Embattled Harvard Researcher Sues School and Accusers

Earlier this month, prominent behavioral science researcher Francesca Gino filed a $25 million lawsuit against her school, Harvard University, and three researchers who accused her of data manipulation in four separate papers.

Since 2006, Gino has been working in the behavior science field and has carved a niche out for herself by specializing in the topic of honesty and dishonesty. This, in turn, has given her a great deal of mainstream media coverage, with many of her findings appearing in headlines all over the world.

This has made her not only a prominent researcher within the field, but a big name outside of it as well. She has worked as a public speaker, has authored several books and much more.

However, in June 2023, three researchers, Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson and Joe Simmons, published a series of articles on their site, Data Colada, calling four of her papers into question.

According to those articles, the researchers found evidence of data manipulation. This included allegations that data was edited or added after the fact to give the study a stronger result. In one case, the researchers allege that, by editing the data back to its assumed original values, the effect the study sought to prove largely disappeared.

The alleged manipulation was discovered by looking at the raw data and noting that, despite the data appearing to be sorted, many rows were out of order and those out of order rows routinely ended up being the most impactful participants in the studies.

But, while the Data Colada articles were the first public post about these concerns, things had been moving behind the scenes since the fall of 2021. 

That was when the three researchers notified Harvard Business School of their findings, and the school conducted its own investigation, which produced a report that “may be around 1,200 pages” according to a report at The Harvard Crimson.

The school’s findings supported the ones by Data Colada and, despite being a tenured professor, she was placed on a two-year unpaid leave. The school has also requested that the four papers at issue be retracted. As of this writing, three of the papers have already been retracted and another is scheduled to be retracted next month.

This prompted Gino to file the lawsuit, which accuses Data Colada of defamation both in the 2021 report to Harvard and the public posts. She alleges that both the researchers and the school ignored other explanations for the issues, disregarded testimony from those she worked with, and that they were motivated by the fact she is a woman. She further alleges that her being put on leave was a violation of her employment contract with the university. 

Finally, Gino strongly denies any data manipulation or other research integrity violations. However, claiming that her career and reputation are in ruins, she is seeking “not less than $25 million” in damages.

While, from a defamation standpoint, this lawsuit may seem fairly standard, it could have serious impacts on the field of academic and research integrity as many academics feel it could have a chilling effect on those who seek to call out bad actors in the space.

Lawsuits and the Threat of Lawsuits

Working in this space is fraught with both lawsuits and threats of lawsuits.

Personally, I’ve been threatened with litigation dozens of times. It’s a common enough issue that I’ve retained counsel who handles such cases on my behalf. I’ve even made (indirect) reference to that in my site’s content removal policy.

But while I’ve been fortunate enough to never have been sued, it doesn’t mean that litigation doesn’t happen. In September 2017, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson sued the national Academy of Science and the author of a paper that found faults in his earlier research. That case was eventually dismissed voluntarily by Jacobson.

Before that, in April 2017, Carlo Croce filed a defamation lawsuit against both the New York Times over an article in the paper that detailed allegations of falsified data and plagiarism. A separate lawsuit also targeted Purdue University professor David Sanders, who was quoted in the article. Croce ultimately lost both cases and was even sued by his law firm over allegations of unpaid fees. 

But while both of those cases were eventually resolved in favor of the defendants, in both cases individuals were targeted and put through the headache, time, stress and expense of going through litigation, often for many years.

However, in the case of Gino, this fear is taken to another level. Gino is one of the most prominent researchers in the field and has a platform and presence that’s intimidating to any potential critics, even without the threat of a lawsuit. Add in the threat of litigation, and it’s easy to see how whistleblowers, critics and others who have concern with Gino’s work could be silenced, regardless of how legitimate their claim is.

Still, this raises a simple question: How likely is Gino’s lawsuit to succeed? The answer is somewhat mixed.

The Chance of Success

Note: Though I am familiar with defamation law, it is outside the scope of my core area of study and expertise. As such, please take my thoughts with even more skepticism and note that this will be a high-level discussion about the topic only. 

Obviously, litigation is inherently unpredictable. There’s no way to know the outcome of any particular case and, as of right now, many of the facts are still unknown. 

That said, looking at the history of litigation in this space and defamation in general, the odds of the defamation claims do not look good. Gino would almost certainly be considered a public figure. As such, she would have to not only show that the statements made were false, but that the parties involved either made the false statements with actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth.

That is going to be a very high bar, given the fact that the researchers showed their process and their findings were supported by Harvard Business School’s own investigation. Without some major new revelation, Gino’s arguments seem unlikely to sustain the claim of defamation. 

However, one avenue where she might have an argument, at least according to Stephen Carter at Bloomberg, is with her argument that her punishment was a breach of her employment contract. As a tenured professor, there are rules around when she can be dismissed or punished and, according to the lawsuit, Harvard didn’t follow them.

At least one possible sticking point was pointed out by YouTuber Pete Judo, who noted that, while Harvard’s own rules said that no paper older than six years should be studied, at least three of the four at issue were.

Note: David Sanders, a professor at Purdue University, reached out to me to clarify the above paragraph. Rules such as this one have nuances that may still allow the inclusion of the papers. One such nuance is if the paper was cited by the subject within the timeframe, it can be allowed. So, while it may still be a sticking point, there are likely arguments in favor of Harvard here too.

That, in turn, could become a legitimate sticking point in this case. However, that is an area of law that I am completely unfamiliar with and will not offer even a basic discussion.

Instead, I’m flagging it as something to watch out for as this case moves forward.

Bottom Line

In the end, Gino’s defamation claims are a long shot. Even if the allegations prove to be false, it’s going to be difficult to argue that the allegations were made maliciously or recklessly. There’s little evidence of a conspiracy against Gino and, given that two groups independently reached the same conclusion, and it’s possible for others to check the work, it’s a difficult argument to make. 

But that may not be the point. As attorney Ken White said in an interview with Vox, sometimes, “The process is the punishment”. 

While it’s impossible to know Gino’s intent, the impacts that this case will likely have on the researchers involved, as well as others watching, is easier to predict.

There are already precious few reasons for people in academia to investigate cases of potential research integrity violations. It is largely thankless work that many find to be career-limiting and extremely time-consuming.

Tack on the threat of litigation, and now there’s a motivation for people to keep quiet, even if they have solid evidence of an issue. 

Unfortunately, science relies heavily on researchers being able to criticize one another, including questioning findings, ethics and pointing out issues that could impact the outcome of a particular study.

Lawsuits, like this one, put a chilling effect on that process. 

While I agree that the right to not be libeled or slandered doesn’t stop at the halls of academia, such lawsuits have a long history of being used to silence or hurt critics rather than address actual defamation issues.

Though fixing that is more of an issue for the courts than academia, it’s a clear threat that academia must face. One positive step would be schools and institutions actively supporting researchers who make such claims and are sued, freeing them of the financial and time burden of taking on such cases.

Though that does happen in many cases, it needs to become a standard practice and one that researchers can count on when something like this happens.