Ireland's Chief Science Advisor has bogus degree

Now you've gone and done it George.



I'm so confused myself after rereading the flippin regulations as the the exactly correct term that I've had to flippin ask which it is then. If it's "thesis" rather than "dissertation" then I'll have to change the cover page or risk the guillotine, eh what?

 

Once awarded, will the university in question be revealed?

It may be rather difficult to have the dissertation being accessible while supressing the awarding institution.

 

Yeah, that's why I asked. I had my draft sitting on my desk the other day, and a quite senior academic was appalled at the titled. It's thesis my good man, not a dissertation'. I quickly changed it!

Cheers,

George

 

Iff conferred, yes. No such thing as a done deal until it's posilute.

 

It's seems we both made the same mistake.

She's a thesis allrighty, then.

Thanks for that. Egg on the face and all that you know.

KICK KICK KICK KICK. (myself)

 

Hey, I reckon we've got more to worry about with what's between the front and back cover than that this little oversight. Nonetheless, it probably wouldn't be a good start!

Cheers,

George

 

Oops, back on topic. And they keep goin' at him:

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sgeDC1uAYVB6Msgdq-nXlDAyFE.asp

Cheers,

George

 

Aside from my considerable discomfort with the fact that the above-linked-to piece appears to be (and is presented as) a hard news story when it is, in fact, an opinion piece, the most salient part, to me, is:

• [Former Enterprise Minister] Harney defended the McSweeney appointment ... arguing there was no doctoral requirement for the job.
  
  [...]
  
  Whatever about his formal academic qualifications for his present post, there can be little doubt that by virtue of his experience he would seem to have been qualified to advise the Government on scientific matters.
  
  This was not an academic post, but one in which practical experience was likely to be much more valuable than formal academic qualifications.
  
  He apparently scaled the ladder of success through his own ability. Maybe there should be no questions about his qualifications for his current position, but unfortunately questions are inevitably posed by his claiming of a doctorate degree from Pacific Western University.
  
  The questions about his qualifications have remained unanswered for too long.
  
  People will inevitably wonder if, for some reason, members of this Government did not feel they were in a position to question any exaggeration of academic experience.
  
  But Dr McSweeney must provide answers.
  
  It is not enough to say that Pacific Western University has changed since he got his degree. We need to know how he actually ‘earned’ that degree.

The above, I would say, seems to be approximately the opinion of many around here. I believe it's relevant that the PhD was not a requirement for the position; and now that I know that, I'm not so sure he should necessarily be fired... at least not because his legitimate credentials aren't sufficient. If his masters is all the job requires, and if it's legit, then clearly his credentials are adequuate.

So that just leaves us with the ethical questions. Whether or not needed for the postion, is it ethical for someone -- especially someone in a public position -- to claim, as his highest/best degree, a PhD that's from what many consider to be a diploma mill; or, if not a diploma mill, then at least a school that's arguably woefully substandard? And if it's not, then does the ethical lapse trump the fact that his legitimate credentials are all the job requires; and, therefore, should he be dismissed -- notwithstanding the fact that his legit credentials are adequate for the job -- on purely ethical grounds? What normative ethical standard should Ireland (or any government, for that matter) require of its public servants?

And dare we question former Enterprise Minister Harney's assertion that a PhD is not a requirement for the position? If a position like that does not require a PhD, then what does? And if that's a logical assumption, then is it possible that Harney's misstating the situation as a way of defending McSweeney, generally; and her decision, specifically? Might, then, the scope of the ethical breach widen to encompass others beyond McSweeney? If so, then begged, again, is the just-asked question: What normative ethical standard should Ireland (or any government, for that matter) require of its public servants?


EDIT: I partially take back my concern about it not being labeled as an opinion piece. Upon second look, I can now see that it's indicated, by hook or by crook, as an opinion piece; but only by virtue of its place in the scheme of things, as evidenced by the little breadcrumb trail near the top of the page, to wit:

• Home > Opinion > Full Story

However, I would argue that that's insufficient; and that it should have been labeled clearly and unambiguously as an opinion piece... preferably above its headline, where most other newspapers do it on their web sites. I suspect the reason it's not so labeled is because it's a piece that would normally appear on the Op-Ed page in the printed version of the publication, where labeling it as opinion is unnecessary. Obviously, a concession for the web-based edition is in order...

...or so it is my opinion.

 

You do, of course Des, pose the million dollar question, and we have seen many McSweeney cases come and go. The first question I ask is 'Is McSweeney a villain or a victim?' John B provides a fantastic framework (which I have just cited in my current study, and did for my Masters) on how there are those that walk in with their eyes wide open, and others who know they are defrauding the system. Was the PWU a quick fix solution so he could be held up as 'Dr McSweeney', feed his ego, raise his paypacket and do all this semi legitimately? Or did he really make a significant contribution to a body of knowledge with the work he did in his dissertation and work his buns off for it?

The proof is in the pudding. He needs to show his dissertation, and proclaim to the world that perhaps he was hoodwinked. This is his best defence at this stage. Why PWU you ask? Depends what year he did it in. I know of many people who did CPU PhDs in the early mid eighties as this was promoted and sold to them as legal, flexible and worthy. It's a real hard one, but he really needs to open up and stand his ground.

I am trying to find the article at the moment, but there was a PhD on faculty at my university, University of Adelaide, who held a PhD from Pacific Western. I had nothing to do with it being brought to the media's attention, but it was raised and debated. The university came to his defence as certain academics had read his dissertation, had discovered it had been externally examined, and was of a calibre expected of an Australian study. As such, he stayed on faculty and that was the end of it.

So, Dr McSweeney, as someone said in some movie sometime ago "Show me the money!"

Cheers,

George

 

Good show, whot!

That's the kind of thing you'd hope the person holding the degree would secure before getting on faculty -- so all the questions are answered before any noise. Even so -- such does not always work. As someone asked in another thread -- politics abound.

Now, this whole Irish dude thing ... Hey -- I'm willing to accept some university might legitimately even forgo a thesis/dissertation for some large documented project -- but if he claims to have written one -- and can't produce it -- that's a whole different mug of ale, that.

Had he not claimed the dissertation -- that's one thing. But if a scientist goes and claims research results that he doesn't keep on record for N number of years -- he's opening himself right up not just on the issue of academic integrity, but on scientific integrity. We're supposed to, whenever possible, keep data, for instance, so as to answer questions of the reproducibility of results. Sometimes it happens that results can't be reproduced as reported (for instance -- we might improve our systems, and they might be better than reported -- and we may not have kept old versions) -- but should anyone ever come to me after (hypothetical) conferral -- I can go into my Word version of the thesis, click on any of the graphs -- and there are the EXACT numbers gathered, and there is the EXACT source code that generated those results. I will archive on CD the EXACT version of the software tool used to get THOSE results.

And that's how it's done. Even the data must be kept -- wherever reasonably possible -- not just the intepretation given in the dissertation/thesis. Reproducibility is as old to the scientific notion as ... well ... let's just say even Jesus did more than one miracle, now, didn't he?

So if the Irish scientist guy claimed to have written a dissertation -- and can't produce it ... I just can't see what the debate is about. That's not just bad academics. That's bad science.

(The only defense to the claim of data fudging is keeping the data. Ask Sir Cyril.)

 

Can't recall the guy's name, but I do remember the case George cites at Adelaide.

 

I've been an expert witness in two cases where the person in trouble claimed a Ph.D. from an unaccredited institution. In each case, I advised the prosecution to have the thesis/dissertation evaluated by others.

In the case of the state prison psychologist, Ph.D. from the University of England at Oxford, he delayed and delayed, and finally handed in a work that very clearly had been cobbled together between the subpoena and the trial. Plagiarism. Ineptness. And most significantly more than a few bibliographic references to works published after the degree was "awarded." He lost his license to practice (which only required an Masters, which he had), and was to be charged with theft because he received eight years of doctoral pay, which was $6,000 more than Master's pay, thus thieft of $48,000 from the people of the state.

In the case of the senior resarch executive with a medium-sized drug company with a Ph.D. from Somerset University ( degree authorization from a maildrop address in Louisiana), the long and impressive thesis title (in biochemistry) appeared on his CV. Of the five copies that allegedly existed,

* Somerset (and its copy, presumably) disappeared without a trace.
* Two of his claimed committee members are dead.
* The third could not be located.
* And of his own copy, and research materials, he testified that in the course of a very messy divorce, his ex-wife burned all of his books and papers.

It did not help his case that he testified that he had spent time on the Somerset campus, describing large modern buildings, classrooms, lecture halls, etc. I was able to offer a photo taken when I visited the umcampus at Ilminster, Somerset in the 80s. They had two small rooms in a tiny old stone building on a busy street in town. He was fired.

 

Grumble. Grumble.

Maybe his dissertation was on Proactive Transanchronism Therapy and its Effect on Man on the Moon Marigolds?

 

It appears to me that he has already failed the test. That is he has not made a significant contribution to a body of knowledge because he himself admits that it is not published and available. A significant contribution cannot be made if it is not known!

It is a reason why I believe that it is very rare that a real Ph.D. is ever earned at an unaccredited school. It is because it is rare that anything coming from an unaccredited school will have an audience. For this case it is a moot point though since he won't make his work known so it couldn't have made any contribution to the body of knowledge. Note that the "body of knowledge" must extend past his own personal body. Hey, that is my rule and I'm sticking to it.

 

I think that I disagree with that, George.

All that I know about Mr. McSweeney is what I read here. So I will take Oxpecker's word for it that the gentleman has a strong record of accomplishment in addition to his iffy doctorate. OK, so he may or may not have written a good dissertation. If his work was sound, then it probably belongs there alongside his other accomplishments.

But that's not really the issue, is it? The question isn't whether of not he's done good work, even whether or not he has done doctoral-equivalent work. The issue here is whether or not he has a good Ph.D. The problem is that it's entirely possible (if a waste of time) to do good work for a degree-mill degree, just as it's possible to do good work outside a university context entirely. Millions have.

This gentleman is scientific advisor to the Irish government. Presumably part of his duties are to advise Dublin on foreign scientific credentials and on the directions that Irish scientific education should take in the future.

If the man was 'hoodwinked', if he could be tricked into doing good work for a questionable degree, then that speaks to his judgement in precisely the matters in which he's assumed to be expert.

 

Decision on McSweeny in 2 days??

Well, Bill, looks like their decision will be in a couple of days.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1111/mcsweeneyb.html

How would you resolve the matter?

Cheers,

George

 

Well, I'm not Bill but here's an idea. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt in that I'd not fire him immediately. I'd pull a few strings and get him admitted into some reputable British university and I'd tell him that since he has previously produced a quality Doctoral thesis, he should have little difficulty in reproducing that quality thesis, under the supervision of an impeccably qualified committee, within a period of six months.
No assistance, on your own time. Do it or walk.
Jack

 

That'd basically be what we here in Canada call "constructive dismissal," which is essentially the same as firing a person. It would actually be much simpler just to fire a person than to play such games as that, for several reasons:

1. Any university that would give only 6 months to someone to complete a doctorate by research thesis would be compromising itself. I'm not saying that someone might not be able to, by some miracle, do such a thing (things happen!), but that any university that would, before the miracle occurred, make 6 months the absolute upper limit, would be putting itself in the cross hairs.

2. Writing a thesis is not just about writing a thesis. One must do significant original research for each one. Having done one in the past does not guarantee that one can do it again within some highly unrealistically compressed time limit. The chances are that any researcher, given six months to make an original contribution to the field that gets past an impeccably qualified committee is akin to asking that person to take the razor, go to the warm bath, and do the "Roman retirement". Allowing him to repeat past contributions would be akin to the committee being asked to go do the same thing.

So, effectively, what you're saying Jack -- is that you'd fire him with 6 months severance pay, but he'd have to work for you and for the university during those 6 months, too. Right? Which is like saying you'd be giving him 6 months notice, rather than just cutting the cord today, but you'd do it in such a way as to humiliate him more. Did I read you right?

 

No Quinn, that's what you're saying. It's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that if he produced a valid, quality dissertation and if that dissertation actually exists, then he should be able to reproduce that work within a short period of time. 99% of the work has already been done. Now it's just a matter of polishing.

It's hard for me to believe that the position he occupies doesn't require a real PhD. He doesn't have one. If he did he'd give it up. It's time for McSweeney to put up or shut up.

If, after refusing for weeks to hand over his doctoral research, he refused to take such a deal, I'd fire him in a heartbeat. I'm giving him a chance. If he doesn't want it then I'd be very happy to say "good-bye." It's not as if he can't be replaced.
Jack

 

By the way, it seems clear from what you're saying that you do not believe that McSweeney has a real PhD that is based on a real, quality dissertation. So do you think he should be allowed to stay in his current position, without the requisite qualifications and after having lied about having the requisite qualifications?
Jack