One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,805
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data, are less unusual than is generally assumed. “Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered,” he said.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.

In all the surveys people were asked about both their own research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under the heading “questionable practices”. These included dropping data points based on a “gut feeling” and failing to publish data that contradict one’s previous research.

The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees of anonymity.”

The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to be conservative.

Another explanation for the differences between the self-report results and colleague-report results could be that people consider themselves to be more moral than others. In a marginal case, people might characterise their colleagues’ behaviour as misconduct more readily than they would their own.

The study included scientists from a range of disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.

Source
 

<moLe>

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
2,129
sigh...if scientists (or apparent scientists) cant stick to the facts how do they expect their findings/research to attain to anything or contribute in any way to the greater good of civilization?
 

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,821
Well this is hardly new :p Think tobacco companies paying for research and then the tests come back saying that it really is safe to smoke.
 

Peder

Hobbit
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
9,359
LOL!!!! i am soo glad this came out eventually...

one of the reasons i am hesitant to believe what "scientists" have to say...
 

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,805
Well we don't need scientists to show us that certain things are what they are. Evolution is clear in plain sight.
 

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,821
G. House says:
showphoto.php
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,666
Come on w1z4rd. Say something :D

Why?.. I thought everyone was aware of this, hence the reason for peer review in science. To catch out the dodgies. Theres a lot at stake here for a lot of people and lots of money. Deadlines need to be met and grants are wanted.

Of course there is often a lot of bad data. Luckily scientists are an egotistical lot that do their best to shaft other scientists so that they "appear smarter".

The great think about the scientific method is that it can be applied to find these frauds.

I guess those people with a religious political agenda will see this as an example that science doesnt work... those of you who know better and are using your computer (a product of science), know science works fine (its just not perfect.. as humans are not perfect)... Science constantly get improved as we know and learn more.
 
Last edited:

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,666
interesting how your signature says "regularly trolled by the religiolous" i wonder why?

Yeah me as well. Whats up with that? That and honesty are the two biggest problems the religiolous (which is short for "ridiculous religious" people) have to deal with (in my personal opinion).

They seldom have a real point so when they are mute on argument they attack the personality. The more they do it, the less substance their argument holds.

Then they constantly make up stuff about you. If I had to break Aeron and your posts down bit by bit I can show you where you made up stuff about me, or what I think and where my personality is attacked. Want me to do that for you? So I can show you clearly what I am talking about?
 

Peder

Hobbit
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
9,359
Yeah me as well. Whats up with that? That and honesty are the two biggest problems the religiolous (which is short for "ridiculous religious" people) have to deal with (in my personal opinion).

They seldom have a real point so when they are mute on argument they attack the personality. The more they do it, the less substance their argument holds.

Then they constantly make up stuff about you. If I had to break Aeron and your posts down bit by bit I can show you where you made up stuff about me, or what I think and where my personality is attacked.

just like evolution is a theory... yes its a valid theory but unfortunately science has not been around long enough for it to be a FACT...

So i believe in God, i have felt him and that's a FACT (for me) maybe not for you. but constantly trying to protect yourself with snide remarks is really getting old...
 

Devill

Damned
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
26,821
Yeah me as well. Whats up with that? That and honesty are the two biggest problems the religiolous (which is short for "ridiculous religious" people) have to deal with (in my personal opinion).

They seldom have a real point so when they are mute on argument they attack the personality. The more they do it, the less substance their argument holds.

Then they constantly make up stuff about you. If I had to break Aeron and your posts down bit by bit I can show you where you made up stuff about me, or what I think and where my personality is attacked. Want me to do that for you? So I can show you clearly what I am talking about?

Ok well I must disagree. You also fail to comply to your own "Thow shalt not" - rules.

Also as soon as someone even dares to ask what qualification or even in what part of the academical world you are focused in they get a "DIEEEEEEE Infidel" speech from you....

As was the case in the stats thread when you kept telling me im wrong but you refuse to share what statistical / maths knowledge you have to justify that you know more than me about the parameters they used.

By occam's razor the simplest explanation is the truth (well 99% of the time anyway, clearly he never read some of the theories on "multiverses" and the like:p). You refuse to answer the question because you either have no knowledge or the opposing person has more knowledge than you on that subject.

What I don't understand is your willingness to ridicule religious people but as soon as one dares to do something akin to it you cry foul.

But anyway I do agree we should keep to the debate and leave the man/woman out of it.
 

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
49,666
just like evolution is a theory... yes its a valid theory but unfortunately science has not been around long enough for it to be a FACT...

You see.. this is exactly what I mean about people who know nothing about the basics of science. A theory NEVER becomes a fact Peder, a theory EXPLAINS a fact.

Fact: Apple fell
Theory: Gravity

Fact: things have evolved and do still evolve
Theory: The modern evolutionary synthesis.

Its not some kinda hierarchy tree of truthfulness or something that you have developed in your mind. Its our best explanation for something that does happen. Evolution happens wether you believe it or not.

As phronesis has pointed out over and over again in his own way. I am no genius when it comes to science, but I know enough to know you dont know the basics. How can a reasonable human take a stance on something like this without knowing the basics?



So i believe in God, i have felt him and that's a FACT (for me) maybe not for you. but constantly trying to protect yourself with snide remarks is really getting old...

I believe in God. About the snipe "snide" Nice one. 4/10
 
Last edited:

Phronesis

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
3,675
I am no genius when it comes to science, but I know enough to know you dont know the basics.
Is that so? Do you want to continue with your personal attacks and then complain about perceived personal attacks against you?

How can a reasonable human take a stance on something like this without knowing the basics?
Do you really want to tell Peder he does not know the basics? Can you really do that without getting personal and then later complain?
I think not. Rather keep your opinions about other people's understanding of basics to yourself, before you become like the people you say you don't want to be like...
 

<moLe>

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
2,129
to say the least you guys went quite of topic...scientists are just human (unfortunately) and people in general have agendas, be that commercial, religious, personal or just financial. And pretty sure every scientist has his own motivation for doing an experiment/research/analysis and so doing hope or at least wishes that his experiment proves his point (even though in theory the scientist would love to come across as neutral). And sometimes stuff just doesn't turn out in reality the way he thought he should.
The proper way to go about it when this happens whould be to stick the factual "data" derived from the "experiment", but not always the easiest. And this is where I suppose his agenda comes into play and where he the scientist might tamper with the "data" to prove his point.
Because:
No Christian want to discover god doesnt exist/
No atheist want to discover he god does exist.
no scientist working at a tobacco company wants to tell the world cigarettes are even worse for you than you already now they are.
No racist wants to discover all men are equal.
etc etc etc

and sadly thats were science fail,because no matter what we do we cant really ever get a truly neutral opinion
 

antowan

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
13,025
MOD NOTICE :::: Stick to the topics and play the ball not the man. I am getting tired of saying it. :D

Please guys.
 
Top