
NYC scientist fired after raising questions about a DNA test gets $1M settlement - ekovarski
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/nyregion/dna-testing-nyc-medical-examiner.html
======
sophacles
The people who criticized her and fired her need to be removed from their
positions and barred from working in the public sector ever again. Further any
action they've taken in the name of "the public" needs to be validated by an
independent group.

It's a hard-line stance I know. Anything less tho is just externalizing the
damage done by these fools and their "win at all costs" mentality. It's easy
to have that mentality when the "costs" to the actor are - at worst - keeping
ill gotten gains and some slap on the wrist, while the real consequences are
borne by people who are effectively collateral damage.

Sure I'm a crazy hippie, but the fact that this woman got a settlement does
nothing to help the real problem. If anything, it makes it worse - the people
are distracted by the bread and circuses of a person getting a pile of money,
while the NY medical examiner's office gets to purge a person fighting for
actual correctness. I'm sure her absence will make it easier for prosecutors
to "win" more, since there are fewer people arguing to do silly things like
trying to follow the prinicple of "prosecute the actual offender".

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Before pulling out the pitchforks, I'd encourage you to investigate with more
than just one article. It may very well be everything you recommend is
warranted, but be aware that once reporters decide on the narrative for a
story, they pull out quotes and data in a manner that specifically supports
that narrative.

I know I've been burned in the past by just reading one side of the story and
getting angry before understanding the entirety of what happened.

~~~
jrockway
I typically read both the NYT and the WSJ, and they very often agree on news
stories. When I subscribed to the WSJ, I was expecting to be blown away at how
the NYT was sticking me in some sort of liberal media bubble. But it turns
out, they both pick the same topics and both relay the same facts.

Even the opinion columns are the same -- "I support the position of the
political party to which I am aligned, no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT."

~~~
michaelbuckbee
With respect to the NYT/WSJ having a similar point of view, I've heard it
described as a "cosmopolitan bias". That the professional journalists are
mostly college educated, live in a large city, have a sense of professional
ethics, are exposed to people from a variety of backgrounds and ethnicities
and all sorts of other markers of class and socio-economic background.

I grew up in a tiny rural town in Ohio where that certainly isn't the case and
currently live in the suburbs of Virginia where that urban lifestyle feels
very far removed.

This is less a political description and more of the urban/rural divide in
viewpoint. Case in point: I've had multiple conversations with people locally
who reacted with horror at the idea of taking a Lyft/Uber ("Don't do that
you'll get killed.")

~~~
newswriter99
"mostly college educated, live in a large city, have a sense of professional
ethics, are exposed to people from a variety of backgrounds and ethnicities"

You're making "cosmopolitan bias" look good, when it's not. It's still bias.
Having a better education and being exposed to more cultures than the average
person does not guarantee that you won't be a closed-minded, fundamentalist,
holier-than-thou jerk.

Source: country-raised metropolitan-educated journalist

~~~
crushcrashcrush
It doesn't guarantee it, but it makes it more likely.

~~~
whenchamenia
I will assert the opposite, based on decades of living in both major metros
and backwater towns. Your biased comment just drives the point home.

~~~
barrkel
Major metros will make you colder and slower to trust strangers, but you'll
know a lot more about the world. There's simply more variance in cities.
Living your life in a backwater town won't disabuse you of being trusting and
friendly, but your preconceptions about the rest of the world won't be tested
either.

Travel to other countries is better than either to broaden perspectives.
Seeing the world from multiple points of view (sometimes literally) is the
best way to eliminate bias.

~~~
rsj_hn
I strongly disagree that metros will make you know "more about the world."
They will let you know more about a specific bubble that is just as narrow as
the bubble in any small town. You can travel the world and run into people who
believe in exactly the same things you do and have read the same books and
seen the same movies. In fact, it's hard not to.

I remember when I was a grad student, they would pair me up with a different
foreign student each year. They were all cookie cutters of each other. One
from Germany, one from the UK, one from Spain. They all immediately came here
and complained about U.S. gun control and how the U.S. was too religious
(Bible belters!) and the same tired old things that someone from Boston or NY
would complain about. It got so bad I wrote down all their complaints on an
index card and just handed it over when they started with their monoculture
rants. It doesn't matter which nation in the west you are from, the elites
form one gray goop of groupthink.

I do recommend travel, but go into the countryside or talk to people with
different life values from your own, not just different stamps on their
passport. Talk to a mormon. Talk to a devout Catholic. Talk to a rural
minority from China. Talk to someone without a college degree from Spain. Go
visit the a traditional village in Japan. Hang out with the cabbies in Holland
who play chess all the time. There you will see diversity. Flying from Paris
to London to Berlin and visiting hip coffee shops or tech seminars -- you
might as well just stay in San Francisco and go out to a bar.

------
jniedrauer
So the city claimed that a study had been done but refused to release it. When
pressed to release it, they fired those involved. How is this not career
ending for anyone who knew the study didn't exist but claimed it did?

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Look up a book called Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure

It's produced by the Federal Government as a way to show people the 'grave
consequences' of misbehaving as a government employee.

I'm not a government employee, but it was recommended to me and it floored me.
The amount of shit you can get away with if you are a government employee is
mind boggling.

I think this book should be read by every school child so they know the type
of double standard and corruption that is rampant in government.

~~~
vkou
> I think this book should be read by every school child so they know the type
> of double standard and corruption that is rampant in government.

As anyone who has ever spent any time working in a private sector job knows,
corruption and double standards are the status quo in life.

Unlike with the government, you rarely have any recourse when your manager,
your director, your landlord, your bank, your utility, your grocery store,
your accounting firm, or any of the other organizations that have power over
you succumb to it.

(You can sue them, but you can also sue the government.)

~~~
sdenton4
Damn straight. Thirty years of moving things out of government because of
perceived inefficiency has put us in a place where our lives are governed by
systems which are both inefficient and unaccountable, or - worse - efficient
at the /wrong things/ and unaccountable.

------
duxup
> a novel form of DNA testing being used in criminal cases

I feel like any "novel form of" really shouldn't be evidence until it's
proven.

Granted I also recognize how courts really struggle understanding the magical
world of what science is proven and what isn't.

I do worry that it's up to each defendant to effectively fight these fights
that are big topics and would be crazy expensive to "disprove" something the
government says is proven, but isn't.

~~~
sametmax
> Granted I also recognize how courts really struggle understanding the
> magical world of what science is proven and what isn't.

I don't understand how. Aren't you suppose to study logic to be a a judge ?
Surely laws and argumentation are a central topic, and they all require a
brain. How somebody unable to understand simple concept like probabilities can
be judge ?

~~~
testvox
Judges in many parts of the United States are elected, so there is no
particular guarantee they have studied anything.

~~~
cm2012
Ones that aren't elected are appointed. Typically they're appointed because
they're related or friends with the elected officials doing the appointing (My
dad is a court officer in NY state - he's seen over and over again that
nepotism is absolutely the norm and not the exception for all appointed
positions). Any merit judges have compared to a baseline lawyer is basically
accidental.

~~~
duxup
I feel like citing that it's just nepotism is not entirely accurate.

Judges are lawyers, but the approval process and performance of judges who are
willing to follow the rule of law and rule in ways that aren't simply in line
with "nepotism" is significant.

Even existing supreme court justices appointed have not taken actions that the
folks who appointed / approved them might wish... that's a good thing.

------
busterarm
How many times are we going to let junk science poison our judicial system?

~~~
HeWhoLurksLate
How much longer until we start investigating prosecutors for potential
misconduct by an outside source that's not tied to their organization?

Edit: formatting.

~~~
jrockway
We are trying to add state-level oversight in New York. Prosecutors believe
that oversight is “marred by constitutional defects.”

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/nyregion/ny-
prosecutors-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/nyregion/ny-prosecutors-
cuomo.html)

------
DiseasedBadger
Give her a medal! We need to get serious about celebrating whistleblowers.

------
JamesWebb
Are they still using the test she questioned?

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
No

------
osrec
Headline reads like Daily Mail clickbait.

Edit: thanks for updating the title.

~~~
stevezsa8
Nah... Daily Mail headline would be 'foreigner taking away our DNA tests'

------
dontbenebby
>The city and the Office of Chief Medical Examiner said Monday that the
settlement did not mean that Ms. Stajic was treated inappropriately.

Weird - I thought the lottery was run at the state level.

