Yale has a somewhat remarkable history regarding numerous controversial issues.
For instance, aiding and abetting the communist Chinese including having scientists for the Chinese state security forces work in New Haven genetics labs.
As former Yale faculty I personally had sensitive software written for a Saudi Arabia genetics collaboration misappropriated by the very professor named in this article. The software concepts were perfect for scientific research in genetics, but also political oppression.
The Yale Associate General Counsel helping in the misappropriation had never taken the Connecticut bar exam and was unauthorized to practice law in Connecticut at the time.
It's interesting to me that there was no ethical oversight in the research (the researchers were able to side step it, even though it involved real harm to individuals included in the research) yet the IRB gets involved in all kinds of ways in human subjects research that has next to no risks for participants (making my life miserable in the process with their pointless requests).
Also, no, we shouldn't be trusting the Trump admin to right the wrongs of academia. Haven't we learned that yet? Trump and his doofuses just want to burn it ALL down, and that's not what we want.
I don’t think they involved IRB because this did not start as a research project it started out as a personal vendetta which they decided later to dress up as research.
IRB is a worst of all possible worlds combination of overzealous and derangedly lax (Duke let through a study designed to enable a man with a fetish to produce and express chemical goop from his nipple into the mouth of his own grandchild)
But even so I don’t think any IRB would have approved this.
Ethical oversight? Are you serious? The lack of any rudimentary understanding of ethics is on display here, but that’s not what’s troubling. How about we just redefine ethics to mean anything we agree with and its lack is anything we don’t? Academia is burning down the house just fine on its own. Anyone with half a brain living through this might ask what comes next, instead of yet another tiresome whine about the orange man. Do you not get it? The pursuit of knowledge isn’t the pursuit of ‘what should I think that satisfies the mandarins of the day?’
I forgot to mention in my previous post that multiple Yale senior executives and its president at the time ignored my calls for assistance in protecting my IP.
Ignore, ignore, ignore seems a common theme with Yale leadership.
You could do a zillion legit interesting studies about patterns of comments using their methods and motivated by their priors as the kids say: that EJMR is bad and sexist and racist and etc.
That was not what they set out to do. They are doing those things NOW, to sort of ex post facto make their hacking look scholarly in intent, but what they set out to do was dox individuals and destroy them as vengeance. There is no legitimate research question in that.
This is true for any data source. Add a second source if data and you can deanonymize anything you please. These people are upset their protected speech will be attributed to them? Reap the whirlwind.
Yes, I voted for this.
Less than that was considered hacking in the case of Assange
Yale has a somewhat remarkable history regarding numerous controversial issues.
For instance, aiding and abetting the communist Chinese including having scientists for the Chinese state security forces work in New Haven genetics labs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/business/china-xinjiang-uighur-dna-thermo-fisher.html
As former Yale faculty I personally had sensitive software written for a Saudi Arabia genetics collaboration misappropriated by the very professor named in this article. The software concepts were perfect for scientific research in genetics, but also political oppression.
The Yale Associate General Counsel helping in the misappropriation had never taken the Connecticut bar exam and was unauthorized to practice law in Connecticut at the time.
It's interesting to me that there was no ethical oversight in the research (the researchers were able to side step it, even though it involved real harm to individuals included in the research) yet the IRB gets involved in all kinds of ways in human subjects research that has next to no risks for participants (making my life miserable in the process with their pointless requests).
Also, no, we shouldn't be trusting the Trump admin to right the wrongs of academia. Haven't we learned that yet? Trump and his doofuses just want to burn it ALL down, and that's not what we want.
I don’t think they involved IRB because this did not start as a research project it started out as a personal vendetta which they decided later to dress up as research.
IRB is a worst of all possible worlds combination of overzealous and derangedly lax (Duke let through a study designed to enable a man with a fetish to produce and express chemical goop from his nipple into the mouth of his own grandchild)
But even so I don’t think any IRB would have approved this.
Ethical oversight? Are you serious? The lack of any rudimentary understanding of ethics is on display here, but that’s not what’s troubling. How about we just redefine ethics to mean anything we agree with and its lack is anything we don’t? Academia is burning down the house just fine on its own. Anyone with half a brain living through this might ask what comes next, instead of yet another tiresome whine about the orange man. Do you not get it? The pursuit of knowledge isn’t the pursuit of ‘what should I think that satisfies the mandarins of the day?’
Hello, my name is RICO.
I forgot to mention in my previous post that multiple Yale senior executives and its president at the time ignored my calls for assistance in protecting my IP.
Ignore, ignore, ignore seems a common theme with Yale leadership.
You could do a zillion legit interesting studies about patterns of comments using their methods and motivated by their priors as the kids say: that EJMR is bad and sexist and racist and etc.
That was not what they set out to do. They are doing those things NOW, to sort of ex post facto make their hacking look scholarly in intent, but what they set out to do was dox individuals and destroy them as vengeance. There is no legitimate research question in that.
This is true for any data source. Add a second source if data and you can deanonymize anything you please. These people are upset their protected speech will be attributed to them? Reap the whirlwind.