
A Crime in the Cancer Lab - azuajef
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/sunday/a-crime-in-the-cancer-lab.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
======
DougN7
I have a buddy that went on an archaeology dig in Israel. He saw first hand
that artifacts that contradicted what the leader of the dig was trying to
prove were destroyed.

Scientists are people. But we base so verymuch on their work that integrity
needs to be the highest priority. Maybe we need a science UBI for grants??

~~~
lostlogin
Archeology has been weaponised there and it's now part of the settlers side of
the conflict.

[https://www.google.co.nz/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/worl...](https://www.google.co.nz/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-
east/israeli-settlers-are-using-archaeological-digs-as-cover-to-take-
palestinian-land-british-government-10127250.html%3Famp?client=safari)

[http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/11/israeli-
la...](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/11/israeli-land-claims-
archaeology-ideology-2013111113012956687.html)

~~~
YZF
The Al-Jazeera article is reasonably balanced for Arab media though I would
advise people reading it to understand that it does present the Palestinian
viewpoint. Listen to both sides and make up your own mind.

Some background on Silwan/Shiloach:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silwan)

By the way, putting aside the conflict, if you get a chance to go visit the
tunnel (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_tunnel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siloam_tunnel)
) I highly recommend it. It's an amazing feat of engineering going back
thousands of years.

------
emeraldd
I find it interesting that the majority of the "outside assistance" in this
case came back to Heather as the culprit. On one hand, it makes a lot of sense
that the person most immediately involved would likely be the prime suspect.
On the other hand, it also leaves you wondering just how willing to step
outside their own pre-existing biases these people are?

~~~
lutusp
> On the other hand, it also leaves you wondering just how willing to step
> outside their own pre-existing biases these people are?

If (as is true in cases like this one) a large database of solved cases reveal
that the crimes are often self-inflicted, then it's not bias, it's common
sense and the dispassionate result of statistical analysis.

Consider the murder of marriage partners -- in very many cases, the
perpetrator is the other marriage partner, and that's the first person
investigated. Is that bias, or common sense?

"Over 71% of Wives Kill Their Husbands" :
[https://rmaxgenactivepua.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/over-71-of...](https://rmaxgenactivepua.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/over-71-of-
wives-kill-their-husbands-stats-we-have-to-take-notice-of/)

(The title is somewhat misleading -- it means that, when a husband is
murdered, in 71% of cases, the perpetrator is the partner.)

~~~
emeraldd
True, the point where it becomes bias in my mind is when they decide that the
assumption is true and don't look further than the first guess.

~~~
somestag
Yes, this is definitely the true issue.

Suspect whomever you want; carry out your investigation with an open mind
regardless. To disregard a pattern is stupidity, but to enslave yourself to it
is laziness.

~~~
emeraldd
> To disregard a pattern is stupidity, but to enslave yourself to it is
> laziness.

I may have to quote you on that one ;)

------
zellyn
I was floored at the repeated circling back to suspect Heather as the suspect,
and the lack of a "mea culpa" by the author for ever having seriously
suspected her in the first place.

We are so, so quick to blame the victim - it lets us believe that the one
thing that is "out of alignment" with our belief in a good and just world is
the _only_ thing out of alignment, even if we have to blame someone who is
clearly a victim, instead of having to search for even more evidence that
dispels our too-perfect mirage of the world we live in.

~~~
emn13
You seem to draw a parallel to other types of victim blaming. Normally, people
mean by that blaming the victim not because they are the perpetrator, but
because they should have protected themselves better (or have hidden their
vulnerability better, etc).

This incident has nothing to do with that kind of vicim blaming - so I'm not
sure what you're trying to point out here.

Furthermore, applying a label like "victim blaming" pejoratively is harmful to
a rational discussion because you imply that it is intrinsically harmful, even
though that's impossible to state categorically - the notion of blame and
victim are so broad you can apply thing to all kinds of beneficial behavior.
It's no better than the cliche "think of the kids".

~~~
zellyn
The "victim" came to their superior to complain that their work had been
sabotaged. After talking about it, her superior came to the conclusion that
the most likely person to "blame" was the "victim". Hence, the straightforward
use of the term "victim-blaming".

Since my wife has done a lot of work with abused children, I was thinking most
directly of that - when someone alleges abuse in a school or church community,
it's quite common for people to bend over backwards to find ways to disbelieve
or blame the victim. In the case of child abuse, almost nobody blames them
"because they should have protected themselves better (or have hidden their
vulnerability better, etc.)". They generally find ways to disbelieve them, or
(quite commonly), say things like "you know how children lie about these
things" (spoiler: they _generally_ don't).

The parallel I drew between two different (and vastly different in terms of
personal damage done) types of blaming the victim was positing that it's the
impulse to preserve the ideal, imagined just world that would drive people to
go to such lengths to discount the straightforward path.

Your last paragraph is a muddle. I think you're claiming that using the term
"victim blaming" is an appeal to emotionally-loaded terms in a heretofore
"rational" discussion, and claiming I'm jumping the discussion from the
(presumably usually "rational" hackernews norm - hah!) to some kind of
mindless emotional appeal. I think that's my cue to exit…

~~~
somestag
I think the issue here is that the term _victim blaming_ is not a simple sum
of the meanings of _victim_ and _blaming_. It's become something of an idiom.
As the parent said, when someone cites "victim blaming" they're nearly always
talking about situations where there's a clear victim and clear perpetrator
(even if the perpetrator hasn't been identified), yet people claim the victim
is largely at fault because they should have better protected themselves.

I don't often hear the term used in cases of child abuse; or, when I do, it's
a response to people claiming that the child shouldn't have been so annoying
or provocative. I think most people would agree that discrediting or ignoring
child abuse complaints is a separate issue that's not what people mean when
they say _victim blaming_.

In the case of the cancer lab, I would say this is a third type of scenario
where people suspect the victim. In fact no one actually blamed the victim--
merely suspected them--and everyone went forward with the investigation and
eventually arrived at the truth. (Saying it's _blaming_ because they're
thought to be _to blame_ is a conflation of idioms, in my opinion.) Once
again, this definitely isn't what most people mean when they say _victim
blaming_ , not just because the victim was never blamed but because of the
specific meaning we already talked about.

It's totally okay to use the words for their definitions instead of going with
what most people think the terms mean--that's your right. Just know that if
you use the term like that, you're probably going to confuse people. Because
victim blaming is a hot-button issue right now, it might start some pointless
arguments that could be avoided by using different semantics.

For what it's worth, I think it's okay to doubt, so long as you still follow
through with the investigation. I'd say even in the cases of child abuse the
issue is that no one bothers to find out the truth--not that they initially
doubt the children. Clearly the victim _could_ be lying or they _could_ be
telling the truth, and your personal estimation of those probabilities are
based on all kinds of things. What matters is that you come to the correct
conclusion in the end. Unfortunately, people often don't bother to investigate
at all because it's messy and inconvenient.

------
danso
I was surprised to see the actual culprit's name show up frequently on Google,
as apparently this is a well-known case:

[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467516a.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100929/full/467516a.html)

And apparently, such sabotage is so rare that the Ames case is frequently
cited whenever sabotage is suspected:

[https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jmsierra/documents/...](https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jmsierra/documents/Enserink2014Sci.pdf)

~~~
virtuabhi
I don't think that sabotages are rare (as the lab head mentions in the NYT
article). Though reporting to police certainly is.

~~~
bsder
It's also going to be damn hard to even _notice_ sabotage.

Sure, alcohol in media is easy to smell. But there are a _zillion_ ways to
hose someone without leaving any trace.

These kinds of experiments tend to be subtle and fiddly. Getting a result even
without interference is difficult enough.

------
NumberSix
The finger pointing at the graduate student Heather Ames reminds me of the
concept of gas lighting, derived from the 1944 movie Gaslight:

gas·light

ˈɡaslīt/

verb

gerund or present participle: gaslighting manipulate (someone) by
psychological means into questioning their own sanity.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting)

This is a fairly common bullying tactic where the bully both bullies, usually
secretively, and tries to make the victim look like a nut case.

The story, with others pointing the finger at Heather Ames, raises the
question whether more people were involved than the single researcher who was
caught on video. While self-sabotage was certainly a possibility, sabotage by
a colleague or co-worker was clearly a substantial possibility and reportedly
proved to be the case.

------
powertower
Found a picture of the victim and perpetrator -
[http://mabuhaycity.com/photoplog/images/205/large/1_1073_000...](http://mabuhaycity.com/photoplog/images/205/large/1_1073_00000001.jpg)

And this one has a shot from the hidden camera...
[https://image.slidesharecdn.com/researchmisconduct-110506045...](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/researchmisconduct-110506045110-phpapp02/95/infamous-
cases-of-research-misconduct-21-728.jpg)

Its always good to put a face to the name. It makes it more real.

------
slacka
The end of the article

> This axiom is especially important in a “post-truth world” where we must
> work even harder to question our assumptions, whether in science, medicine,
> justice or any other field of problem solving.

tied in perfectly with the ad that followed below

> The New York Times. Truth. It's hard to find. But easier with 1000+
> journalists looking. Subscribe to The Times.

With new administration that is hostile to truth, we need real journalists now
more than ever. I've tried to do my part to support them with subscriptions to
NYT and Washington Post.

