> How many of the debunked psychology professors took federal funding?

But being wrong isn't a crime. Intentional fraud is.

> It's hard to prove when it isn't investigated.

And it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime.

> it's hard to investigate without some reasonably solid evidence of a crime

I’d say the Ariely affair is reasonably suspicious.

I don't disagree, but it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing.

I am glad it takes more than mere suspicion for the government to go search my private writings and possessions.

my own institution launched an internal investigation into a professor who i know for a fact committed fraud and was "unable to prove intentional wrongdoing". academic institutions have taken the "this never happens because we are morally pure" approach which we all know is a load of baloney, they are perversely incentivized to never admit fraud.

the witness and reportee who i am friends with was directly instructed by this professor to falsify data in a more positive light in order to impress grant funders. multiple people were in attendance in this meeting but even that was not enough to see any disciplinary action.

duke also has a notorious reputation for being a fraud mill.

> it appears Duke did investigate in that case, and was unable to prove intentional wrongdoing

They also kept the grant money. The university investigating itself isn’t meaningful.

> They also kept the grant money.

Is that not the reasonable response if an investigation didn't turn up wrongdoing?