Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · R&D & Science · Operational decision · 2018

The professor who bragged about p-hacking — and lost 18 papers to retraction

Cornell's Food and Brand Lab director wrote a blog post celebrating data mining — it triggered 18 retractions and a $22M program lost.

Cornell University · 2018-09

What happened

Brian Wansink was a professor at Cornell University and director of its Food and Brand Lab, a research group that studied how people make food choices. His work was widely cited and became the basis for the Smarter Lunchrooms Movement, a USDA-funded program that redesigns school cafeterias to nudge children toward healthier eating. The program was implemented in over 30,000 schools with $22 million in federal funding.

In January 2017, Wansink published a blog post titled 'The Grad Student Who Never Said No' in which he described asking a graduate student to salvage results from a study that had found nothing. The student ran the data through multiple analyses and produced five publishable papers. Critics recognized this as p-hacking — running enough statistical tests until one comes back significant. Researchers began scrutinizing his work and found problems across dozens of papers, including duplicated data, impossible values, and unsupported conclusions.

Cornell initially found errors but no misconduct in April 2017. By September 2018, a deeper investigation concluded Wansink had committed scientific misconduct: data falsification, failure to preserve data, inappropriate authorship attribution, and dual publication. At least 18 papers were retracted, including 6 by JAMA and 2 by the Annals of Internal Medicine. Wansink was removed from research and teaching and resigned from Cornell effective June 2019.

Why it happened

  • Wansink built a reputation on novel food psychology findings, but the pressure to keep producing results led him to let a grad student mine null data until something significant emerged.
  • The blog post that triggered the investigation was written as a celebration of persistence — Wansink did not realize he was publicly confessing to p-hacking, which is statistical misconduct.
  • Cornell's initial investigation was shallow and failed to catch the scale of the problem, giving Wansink another year to publish before the deeper investigation found fraud.
What it cost18 papers retracted, $22M program endedcostly

The lesson

A researcher who treats null results as a data-mining opportunity will eventually be caught, and the institution that tolerated the practice pays the price in reputation and funding.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →