Wow. I don't see how one can exonerate the researchers and condemn the messengers.
> If anyone changes their behavior, I'd rather it be the journalists
> it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers
According to the article, it was fraud, not "some mistakes". How is it good for society that frauds remain unpunished? Why would we want the behavior of frauds to continue unchanged?
Even if it isn't fraud, should there be no consequences for our actions? If my software fails miserably, would it be best that I suffer "no adverse effects", or perhaps should the market and investors allocate resources to people who can do a better job?
> If anyone changes their behavior, I'd rather it be the journalists
> it is good for society if researchers can make mistakes and keep their careers
According to the article, it was fraud, not "some mistakes". How is it good for society that frauds remain unpunished? Why would we want the behavior of frauds to continue unchanged?
Even if it isn't fraud, should there be no consequences for our actions? If my software fails miserably, would it be best that I suffer "no adverse effects", or perhaps should the market and investors allocate resources to people who can do a better job?