Posted on 06/04/2009 12:30:08 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
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
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
These included dropping data points based on a “gut feeling” and failing to publish data that contradict one’s previous research.
There’s your ‘Global Warming’ right there.
Peer Review.
for global warming whackos it is closer to 99 percent.
It does not even bear thinking about to consider what is going on in the social "sciences."
Finally, what is about to happen in the census will make Potemkin proud. It is upon this data that much of the government's plans for your life and mine will be predicated. The temptation to cook that book will be irresistible.
I bet the true numbers are even higher. “Science” these days is all about getting the next grant and advancing your political agenda.
“The temptation to cook that book will be irresistible.”
What, specifically, is the danger? Aside from gerrymandering, what can be accomplished by falsifying census data?
“I bet the true numbers are even higher.”
Snort. Way higher. And when you figure in the decisions of funding agencies and organizations...
same relationship between women and orgasms?
/sarc
They will provide data which will be used as bed rock primary source data and therefore reliable by academics and others who wish to convince the government to adjust taxes and allocate spending.
The census isn’t planned to be that nosy this time.
Just a few questions, unlike last time.
Only one in seven?
“One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data”
Follow the money trail.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2264634/posts
Yep! But even for all the rest, in my day (many decades ago) it was probably more like one in twenty for fudging data. Maybe one in ten would claim some other question about colleagues.
Science, although now largely defunct, has always been a bitch!
Okay, first, let’s get our subject straight.
You are not referring to the constitutionally mandated decennial census, but to something called the American Community Survey.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
I admit this is a new one on me, but it is true that the census itself is going to be much shorter and less invasive than in previous years.
The SF Chronicle, the only entity in history to boast less credibility than Baron von Munchhausen, says that Uncle Sam can fine you up to $5,000 if you don’t fill out this American Community Survey. I’m not going to believe that until I see some credible evidence.
We recall the screech of protest from the right when Obama announced that he was drawing the census operation into the White House. The fear, of course, was that procedure could be jiggered and that was important because of the spending which turns on the data produced by the census as well as, as you point out, redistricting.
A Fox news report of March 8, 2009 puts it this way:
The census is an official count of the country's population mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It is used to determine distribution of taxpayer money through grants and appropriations and the apportionment of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Every U.S. household unit, including those occupied by non-citizens and illegal immigrants, must be counted. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/lawmakers-concerned-role-acorn-census/)
What makes this curious is that there is a legitimate fear that Acorn will be employed in the census and they of course will operate as an arm of the Democratic Party, or more likely a brown shirt organization for Obama, and produce fraudulent results for the census as they did for the registration drives that they participated in which earned them indictments or legal problems in at least 13 states.
It becomes even more curious when one reads this article,Barney Frank--> ACORN's Public Defender (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2255648/posts) and learns that Barney Frank has been maneuvering to exempt Acorn from restrictions on receiving federal money.
This article posted today reports that plucky Michelle Bachmann has introduced legislation to prohibit Acorn from receiving money, which undoubtedly will not pass and will be spiked by Frank:Bachmann Introduces Taxpayer Protection and Anti-Fraud Act (anti-ACORN) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2265080/posts).
The back-and-forth game being played by Bachmann and Frank indicate that there are real and important stakes involved.
To someone who is as suspicious as I am of Obama's Marxist ambitions for this country, I see this as one more chess move to undo our conventional electoral process so that we ultimately it will no longer have a recognizable representative democracy.
And 72.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
What discrepancy?? More than one person can observe the same miscreant, can't they? What kind of "science" went into the analysis of this data.
On another topic: One in seven commuters saw another commuter in an accident today. But only 0.1 percent of commuters admitted to being in an accident. Gee, what a discrepancy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.