rare.

 

[bebu]

N-rays, polywater, cold fusion

Periodic injection of internal standards as part of the overall quality assurance program?
If a bit of bunkum or codswallop didn't occasionally rise to the surface of the cesspool you would have to be very sceptical of the veracity or reliability of the rest of swamp's contents.

 

[bebu]

But I'd also suggest that if you were to approach any random member of "the public" (let's say, a family member or work colleague) and announced yourself with "hey, did you hear about that time Ranga Dias' first paper on room-temperature superconductors which got published in Nature was retracted but then they went ahead and published his second paper anyway, isn't that wild?", you would be greeted with either a blank stare or "What the hell are you talking about mate? Nothing you just said means anything to me".

"Hey, did you know Ivermectin is actually used to treat human microfilarial infestations?"
"What the hell are you talking about mate? It's use to treat COVID. Everyone knows that."

As far as I am concerned the polloi can dig their own graves. I am only up for a can of diesel and a firestarter just to keep the stench down.

 

[bebu]

A legitimate expert in the application of very precise amounts of temperature and pressure might, with a bit of luck, be able to brew a cup of Starbucks coffee that wasn’t completely disgusting.

More chance of reinventing the infinite improbability drive. Given the improbable state of the world he (im)probably has.

 

[sixstringedthing]

A legitimate expert in the application of very precise amounts of temperature and pressure might, with a bit of luck, be able to brew a cup of Starbucks coffee that wasn’t completely disgusting.

People say it's "all in the beans", but the people who say that usually know fuck-all about how to make a good coffee, like, how it actually works. : )

/coffeesnob

 

[sixstringedthing]

"Hey, did you know Ivermectin is actually used to treat human microfilarial infestations?"
"What the hell are you talking about mate? It's use to treat COVID. Everyone knows that."

As far as I am concerned the polloi can dig their own graves. I am only up for a can of diesel and a firestarter just to keep the stench down.

Settle down mate. We can't all be the cool guy who walks away from explosions.

 

[MiguelMC]

What paper is that? Lanthanum hydride?

No. It's a follow-up paper [1] on the susceptibility of H3S. See preprint here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12211
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30782-x

 

[mgmcd1]

Step 1 - do bad, ineffective, inconclusive research, Step 2 - commit fraud and get it published because no one will ever know, Step 3 - Profit!

 

[rochefort]

I understand the desire to strip "dodgy Doctors" of their academic title as a punitive measure for trying to publish shady research. But they still legitimately attained their qualification (assuming the misconduct didn't specifically occur during the process of producing their doctoral research/dissertation).

Funny that you should say that: Plagiarism allegations pursue physicist behind stunning superconductivity claims

Now come accusations that Dias plagiarized much of his Ph.D. thesis, completed in 2013 at Washington State University (WSU).

 

[rochefort]

No. It's a follow-up paper [1] on the susceptibility of H3S. See preprint here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12211
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30782-x

Thanks!

 

[rochefort]

It turned out to be a paper about super misconductivity.

At atmospheric pressure and room temperature! Surely that's worth tenure?

 

[GottaSaySomething]

Do we know why he did this BTW?

Like he MUST have known that he'd be caught in a lie when other labs tried it.

There are sometimes cases where you publish provisional stuff that says:
* "Hey we did something interesting, it might suggest this - throwing it out there"
I wouldn't want to see people punished for those. (Wasn't it a pre-print? Either way it might not have even been this)

Or:
* "We did this thing, we got this result, pls confirm 'cos holy crap this is big news!"

NEITHER of these should be deterred.

(I must quickly plug: I hate overuse of "more research is needed" but he's in an experimental "please confirm this" field)

So what the hell was he thinking?


Honestly this whole thing I see as a good thing, in my fields it's very hard to reproduce stuff as a lot of bits are missing. I see it as a great thing that other labs could reproduce the conditions! Things must be better than I thought!

 

[DCStone]

Funny that you should say that: Plagiarism allegations pursue physicist behind stunning superconductivity claims

Huh. Not surprising that getting away with stuff during a PhD might result in a similar attitude to academic publications. It's also a bit concerning that Dias' PhD supervisor spotted his own work in the thesis, but didn't spot the work of others in the field.

 

[RickRoyLeonPrisZhoraRacha]

I think you need to up your standards for douchenozzles a fair bit. That was all pretty tepid.

Peer reviews ARE a thing. And cheating is way to prevalent for the gate keepers that some slip by (-insert culturally motivated -professor turns the other way for his -cultrually labelled - students whose culture is to steal and/or cheat. I'm in academia and for decades, witness this with some professors actually sharing the stories of their peers allowing cheats to just move on)

 

[rochefort]

On-topic: as previously said, this isn't one of those things you can get away with lying about. Everyone in the field is instantly going to try to reproduce this, not least of all because it's a jumping-off point for a whole new avenue of research. If you're rep farming you need something that raises an eyebrow, not mobilizes an entire discipline.

Hey, now. He would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling grad students, co-authors, colleagues, competitors, and administrators!

 

[OldeFortran77]

Did you ever manage to stick it to that crusty, bitter, old dean?

"Ars Technica House!!!!!"

 

[Coinductor]

It's been thirty years since I was engaged in any misconduct at UR, though that was mostly trying to break into the bomb shelter under the library, jamming up the soda can redemption machines with fake can labels, swearing over the radio during my weekly 3-6am Wednesday morning show, and crashing the university's main undergrad server with my poorly programmed pong game. I don't recall any scientific misconduct, but I can't be sure, it was a long time ago.

It's been 50 years since I engaged in any misconduct at the local university (USA), before I attended that university, wherein as three early teens we figured out how to break into the steam tunnels that ran under practically every building, and provided access to the university library where we stole all the Playboy magazines (I kid you not) stored in their "by request only" holdings. Now when later attending that university, I did live for one year in those steam tunnels, but I committed no mischief. The statue of limitations has long passed.

 

[Gomez Addams]

I had an interesting "encounter" with UR alums once. I was in graduate school and I gave a presentation on electronic music and the school's home-designed and built modular synthesizer. It was held in the EE school's largest room and, much to my surprise, it was standing-room only. Anyway, I did my thing and then wrapped it up and afterward one of my professors came up and said he had worked with Bob Moog at UR when he was developing his early modular synthesizers. He shared a couple of interesting anecdotes and it was really fascinating.

I had given the talk for two reasons: first was I had missed a seminar and the rule was if you miss one you had to present one and second was I wanted to recruit someone to take over the work since I was leaving school. Unfortunately, no one did and the synth died. It was pretty cool. I got a lot mileage out of it with credits in both EE and Music. At one point I had a really good idea that I thought was patentable so I went to the school's patent office and inquired about getting assistance on the application. I found that if I went that route the school would get nearly all revenue resulting from it so I bagged it. In hindsight, I should have at least applied since that would have looked good on my CV.

 

[rfcavity]

This guys entire career is fraudulent. His PhD thesis has huge portions pasted over from another guys thesis, and he submitted and won a NSF grant which was basically a paper he found on arxiv word for word.

He got years and years of salary and accolades for doing not much honestly.

 

[Dr. Jay]

That would be questionable practices, right? The bar for misconduct is higher and implies fraud (or more technically, falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism). The definition of questionable practices is not as well established, but when I trained to become an editor, it included failure to keep lab books and things like that, which leads to mixing up data as you describe. A paper that would be affected by this should (must) be retracted, but without necessarily any sanction or disciplinary action against the person. It's not fraud, just incompetence.

I think the border gets pretty fuzzy here. Is it misconduct when you publish conclusions without knowing you had the data to back them up? Maybe? It kind of gets into the state of self-awareness of the person performing the actions.

 

[gosand]

Just another example of the scientific elite cheating the taxpayers out of their hard-earned money. Linda McMahon will drain that swamp.


░░░░██╗░██████╗
░░░██╔╝██╔════╝
░░██╔╝░╚█████╗░
░██╔╝░░░╚═══██╗
██╔╝░░░██████╔╝
╚═╝░░░░╚═════╝░

 

[Chuckstar]

I think the border gets pretty fuzzy here. Is it misconduct when you publish conclusions without knowing you had the data to back them up? Maybe? It kind of gets into the state of self-awareness of the person performing the actions.

Scientific misconduct is generally defined to include simply failing to abide by the standards and practices for your given field. I cannot think of a field where it is considered standard to knowingly not have the data necessary to back up your conclusions.

 

[Fleabolives]

Grade A douchenozzle I'll accept, I was a young college kid. Incompetent? Nah, I graduated with high honors in the fledgling cognitive science department while dual majoring in psychology, and was the highest paid undergrad student, working for the university computing center's Unix Group administrating many of the school's workstations.

This is slightly off topic, but as luck would have it my son is in the midst of applying to colleges and near the top of his list is the UR program in cognitive science/psychology. Is this clown professor an anomaly there? Is the rest of the school reputable? I am more familiar with west coast schools, but we toured RIT and liked the city of Rochester.

 

[Fred Duck]

Reminds me of this Sydney Harris cartoon.

 

[RedSox]

Nature has completely lost any credibility. Were they just as desperate for publicity as the Rochester fraudster that they would publish such an extraordinary claim before verifying it? If I submitted an article claiming I invented a time machine, would they publish that as well?

 

[Chuckstar]

Reminds me of this Sydney Harris cartoon.
View attachment 96135

You know how many times a physics professor was deriving something for us on the board, and it may as well have said that in the middle? I usually understood what he was saying in the moment (or thought I did) and then an hour later was already thinking "wait, how did he do that, again?"

For instance, my professor once explained the exact set-up for a test of Bell's Theorem and why one outcome means local hidden variable and the other means no local hidden variable. At the moment, it all made sense. In hindsight, but when I think back on it now, it may as well have been the cartoon you linked.

 

[Oak]

Dude just hoping that nobody would ever try the thing?

I think people who do stuff like this manage to lie to others without fearing the consequences by very successfully lying to themselves as well. Something like "These readings are definitely showing I'm on the right track. it's essentially right already; the practical synthesis steps are just really, really tricky to get precisely just-so. I just need better funding for more time and better equipment to get it done perfectly, and once I get all the needed funding and iron everything out, everyone seeing the success will be too celebratory to closely examine these little snags along the way."

 

[numerobis]

I think people who do stuff like this manage to lie to others without fearing the consequences by very successfully lying to themselves as well. Something like "These readings are definitely showing I'm on the right track. it's essentially right already; the practical synthesis steps are just really, really tricky to get precisely just-so. I just need better funding for more time and better equipment to get it done perfectly, and once I get all the needed funding and iron everything out, everyone seeing the success will be too celebratory to closely examine these little snags along the way."

The frauds know they’re frauds.

 

[Oak]

The frauds know they’re frauds.

So you may always think (after all, the average con artist does know they're lying), but in a case like this, if there isn't some measure of self-delusion involved, you're left with the conundrum 50me12 pointed out: How could they possibly expect to keep the fraud going rather than ending up fired and humiliated like this guy, when making a claim which there would obviously be massive efforts to replicate?

Similarly with Theranos: Holmes knew she was committing fraud in terms of what she was already doing versus what she claimed she already doing, but I have little doubt she rationalized to herself that she just needed time to work out the kinks in her miraculous microfluidics system.

But don't get me wrong; I don't think there is actually any less moral culpability when such self-deception is involved.

 

[aethereal]

I don't run into many fellow UR grads anywhere...

My primary misconduct at UR was sneaking up onto the roof of the library late at night.

Ha! Same here!
Up the fire escape and along the gutter to then scramble up the shingles? It's been over a decade but I still remember it so clearly

 

[Wickwrack]

So the same guy got caught plagiarizing in his thesis, but was allowed to fix it and graduate?

Ouch.