We noted the case here and here, and now Professor Gino's law school colleaige Larry Lessig has written in her defense:
Data Colada [a blog] offers compelling evidence that the data in four papers were manipulated. But as they plainly admit, they have no way of knowing if the anomalies they identified reflect fraud and, if so, who did the manipulation. And while anyone would presume that the beneficiary of a fraud is the most likely to have perpetrated the fraud — cui bono — it was HBS that was obligated to investigate whether that presumption is, in fact, true. The business school — like every school at Harvard — has procedures for investigating allegations of academic fraud. Those procedures were not followed in Gino’s case. Gino has filed a lawsuit against Harvard, charging them with failing to follow their own contractual procedures, while asserting absolutely that she did not manipulate any data whatsoever.
Keep that point clear: Gino is not arguing, “Mistakes were made, times were tough, I’ve got lots of work going on, etc.” Gino is claiming that she did not manipulate any data at all.
I'm glad to see that the proprietors of the blog that sparked all this are receiving financial support for their legal defense; they deserve legal representation. (It's too bad that Professor Gino presumably has to self-fund her lawsuit.) But the GoFundMe pitch clearly misdescribes what is going on: "Data Colada Are Being Sued for Raising Scientific Concerns about Published Research." No they're not: they're being sued for accusing Professor Gino of "fraud," i.e., of intentionally altering her data in order to get the results she wanted. Their data does not support that, as Professor Lessig notes; they could have avoided being sued if they had simply reported the data anomalies, and said nothing more. But that's not what they did, and now we will find out whether the allegations of fraud were reckless or not. I'd put more stock in the findings in court than in a blog or Professor Lessig's assessment. We shall see.
UPDATE: Some readers point out that the blog authors, while alleging fraud, did not specifically allege that Professor Gino was responsible. I imagine that will be part of their defense. I also expect they will argue that Professor Gino is a "public figure" (she gave a TED talk after all!), and will move to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint does not allege facts sufficient for finding that the blog defendants acted with "actual malice" (meaning that they either knew what they were saying was false or acted with "reckless indifference" to the truth or falsity of what they were saying). The latter will probably be their strongest defense. This won't get Harvard Business School off the hook.
Recent Comments