Florida State University professor leaves $190K job after accusations of faking data on racism

Eric Stewart, a criminology professor at Florida State University, left his position suddenly amid a multi-year investigation into his alleged academic fraud.

Stewart had six research studies retracted throughout the investigation after it was alleged that he misrepresented data to exaggerate how prevalent racism is in American society.

In one paper, Stewart, who made $190,000 per year at Florida State, falsely claimed there was a correlation between a criminal's race and the public's desire to see harsher prison sentences for said criminal. However, an investigation revealed there was no correlation and that the sample size had been increased to yield Stewart's desired outcome.

Many people don't appreciate that a mainstay of university funding is "research." Millions in federal grants, and less from what we will generously call "philanthropy." All with a huge cut fort he university, and for that they offer "researchers" management support and act as a front-line for interfacing with regulators and oversight. Researchers get the benefit of learning how to 'backfill' salary allocations for their favorite interns, and even get help getting visas for foreign students...

Couple that with the most tragic demise of 'humanities' study standards, and this is what you get.

Prior to his abrupt exit, which was first reported by the Florida Standard, Stewart had been at Florida State University for sixteen years.

The professor who first exposed him for his misconduct, Justin Pickett, teaches criminology at University of Albany. He co-authored a paper with Stewart in 2011.

Pickett alleges the problem of data manipulation is widespread in academia.

"There's a huge monetary incentive to falsify data and there's no accountability. If you do this, the probability you'll get caught is so, so low,' he told The Florida Standard.

Research = easy money.... just tell them what they want to hear.

Six separate studies - paid for - published - and no doubt used for activist purposes... sorry... that's just supposition... I don't know that... I only anticipate it...

a reply to: Maxmars

Not surprised really. Let's face it science has its own brand of politics. Call it pecking order if that's what you want. Under the banner of science are many different disciplines and they all have their own dogmas at times. They will push back at new discoveries that threaten their established theories due to funding. Just like we also have those that will twist those pesky facts to fit their narrative for funding.

Excerpt from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

originally posted by: Maxmars

Eric Stewart, a criminology professor at Florida State University, left his position suddenly amid a multi-year investigation into his alleged academic fraud.

Stewart had six research studies retracted throughout the investigation after it was alleged that he misrepresented data to exaggerate how prevalent racism is in American society.

In one paper, Stewart, who made $190,000 per year at Florida State, falsely claimed there was a correlation between a criminal's race and the public's desire to see harsher prison sentences for said criminal. However, an investigation revealed there was no correlation and that the sample size had been increased to yield Stewart's desired outcome.

Many people don't appreciate that a mainstay of university funding is "research." Millions in federal grants, and less from what we will generously call "philanthropy." All with a huge cut fort he university, and for that they offer "researchers" management support and act as a front-line for interfacing with regulators and oversight. Researchers get the benefit of learning how to 'backfill' salary allocations for their favorite interns, and even get help getting visas for foreign students...

Couple that with the most tragic demise of 'humanities' study standards, and this is what you get.

Prior to his abrupt exit, which was first reported by the Florida Standard, Stewart had been at Florida State University for sixteen years.

The professor who first exposed him for his misconduct, Justin Pickett, teaches criminology at University of Albany. He co-authored a paper with Stewart in 2011.

Pickett alleges the problem of data manipulation is widespread in academia.

"There's a huge monetary incentive to falsify data and there's no accountability. If you do this, the probability you'll get caught is so, so low,' he told The Florida Standard.

Research = easy money.... just tell them what they want to hear.

Six separate studies - paid for - published - and no doubt used for activist purposes... sorry... that's just supposition... I don't know that... I only anticipate it...

Nothing new here!

Academic research and the peer review process have bern corrupted long time ago. The falsification of data and the politicalisation of sciences are very unfortunate realities.

Start with the biomedical sciences where much of the research is sponsored and funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

a reply to: Maxmars

I really hate to come to your threads and say basically the same thing, but you provoke the thought patterns that send me in that direction.

We can no longer trust mainstream "science", it's been perverted for AGW, climate change, and now, vaccine and illness recovery. We have seen the "polls" skewed to the point they always say what the poll presenter wants them to say. We are running out of trusted outlets to obtain daily important information.

It's another "I have no idea how to fix it, but I see the problem" situations. Feeling helpless isn't as good as feeling loved or needed. I'm not a fan.

totally off topic, but an example:
press.un.org...

past the point of no return. But if you make enough sacrifices, eat bugs, stop driving, and move to a 15 minute city, well, then maybe we can come back from the point of no return we just passed.

Like they say:

The only thing worse than a liar with a High School Diploma is a liar with a College Degree 😎

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: Maxmars

Not surprised really. Let's face it science has its own brand of politics. Call it pecking order if that's what you want. Under the banner of science are many different disciplines and they all have their own dogmas at times. They will push back at new discoveries that threaten their established theories due to funding. Just like we also have those that will twist those pesky facts to fit their narrative for funding.

Which is precisely you simply can never trust the science - not until it has been independently verified by an unbiased 4rd party.

This is precisely what is happening now with the revelations around the false/fake science we've had shoved down our throats for over 5 decades regarding the science of human nutrition.

Fatty red meat is the healthiest food on earth for humans.

Cholesterol is good for you.

Carbs are very unhealthy, especially when too many are consumed.

There are no nutrients in plants that you cannot get from fatty red meat.

There are many nutrients in fatty red meat that you cannot get from plants.

And it goes on and on.

Just the latest example really. There was a "study" 10 or 15 years ago that purportedly proved that conservative politics is driven by fear. If you read the study, the results actually showed the exact opposite, but he lied in the abstract and the conclusion. Somehow (because the conclusion said what the reviewers wanted), it made it through peer review, was published, and wasn't retracted for like 10 years.

I did a thread debunking it here after another member here tried to use it in a discussion--without having read it, of course. The member had just read some media mouthpiece's interpretation of it, and said media mouthpiece likely hadn't read it either. I actually did read it and it was easily debunked. It was retracted or corrected (I forget which) a few years after I did that thread.

I've said this in several threads recently. Progressives are beholden to the ideology first and foremost, at the expense of anything else. That includes at the expense of their professional reputation, their livelihoods, or even lives.

a reply to: network dude

I understand the feeling.

But, to quote the incomparable work of F. Herbert... "The first step in avoiding a trap,is knowing of its existence."

Most people are subject to a conditioning that dictates "trust science" to mean "trust scientists."

We never once are told, "look at the scientist" "look at the body of work" "be sensitive to activist agendas" or even "examine the 'club memberships' of those 'researching." And we are certainly never told to "examine the money train."

We can overcome this easily... we just can't rely on "commercial reporting" to provide a clear picture. We used to think 'reporting and journalism' to be a tool to provide the information we need to see the issue clearly. Many have said this is not so... and that wasn't good enough, because, generally speaking, reporting has adopted a 'support role' to further the aims of the agenda, not expose it, not challenge it. Hell... they don't even question it.. they only question rejection of it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It is not science you cannot trust... it's 'scientists' and those who compose the exposition of their work.

I fear the knee-jerk reaction to 'assume' all science is suspect.

Science is our attempt to understand reality. Insofar as a goal, that is worthy.

"Commerce" however, renders that secondary to how 'reality' is 'used' for exploitation.

a reply to: face23785

I find it interesting to note that this is exactly what happened with the infamous "global warming" "hook" report. The report actually said the opposite of what the nascent Gorian carbon empire said it did. Yet they ignored the content, mischaracterized the abstract, and proceeded to amplify the disharmonious message... to great effect.

I applaud your analysis and thread to which you refer... We need more people willing to drill into the 'proclamations' made by activist researchers, and bias-peddling talking heads and journalists. Thank you for the effort, and I wish I had been around to participate in the discussion...

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: face23785

I find it interesting to note that this is exactly what happened with the infamous "global warming" "hook" report. The report actually said the opposite of what the nascent Gorian carbon empire said it did. Yet they ignored the content, mischaracterized the abstract, and proceeded to amplify the disharmonious message... to great effect.

This is what I've been telling people who have been shocked at how politicized the Covid science was. Science has been politicized for a while, global warming being Exhibit A. Covid just made the masses realize it.

I applaud your analysis and thread to which you refer... We need more people willing to drill into the 'proclamations' made by activist researchers, and bias-peddling talking heads and journalists. Thank you for the effort, and I wish I had been around to participate in the discussion...

I appreciate it. It wasn't really that hard. The research wasn't complicated or difficult to read. Which begs the question, how did no one else in that field notice that the conclusions were the opposite of the data after the research was "peer reviewed" and published? Was everyone in that field just happy with the conclusion so they just ignored that it was a lie?

Either that or literally no one in that field reads the latest research so no one saw it. Either option is bad.

a reply to: Maxmars

Probably goes hand-in-hand with the report that up to 50% of psychological studies that got published could not be reproduced. It would make sense if you were massaging data to say what you wanted.

a reply to: Maxmars

An Obvious " Con Man " . What to Do about that in a " JUST " World ? Let the Punishment Fit the Crime , A Deceiver of Men Deserves incarcerated " HARD LABOR " for a Tenth of his Life as Another Hard Learned Lesson in Life .

a reply to: Maxmars

It is not science you cannot trust... it's 'scientists' and those who compose the exposition of their work.

when the science is backed by a bunch of scientists' and those who compose the exposition of their / the work saying trust the science. then all science should be suspect.

we just went through two years where most scientists around the world were saying trust the science and it turned out to be a load of bullsh@@. only a hand full of scientists comparabily were saying other wise and look at how they were ridiculed by their peers.

Fake data. Noooooo.

Say it isn’t so.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: tanstaafl

It is not science you cannot trust... it's 'scientists' and those who compose the exposition of their work.

I agree that the well established 'scientific process' is something that can generally be trusted, but by itself it is just words om paper, like our Constitution.

The art of perverting science is a science in and of itself, and has been perfected over decades, millennia even, going all the way back to Copernicus and Galileo, all the way up to today with the fake/fraudulent science that claims to show that red meat, saturated animal fat and cholesterol are extremely bad for us, and should be replaced with so-called 'healthy' seed oils, when the exact inverse is true - fatty red meat and cholesterol are the healthiest foods humans can eat, and seed oils are one of the worst things for humans to put in their bodies..

Let me rephrase it... science can never be trusted blindly, without using your brain and engaging in rational independent thought.

I fear the knee-jerk reaction to 'assume' all science is suspect.

Why? What is there to fear? Good science is easy to prove. The bad science is much harder, because it takes a lot of digging toi reveal the machinations undertaken to create it.

Science is our attempt to understand reality. Insofar as a goal, that is worthy.

I totally agree. I'm not saying we shouldn't engage in the scientific process.

"Commerce" however, renders that secondary to how 'reality' is 'used' for exploitation.

By that I guess you mean it is the primary motivating factor for intentionally creating 'bad' science?

Anyway, I think we're mostly on the same page...

Ever see the movie "Space Cowboys"? In it there's a scene where Clint Eastwood's character goes into the head Project Manager's office and slams his laptop shut. The manager says that he had just hung up on the head of NASA, the Vice President of the US.

That's important. The Vice President IS the head of NASA and the National Science Foundation to name a few agencies.

Is it a coincidence that the entire Global Warming thing got big when Al Gore was the VP and in a position to steer funding to those who's research "just happened" to agree with his views and goals? I don't think so.