Latest news with #behavioralscience
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Harvard professor fired for allegedly fabricating research earned $1M
Disgraced Harvard professor Francesca Gino was paid more than $1 million a year at the height of her career, it was revealed, even as she allegedly manipulated data in research papers about honesty. Gino, a former Harvard Business School professor, once hailed as a rising star in behavioral science, was the fifth-highest paid employee at Harvard in both 2018 and 2019, according to records obtained by The Harvard Crimson. Her once-celebrated career imploded after she was accused of falsifying data in a series of behavioral science studies - including papers on honesty itself. The university revoked Gino's tenure and terminated her employment, marking the first time in decades that such a step has been taken against a tenured faculty member. Her ouster came after a lengthy internal investigation found evidence of academic misconduct in research spanning more than a decade. The revelation fueled fresh outrage as the Ivy League institution reels from a rapidly escalating political showdown with the Trump administration, which has moved to cancel $100 million in federal contracts and slash billions more in grants. In a separate conflict, the Trump administration has moved to cancel roughly $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard and is threatening to divert another $3 billion in grants. Trump has accused the school of promoting antisemitism, resisting oversight, and harboring 'radicalized lunatics' among its foreign student population. Taken together, the Gino scandal and the funding fight have thrown the university into turmoil - exposing deep tensions over accountability, integrity, and power at one of America's most elite institutions. Gino's fall from grace began quietly in 2021, when anonymous researchers and the whistleblower blog Data Colada published explosive allegations that Gino had falsified data in several published studies - including one ironically focused on dishonesty. The blog's meticulous analysis and documentation sparked alarm throughout the academic world. 'In 2021, we and a team of anonymous researchers examined a number of studies co-authored by Gino, because we had concerns that they contained fraudulent data,' Data Colada wrote. 'We discovered evidence of fraud in papers spanning over a decade, including papers published quite recently (in 2020).' Harvard Business School responded with an 18-month internal investigation, eventually concluding that Gino had engaged in academic misconduct. By mid-2023, she was placed on unpaid administrative leave, stripped of her named professorship, and barred from campus. But what stunned even longtime faculty members was what came next with the formal revocation of her tenure, a punishment so rare that it had not occurred at Harvard since at least the 1940s. Gino has strenuously denied the allegations. In September 2023, she launched a $25 million lawsuit against Harvard, its business school dean Srikant Datar, and the Data Colada bloggers, Leif D. Nelson, Uri Simonsohn, and Joseph P. Simmons, accusing them of conspiracy, defamation, and violating her contractual rights. In a defiant post on her personal website Gino wrote: 'I did not commit academic fraud. I did not manipulate data to produce a particular result. I did not falsify data to bolster any result. I did not commit the offense I am accused of. Period.' Though a federal judge dismissed parts of her suit in September 2024, he allowed claims of contract violations and discrimination to move forward. Gino has since added Title VII claims to her case, accusing the university of targeting her unfairly with policies that were, she alleges, crafted specifically to punish her. 'It has been shattering to watch my career being decimated and my reputation completely destroyed,' she wrote in October. 'I am fighting not only for my name but for fairness in academia.' As Gino's saga unfolded, it collided with a much larger storm - a full-blown assault on Harvard by President Donald Trump, who returned to the White House in January 2025 and immediately began targeting the Ivy League school as 'a nest of left-wing extremism, antisemitism, and corruption.' Earlier this week, the Trump administration took aim at $100 million in federal contracts awarded to Harvard, instructing agencies to cancel all agreements and seek 'alternate vendors.' The move follows the administration's earlier decision to cancel more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants to the university. 'We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday morning. 'Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason! The best thing Harvard has going for it is that they have shopped around and found the absolute best Judge (for them!) - But have no fear, the Government will, in the end, WIN!', he added. Although Harvard has complied with some requests from the Department of Homeland Security, the administration said the school's response was insufficient and attempted to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students - a move that was temporarily blocked in federal court after Harvard filed suit. International students are now caught in a kind of legal purgatory, unsure whether they'll be allowed to return in the fall. 'What the international students are caught in right now is just a limbo,' said Leo Gerdén, a graduating senior from Sweden. 'It's terrifying.' The Gino scandal has only fueled the administration's argument that Harvard is mismanaged, elitist, and ethically compromised. Harvard has long positioned itself as the gold standard in American higher education, a beacon of integrity and academic rigor. The simultaneous collapse of one of its star professors and the unraveling of its federal funding agreements has left the institution reeling. At a rally outside Harvard Yard this week, math and economics student Jacob Miller - former president of Harvard Hillel - condemned the administration's pressure campaign.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Outrageous salary of Harvard 'dishonesty' professor revealed as university risks losing billions
Disgraced Harvard professor Francesca Gino was paid more than $1 million a year at the height of her career, it was revealed, even as she allegedly manipulated data in research papers about honesty. Gino, a former Harvard Business School professor, once hailed as a rising star in behavioral science, was the fifth-highest paid employee at Harvard in both 2018 and 2019, according to records obtained by The Harvard Crimson. Her once-celebrated career imploded after she was accused of falsifying data in a series of behavioral science studies - including papers on honesty itself. The university revoked Gino's tenure and terminated her employment, marking the first time in decades that such a step has been taken against a tenured faculty member. Her ouster came after a lengthy internal investigation found evidence of academic misconduct in research spanning more than a decade. The revelation fueled fresh outrage as the Ivy League institution reels from a rapidly escalating political showdown with the Trump administration, which has moved to cancel $100 million in federal contracts and slash billions more in grants. In a separate conflict, the Trump administration has moved to cancel roughly $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard and is threatening to divert another $3 billion in grants. Trump has accused the school of promoting antisemitism, resisting oversight, and harboring 'radicalized lunatics' among its foreign student population. Taken together, the Gino scandal and the funding fight have thrown the university into turmoil - exposing deep tensions over accountability, integrity, and power at one of America's most elite institutions. Gino's fall from grace began quietly in 2021, when anonymous researchers and the whistleblower blog Data Colada published explosive allegations that Gino had falsified data in several published studies - including one ironically focused on dishonesty. The blog's meticulous analysis and documentation sparked alarm throughout the academic world. 'In 2021, we and a team of anonymous researchers examined a number of studies co-authored by Gino, because we had concerns that they contained fraudulent data,' Data Colada wrote. 'We discovered evidence of fraud in papers spanning over a decade, including papers published quite recently (in 2020).' Harvard Business School responded with an 18-month internal investigation, eventually concluding that Gino had engaged in academic misconduct. By mid-2023, she was placed on unpaid administrative leave, stripped of her named professorship, and barred from campus. But what stunned even longtime faculty members was what came next with the formal revocation of her tenure, a punishment so rare that it had not occurred at Harvard since at least the 1940s. Gino has strenuously denied the allegations. In September 2023, she launched a $25 million lawsuit against Harvard, its business school dean Srikant Datar, and the Data Colada bloggers, Leif D. Nelson, Uri Simonsohn, and Joseph P. Simmons, accusing them of conspiracy, defamation, and violating her contractual rights. In a defiant post on her personal website Gino wrote: 'I did not commit academic fraud. I did not manipulate data to produce a particular result. I did not falsify data to bolster any result. I did not commit the offense I am accused of. Period.' Though a federal judge dismissed parts of her suit in September 2024, he allowed claims of contract violations and discrimination to move forward. Gino has since added Title VII claims to her case, accusing the university of targeting her unfairly with policies that were, she alleges, crafted specifically to punish her. 'It has been shattering to watch my career being decimated and my reputation completely destroyed,' she wrote in October. 'I am fighting not only for my name but for fairness in academia.' As Gino's saga unfolded, it collided with a much larger storm - a full-blown assault on Harvard by President Donald Trump, who returned to the White House in January 2025 and immediately began targeting the Ivy League school as 'a nest of left-wing extremism, antisemitism, and corruption.' Earlier this week, the Trump administration took aim at $100 million in federal contracts awarded to Harvard, instructing agencies to cancel all agreements and seek 'alternate vendors.' The move follows the administration's earlier decision to cancel more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants to the university. 'We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,' Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday morning. 'Harvard is very slow in the presentation of these documents, and probably for good reason! The best thing Harvard has going for it is that they have shopped around and found the absolute best Judge (for them!) - But have no fear, the Government will, in the end, WIN!', he added. Although Harvard has complied with some requests from the Department of Homeland Security, the administration said the school's response was insufficient and attempted to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students - a move that was temporarily blocked in federal court after Harvard filed suit. International students are now caught in a kind of legal purgatory, unsure whether they'll be allowed to return in the fall. 'What the international students are caught in right now is just a limbo,' said Leo Gerdén, a graduating senior from Sweden. 'It's terrifying.' The Gino scandal has only fueled the administration's argument that Harvard is mismanaged, elitist, and ethically compromised. Harvard has long positioned itself as the gold standard in American higher education, a beacon of integrity and academic rigor. The simultaneous collapse of one of its star professors and the unraveling of its federal funding agreements has left the institution reeling. At a rally outside Harvard Yard this week, math and economics student Jacob Miller - former president of Harvard Hillel - condemned the administration's pressure campaign. 'Antisemitism is a real problem,' he said. 'But these policies will do nothing to solve it. They're about control, not protection.' The chaos has also triggered an international response. Japan's education minister, Toshiko Abe, said her government is working to help displaced Harvard students, and Tokyo University is exploring whether it can temporarily absorb some of them. Universities in Hong Kong and across Europe have also offered refuge.
Forbes
22-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
10 Popular Decision Myths That Can Hurt Your Leadership
Nuala Walsh is MindEquity CEO, Adjunct Professor of behavioral science, Non-exec Director & Author of TUNE IN: How to Make Smart Decisions As leaders, we pride ourselves on being rational, considered and objective. But behavioral science tells a different story. Our decisions are shaped by social influences, cognitive bias and mental shortcuts. When you hold power, these factors can not only lead to costly mistakes but missed opportunities, misjudgment and misguided confidence. But you can sidestep predictable error. How? By understanding the 10 common myths about decision-making. Agility prized in leadership and speed is often equated with decisiveness. Leaders are recognized and rewarded with pay and promotions for quick decisions and fast turnarounds. But fast decisions can also spawn intuitive error. Even a brief pause can improve most outcomes. My advice? Build in deliberate reflection breaks and dual-check protocols for high-consequence decisions. It's tempting to think we're immune from external influence and social expectations, but we're constantly influenced by peer context and what others think. Solomon Asch's famous conformity experiments demonstrated the influence of group dynamics on individual decisions, even when the group's consensus is clearly wrong. In other words, social proof and peer pressure can influence decisions to the point that autonomy becomes illusory. I suggest practicing 'decision distancing.' Step back, revisit the decision alone and determine if your choice holds up without external pressures. We like to think our decisions are based on logic and evidence. But even the most rational thinkers meet biases. Consider the sunk cost fallacy. You spend months on a project so you won't quit. It's why investors hold underperforming stocks. As a behavioural scientist, I find debiasing practices help firms make smarter decisions. One way is through a pre-mortem—determining which factors might lead to project failure and reverse planning accordingly. Many people believe each decision starts from scratch. But context, memory or prior actions can cloud our judgment. For instance, past outcomes create footprints that shape current behavior. It's a type of memory-based priming that can cause us to keep using failing strategies. Why? We prefer familiar, easy decisions over hard decisions. To combat this, conduct a 'decision audit' to evaluate whether your choice is merit-based or just a habit. We often believe that others see the world as we do. But beware: Leaders can overestimate how widely their views are shared, falling into the false consensus effect. This effect is exacerbated by sycophancy and can spark groupthink, ignoring dissent or mistaking silence for support. When Elon Musk overhauled Twitter's verification system, he was met with user backlash and advertiser retreat. He's not alone. Build dissent into your process. Assign a devil's advocate to challenge views and ensure richer discussions. We like to think we're impartial but how options or alternatives are presented carries a subliminal impact—from question order to font size. People regularly default to recommended options simply because they have been framed a certain way. For instance, default enrollment in retirement plans often boosts participation. To combat subtle nudges, experiment with removing defaults, rotating the order of options or rethinking how information is displayed. You can justify any decision with logical-sounding reasons, but justification happens unconsciously. This 'introspection illusion' leads us to invent plausible explanations for choices. For instance, hiring can be influenced by instinctive reactions to personality, appearance or cultural fit more than by objective metrics. Keeping a decision journal helps clarify the gap between intention and action, highlighting errors and enabling more conscious reflection. Intuition can be valuable—but only when it's based on well-developed mental models, learning and consistent feedback. In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman argued that intuition is reliable in stable environments but can be misleading in volatile contexts. In unfamiliar territory, pair intuition with structured analysis or seek novel perspectives before deciding. You might tell yourself you're thinking ahead, but present bias and temporal discounting can hijack our thinking. We're wired to favor immediate rewards. However, a better approach is to use time-framing prompts. This approach can be used for any decision, but I recommend it especially when considering moves like regional expansion, a new product launch or business transformation: Ask, 'What decision would my future self thank me for?' Confidence doesn't equal accuracy—and can often be a con. In fact, overconfident decision-makers typically rely on excessive data or dashboards that distract from what really matters. In financial institutions, this has led to riskier bets with worse outcomes. Careful calibration will ensure confidence aligns with information quality. You can establish decision criteria in advance and focus on actionable insights. To decouple confidence from correctness, prioritize action over information. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. They're made in a noisy landscape of subtle influences. It's hard. The trick to smarter leadership isn't eliminating bias—it's recognizing and correcting for it. In my book TUNE IN: How to Make Smarter Decisions In a Noisy World, I explore 10 "PERIMETERS™" misjudgment traps and 75 contributing biases. By tuning in and adjusting for decision delusions, you can avoid tone-deaf leadership. You can break free from flawed assumptions and take more deliberate action. You can build systems that support better judgment, fewer regrets and sharper outcomes. So, the next time you face a high-stakes decision, remember that spotting these judgment traps and decision myths is the first step toward inspiring decisions that not only create value but avoid collateral damage. Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
