Does he affect only the people that have worked directly with people
that have been in fraud cases.
So, people that have worked with people that
have been in fraud cases lose half their CV, because the publications, some of
the publications where one of the authors is a foster are just tainted forever.
So, even if they're perfectly fine and they did all the research themselves,
there's always gonna be this name on there that people know to be wrong.
And so that's not good I mean I think
it has some positive consequences as well we can talk about that.
I think what is really great is the self-cleansing mechanism in science so
if something is based on fraud.
People do try to replicate it, right?
So if there is an counter intuitive finding, people will say well,
I didn't expect it.
That's when they will try to replicate the experiment.
And then if it doesn't work or
if they find it works only under very particular circumstances, then at some
point the effects and its impact also on the environment is going to be diminished.
>> Right. >> And I don't think of people
as such a big impact.
So one of the things that I heard for
instance from one of the biggest fraud cases, is that as it turns out,
all the publications, or a lot of publication that this person had,
ended up not being part of very important pieces of the literature.
So if you would let, let's say a handbook of that field,
you wouldn't even find this person's name mentioned a lot
because it's findings are not necessarily very interesting to the field and
also because it don't replicate you won't find many replication.
You'll just find one.
>> Right.
>> So I think that's, I mean, I think it's great.
I mean, obviously It's negative in the sense that it leads to a very bad taste,
and it can leave people very disappointed with their field, or
we can talk about that.
>> Yeah, I was gonna ask you,