Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by takyon on Monday September 24 2018, @03:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the eat-this dept.

This Ivy League food scientist was a media darling. He just submitted his resignation, the school says.

A Cornell professor whose buzzy and accessible food studies made him a media darling has submitted his resignation, the school said Thursday, a dramatic fall for a scholar whose work increasingly came under question in recent years. The university said in a statement that a year-long review found that Brian Wansink "committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure to properly document and preserve research results, and inappropriate authorship."

Wansink, a marketing professor at Cornell's business college who was the director of the university's Food and Brand Lab, will retire at the end of the academic year, the school said. The move follows the recent retraction of six of Wansink's papers by the American Medical Association's JAMA Network, including those about how serving bowl size affected food consumption, how fasting changed people's food preferences and how action-packed television programs increased food intake.

Wansink emailed The Washington Post on Thursday a news release of his retirement, which included statements attributed to a university trustee saying that "Cornell and Professor Wansink mutually have decided that Professor Wansink's research approach and goals differ from the academic expectations of Cornell University, and they have decided to part ways accordingly." Wansink said he is leaving his position June 30, 2019.

For years, Wansink enjoyed a level of prominence that many academics would strive for, his work spawning countless news stories. He published a study showing that people who ate from "bottomless" bowls of soup continue to eat as their bowls are refilled, as a parable about the potential health effects of large portion sizes. Another, with the title "Bad popcorn in big buckets," similarly warned about the perils of presenting food in big quantities, according to Vox.

Also at Science Magazine, Ars Technica, CNN, and Retraction Watch.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday September 30 2018, @10:06AM

    by quietus (6328) on Sunday September 30 2018, @10:06AM (#742040) Journal

    It might be better to start from a platform akin to PLOS One and/or Scientific Reports. Just looking at PLOS One, I think there might be three areas of improvement.

    1. The Author Pays model is kind of morally backwards: you should be paying individual scientists for spreading knowledge, not vice versa.
    2. PLOS One publicizes an article before review has even happened i.e. if you follow their publications, you'll lose time with reading/skimming material that may be seriously flawed, forming a wrong mental image of the subject.
    3. PLOS One only has one reviewer per article, and turn-over time -- review time -- is somewhere between 37 days to 125 days, which looks far too long to me.

    A further improvement could consist of adding tools, dedicated to making reviews easier -- automated statistical checks, extracting and (dis)aggregating experimental data, and so on.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2