Harvard Professor Francesca Gino earned $1 million studying honesty and then got fired for faking data – Times of India

For years, Francesca Gino was a rising star in the world of behavioral science. As a professor at Harvard Business School, she earned accolades for her research on honesty, ethics, and human behavior. She also earned something else: One of the highest paychecks at one of the world’s most prestigious universities. Between 2018 and 2019, Gino pulled in a staggering $1 million annually—making her the fifth-highest-paid employee at Harvard, and placing her well above many of her academic peers in both compensation and visibility.But in a twist worthy of her own research subjects, Gino’s celebrated career unraveled in a very public and dramatic way. In 2023, Harvard fired her following an investigation that concluded she had manipulated data in at least four published studies. Along with the termination, the university took the rare step of revoking her tenure—something not done at Harvard since the 1940s.This episode has become more than just a personal scandal. It has ignited broader questions about how elite institutions reward influence, what kind of behavior gets overlooked when prestige is at stake, and whether academia’s pursuit of reputation is increasingly coming at the cost of integrity.

A million-dollar scandal

Gino’s downfall began with a now-retracted study she co-authored in 2012. The research suggested that having individuals sign an honesty pledge at the beginning of a form—rather than the end—increased truthful responses. Initially celebrated, the study came under scrutiny in 2021 for alleged data irregularities. That same year, it was retracted.But the deeper damage was yet to come. A series of posts by the blog Data Colada, run by three behavioral scientists, accused Gino of data manipulation in multiple papers. These allegations were based on detailed statistical analyses of her published work, including tampering in datasets that seemed too clean, too perfect to be true.Harvard launched an extensive internal investigation, which spanned nearly two years. The university reviewed raw data, email communications, and manuscripts, and even brought in a forensic firm for additional analysis. The conclusion was damning: Gino had allegedly altered data in a way that ensured her hypotheses looked more convincing than they truly were.Though Gino denied wrongdoing—claiming on her personal site that she did not commit academic fraud and had not manipulated results intentionally—Harvard moved forward with her dismissal.

The price of prestige

Gino’s case shines a light on a tension that has long simmered beneath the surface of elite academia: the reward systems that elevate visibility, citations, and publication frequency over slower, more verifiable work. Her seven-figure salary wasn’t an anomaly in the Ivy League bubble—it was a signal of how much Harvard valued her visibility, media presence, and ability to attract attention to her research.As universities compete for global rankings, funding, and top-tier talent, star professors like Gino are often granted leeway and resources others can only dream of. But that same prestige-driven environment may create conditions where ethical shortcuts are more likely. The incentives are clear: bold claims and “publishable” results tend to be rewarded, even when the underlying science is fragile.Moreover, the fallout raises concerns about oversight. How did so many papers with manipulated data pass peer review? Why were red flags ignored until external whistleblowers got involved? And to what extent are other highly-compensated figures operating in similarly unchecked environments?

Whistleblowers, lawsuits, and legacy

After her firing, Gino responded by filing a $25 million lawsuit against Harvard, Business School Dean Srikant Datar, and the Data Colada bloggers. She alleged defamation and claimed the allegations were damaging her career and reputation. However, in September, a federal judge in Boston dismissed the case. The court ruled that as a public figure, her academic work was subject to scrutiny and protected under the First Amendment.While the legal chapter may be closed, the impact of Gino’s scandal continues to ripple through academic circles. Her case has become a lightning rod for conversations about reform—whether it’s greater data transparency, more rigorous replication requirements, or reassessing how and why universities allocate prestige and financial reward.