Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia?
Some of the biggest names in behavioral science stand accused of faking their results. We talk to whistleblowers, reformers, and a co-author who got caught up in the chaos.
Over the holidays, we wanted to revisit one of our favorite Freakonomics Radio series from this past year, about a set of research scandals that have rocked the academic world.
A couple years ago, Francesca Gino was an academic superstar. She has been a professor at Harvard Business School and a researcher in the field that’s variously called behavioral science, decision science, or organizational psychology. She gave talks or consulted for Google, Disney, Walmart; for the U.S. Air Force, Army, and Navy and many more.
But that’s all over, for now. In July of 2023, Harvard Business School — responding to an analysis by academic whistleblowers — investigated Gino's work and found that she had “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly committed research misconduct.” Gino was suspended without pay. Those same whistleblowers have also produced evidence of what they call data fraud by an even more prominent behavioral scientist, Dan Ariely of Duke University. Ariely has enjoyed the spotlight for many years, going back to his 2008 book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. Ariely claims that Duke investigated and cleared him — although Duke has declined to say anything publicly about the investigation.
Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino have both maintained that they never fabricated data for their research. On today’s episode of Freakonomics Radio, we’ll hear from one of their co-authors, as well as the three data detectives who blew the whistle on them.
In Freakonomics, which Steve Levitt and I published in 2005, we wrote: “Cheating may or may not be human nature, but it is certainly a prominent feature in just about every human endeavor... Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more for less.”
So why shouldn’t we expect cheating, even among scientific researchers? The general view — and the view that I’ve long held — is that academic research exists in a special category: It is a fact-finding coalition that operates under a set of rules built around the accurate gathering and analysis of data, with the entire process subject to fact-checking and peer review. (Good journalism operates under similar rules.)
But the things we found out in this series — about high-profile researchers who allegedly fudged their findings, and about the pervasive incentives to cheat throughout the academic world — suggest that my faith in academic research has been misplaced. This is of course concerning to me, and if you are a fan of science (any kind of science), it probably concerns you too.
I hope you enjoy revisiting this series with us, and that you’re having a happy holiday season. We’ll air the second part of the story next week, with an update from one of the researchers who’s trying to fight the tendency toward misconduct in his field.
You can hear this week’s episode of Freakonomics Radio, “Why Is There So Much Fraud in Academia? (Update),” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. A full transcript is available on our website.
I want to also let you know that Freakonomics Radio is coming to California in 2025. We have two live shows — one in San Francisco on January 3rd and the other in Los Angeles on February 13th. For tickets, go to freakonomics.com/liveshows. I’ll be there — and I hope you will too.
Also on the Freakonomics Radio Network this week
People I (Mostly) Admire: Is Your Gut a Second Brain?
In her book, Rumbles, medical historian Elsa Richardson explores the history of the human gut. She talks with Steve about dubious medical practices, gruesome tales of survival, and the things that medieval doctors may have gotten right.
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | transcript
The Economics of Everyday Things: Cashmere
Once a luxury good, the soft fiber is now everywhere — which has led to a goat boom in Mongolia. Zachary Crockett tugs at the thread.
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | transcript
My view is that it is because the social sciences have been trying really hard to become actual sciences but they just aren’t. Their data is not of the same quality. They do not operate in objective reality much of the time.
You cannot isolate a human or societal trend to manipulate the variable and gather data the same way you can in, say, chemistry. Humans and our societies are too complex, too ambiguous, and are characterized by too many interdependencies and causal relationships to study the same way.
And the reality is much of what we do does not conform to a clear, sound logic. So I think attempts at analyzing the data to discern causal relationships is also fatally fraught.
These are philosophical subjects that can sometimes be grounded in science. Not the other way around.
Interesting topic. My take is cheating in academia occurs because of systemic pressure to perform or a reward system based on positive outcomes. Or, bigger than both those is it might be some type of imposture syndrome.