“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
“Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
Coverage of research fraud, fabricated or manipulated evidence, publication failures, and the systems used to detect and correct unreliable findings. These cases illuminate incentives, oversight, replication, and scientific credibility.
AI Summary.A major physics journal is retracting a paper on how a chemical compound transforms when compressed between diamonds, co-led by a University of Rochester physicist who also claimed to have discovered a room-temperature superconductor. While the researcher defends the work, some scientists who reviewed reports on it say the data submitted were falsified.
Kenneth ChangNew York Times
Date Posted:
Earlier work by Ranga Dias, the researcher who claimed a breakthrough on room-temperature superconductors, has been retracted due to willfully submitted false data.
Does falsified data undermine a high-profile superconductivity research claim?
Core argument: A major physics journal is retracting a two-year-old paper co-authored by University of Rochester professor Ranga Dias that described the transformations of a chemical compound squeezed between two pieces of diamond.
A major physics journal is retracting a two-year-old scientific paper that described the transformations of a chemical compound as it was squeezed between two pieces of diamond. Such an esoteric finding — and retraction — would not typically garner much attention. But one of the leaders of this research is Ranga Dias, a professor at the University of Rochester in New York who made a much bigger scientific splash earlier this year, touting the discovery of a room-temperature superconductor. While Dr. Dias continues to defend the work, to some scientists, there is now clear evidence of misconduct. “There’s no plausible deniability left,” said N. Peter Armitage, a professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who is among the scientists who have seen the reports. “They submitted falsified data. There’s no ambiguity there at all.”
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
A major physics journal is retracting a two-year-old paper co-authored by University of Rochester professor Ranga Dias that described the transformations of a chemical compound squeezed between two pieces of diamond.
Ranga Dias, who touted the discovery of a room-temperature superconductor, continues to defend the work, while some scientists who have seen the reports say there is clear evidence of misconduct.
N. Peter Armitage, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University who has seen the reports, said, "They submitted falsified data. There's no ambiguity there at all.".
Related Articles:
The Scientific Breakthrough That Could Make Batteries Last Longer— Researchers at the University of Rochester report creating a superconductor that operates at 69 degrees Fahrenheit and 145,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, roughly 1/360th of the pressure at Earth's core. The authors say this is about 10 degrees warmer and about 1/1000th the pressure of their earlier material.
Room-Temperature Superconductor Discovery Meets with Resistance— A claim of superconductivity at everyday temperatures and comparatively low pressures in a lutetium-based material has met resistance within the high-pressure physics community, and the researcher behind it denies all allegations of wrongdoing. He states the paper underwent multiple rounds of peer review over the better part of a year, with raw data shared and published alongside the result.
AI Summary.A review of 494 peer-reviewed studies testing five happiness-boosting strategies against control groups found only 57 met basic standards for sample size or pre-registered hypotheses, and those remaining studies did not confirm that three of the five activities made people happier. The authors note that every field examining its own rigor and reproducibility has found similar problems.
Nidhi SubbaramanWall Street Journal
Date Posted:
.@NidhiSubs cites research by @DunnHappyLab showing that most studies on happiness have lacked scientific rigor. Only 57 of 494 peer-reviewed papers evaluated met minimal standards for good research.
Do studies on happiness-boosting strategies meet basic standards of rigor?
Core argument: Dunn and Folk collected 494 peer-reviewed papers testing one of five happiness strategies against a control group, and only 57 survived screening for design quality, leaving the vast majority too poorly designed to support their conclusions.
Dunn and Folk gathered 494 peer-reviewed papers, in which one of the five happiness strategies was evaluated against a control group. When they weeded out weakly designed work, only 57 studies were left. The vast majority of papers were too poorly designed to support their conclusions. The remaining subset of studies met at least one of two conditions for good science: They included sufficient numbers of study participants or the researchers committed to hypotheses or study plans before analyzing their data. These studies failed to confirm that three of the five activities made people happy. “The evidence melts away when you look at it,” Dunn said. A handful of scandals in psychology in the 2010s—including a bombshell paper that demonstrated the danger of p-hacking—sent shock waves through the field and forced researchers to re-examine the status quo. This reform isn’t limited to psychology. “Every field that has bothered to look at issues of rigor and reproducibility in their evidence has found challenges."
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Dunn and Folk collected 494 peer-reviewed papers testing one of five happiness strategies against a control group, and only 57 survived screening for design quality, leaving the vast majority too poorly designed to support their conclusions.
The 57 surviving studies, which either included sufficient participants or involved researchers committing to hypotheses or study plans before analyzing data, failed to confirm that three of the five happiness activities made people happier; Dunn said, "The evidence melts away when you look at it.".
A handful of psychology scandals in the 2010s, including a paper demonstrating the danger of p-hacking, forced researchers to re-examine the status quo, and every field that has examined rigor and reproducibility in its evidence has found challenges.
