Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Yahoo News story

Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, according to the first large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior.
ADVERTISEMENT

More than 5 percent of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections.

Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors on published research reports.

And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.

None of those failings qualifies as outright scientific misconduct under the strict definition used by federal regulators. But they could take at least as large a toll on science as the rare, high-profile cases of clear-cut falsification, said Brian Martinson, an investigator with the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, who led the study appearing in today's issue of the journal Nature.

"The fraud cases are explosive and can be very damaging to public trust," Martinson said. "But these other kinds of things can be more corrosive to science, especially since they're so common."

Something to keep in mind when posting "proven" studies from either side of the political spectrum. ;)



Oh yeah, I'll go ahead and preempt Dave:

"Stupid red staters don't believe in none of that science stuff anyway."
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
I've been saying this for years. Modern science is greatly influenced by its grant money, be it public or private. Special interest groups want scientific validation for their agendas, and that is what they pay for. Scientists who don't provide said validation are replaced in favor of scientists who will.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Reminds me of all of the Canadian scientists coming out and basically admitting that the Kyoto Treaty was basically a sham to punish the US economic and equalize the world.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,504
6,046
126
Originally posted by: irwincur
Reminds me of all of the Canadian scientists coming out and basically admitting that the Kyoto Treaty was basically a sham to punish the US economic and equalize the world.

??
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Don't let the right get ahold of this information. They'll claim it "proves" evolution, climate change, and pretty much any other scientific theories that conflict with right-wing ideology are false.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, according to the first large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior.

Do you think these scientists' confession could could convince Bush to admit his?
 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,664
0
71
"Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors on published research reports."

LOL. Only ten percent? What, did they not survey scientists with grad students?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Topic Title: Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

More than 5 percent of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections.

Ten percent admitted they had inappropriately included their names or those of others as authors on published research reports.

And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.

The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

No one is worshipping the scientists, they aren't perfect and they sure as hell aren't gods.

 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The beauty of science is that it's falsifiable. So if you think we should doubt a study from "either side" of the political spectrum (which suggests it's social science), say PIPA, show it with a similar study. Referencing a story that says 0.3% falsified data isn't going to help.

Anyway, this study seemed to be about NIH-funded scientists. I didn't see anything about the political spectrum.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: Tab
The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

The media is terrible lately with bastardizing studies. They overreach and extrapolate far too often. An example is that study that showed being fat isn't quite as dangerous as we thought. The media translated this into, "being fat isn't bad." It's part of a larger problem of sensationalizing.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
I've been saying this for years. Modern science is greatly influenced by its grant money, be it public or private. Special interest groups want scientific validation for their agendas, and that is what they pay for.

Scientists who don't provide said validation are replaced in favor of scientists who will.

Because of the shame factor which is absent in Politics, many Scientist's that are caught lying or embelishing lose their said grants.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

man·y

1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous



Didi you follow the link and read the article? That was the title they used.


 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Tab
The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

The media is terrible lately with bastardizing studies. They overreach and extrapolate far too often. An example is that study that showed being fat isn't quite as dangerous as we thought. The media translated this into, "being fat isn't bad." It's part of a larger problem of sensationalizing.

That makes me think of a blurb from The Onion: "Scientists: Eggs good for you this week."
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

man·y

1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous



Didi you follow the link and read the article? That was the title they used.

5, 10 and 15 Percent are not large numbers, do you agree?

Did you read the article before you posted it here? Obiviously not.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
The way you guys are interpreting the numbers is simply flawed. If 10% admit to doing something ONCE (or more, didnt read the article) that does not mean that 10% are doing it ALL THE TIME. 10% / 100 published studies is 0.001.

Also, how the hell does one "satisfy the NIH?" All they care about is publishing results. Grants do not include things like, "my results will show X." Im going to have to read this article because it sounds like total sh!t.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

man·y

1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous



Didi you follow the link and read the article? That was the title they used.

5, 10 and 15 Percent are not large numbers, do you agree?

Did you read the article before you posted it here? Obiviously not.

:confused: Are 5, 10, and 15 "large" numbers? Perhaps not. (Although, if I were to say, "Hey, I heard that Tab guy has 15 venereal diseases and 15 outstanding warrants for his arrest," I think some people could argue that that was "many," don't you think?)

But anyway, can 5, 10, and 15 PERCENT represent a large number? Yes, depending on the population it is applied to.

So, if you think there are only 10 scientists in the world, then you are right - 1.5 scientists is not as large number. But if you think there are 500,000, then I will argue that, yes, 75000 is a lot of scientists.

For $DEITY'S sake, do you have nothing better to do than argue semantics here?
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Tab
Topic Title: Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

The title is a bit misleading don't you agree?

man·y

1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous



Didi you follow the link and read the article? That was the title they used.

5, 10 and 15 Percent are not large numbers, do you agree?

Did you read the article before you posted it here? Obiviously not.

:confused: Are 5, 10, and 15 "large" numbers? Perhaps not. (Although, if I were to say, "Hey, I heard that Tab guy has 15 venereal diseases and 15 outstanding warrants for his arrest," I think some people could argue that that was "many," don't you think?)

But anyway, can 5, 10, and 15 PERCENT represent a large number? Yes, depending on the population it is applied to.

So, if you think there are only 10 scientists in the world, then you are right - 1.5 scientists is not as large number. But if you think there are 500,000, then I will argue that, yes, 75000 is a lot of scientists.

For $DEITY'S sake, do you have nothing better to do than argue semantics here?

It could but do you know the number that it is?

...

You have a point... I am sorry.. :(
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

But anyway, can 5, 10, and 15 PERCENT represent a large number? Yes, depending on the population it is applied to.

So, if you think there are only 10 scientists in the world, then you are right - 1.5 scientists is not as large number. But if you think there are 500,000, then I will argue that, yes, 75000 is a lot of scientists.

For $DEITY'S sake, do you have nothing better to do than argue semantics here?

It could but do you know the number that it is?

...

You have a point... I am sorry.. :(

Hey, no problem. :beer:

 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
now if we can get them stubborn religious zealots to admit their crap, we can all sit down and have some honest conversations. ;)