How Much Scientific Research Is Actually Fraudulent?

Reason ^ | 7-9-21 | Ronald Bailey

[DeweyCA]

When people say, "Science says," remember that "science" says nothing. Scientists (many of whom are biased, greedy and deceitful) are the people who are telling us their "results." Think of all of the hoaxes in global warming and other leftist scare-mongering.

[UnwashedPeasant]

57% of statistics are fake, including this one.

[nickcarraway]

We have a reproducibility crisis in science.

It seems like the U.S. is worse than other countries, lie say Israel.

[DannyTN]

How do you know if the research into research fraud is fraudulent?

[tired&retired]

Let China steal the fake science..

[ALPAPilot]

I wonder if there is a correlation between bogus science and the leftward turn of academia. Liberals ruin everything.

[Fresh Wind]

Scientists say their quest is for knowledge. In reality, their quest is for research grants.

[jimfree]

Governments and foundations offer bounty for certain kinds of research. Schools and industry offer positions and titles. Committees offer awards. Scientists seek these things.

[AZJeep]

Scientists are as greedy as other people.
To make most money, you need to generate some scare - global warming made a lot of millionaires!
There is also a need for publications-to show you are doing anything, you need to generate publications, whatever the quality of them is.
Lot of science is totally useless. When I questioned some scientist on the value of some science (actually legit science), I got interesting answer(s):
“There are two possible answers to this question:
One is that somebody sometime in future could find an use for this. (Unlikely in this case!)
The other is that this has its internal beauty, like painting or music, and few people can delight in this.” Very few people, I would say.

[FreeperCell]

All of it is bad. All of it.

[USCG SimTech]

Cherry-picking information worked so well in the realms of politics and society why not industry, sciences, medical, everything? People are lazy and won’t research, double check. There are zero consequences for all this fraud so it will continue to amplify at a blinding pace.

[momincombatboots]

The same people who are rightly critical of climate science are in love with covid science. Show me the evidence, they say. If they only knew how evidence is manipulated. Nonetheless, no amount of truth can convince them.. their lord and savior is the government pushed vax... and the next one, and the next one. Needle kneelers... i am okay with that, but the needle pushers are just leftists.. even here on fr.

[originalbuckeye]

A lifetime ago I was working in arguably the best hospital in the country. One of the doctors in my department was making ‘great strides’ in research in the area of one type of cancer. Shortly thereafter it was found that he had faked his cell lines. He lost his job, but was still able to work (in another area of the country). He was lifetime banned from research.

I will never automatically believe research from anywhere. Especially if it goes against common sense.

[Dutch Boy]

Here is my test if science is real.

1. Is the result useful politically?
2. Is it being used politically?
3. Who does the result profit?
4. What are the goals of those that profit?

[one guy in new jersey]

Agreed.

[LambSlave]

When I did biomed research decades ago, I pointed this out many times to our senior department chairs. This does not have to involve fraudulent intent. The problem is publication bias, and we definitely saw this in several classes of drugs. We also saw bias in surgical interventions, but that is not due to publication bias.

If you do a study showing a drug has an effect, you can get that published; if you do a study showing it has no effect, you cannot. The publications only have bandwidth for so many articles per month, so they will cherry pick the "most significant" results submitted, which will not only be the ones that show something "works" but the bigger or more surprising the results the more likely to publish. If ten people at different locations do the same study, and one sees an effect, they will publish that study, the others will move on to other projects until they complete a study that is "publication" worthy, but no one will be aware of the lack of effect or be able to use this information for statistical purposes.

[Clutch Martin]

Monies for fish fart studies is non-refundable...

[metmom]

Ping

[Robert A Cook PE]

It is sobering that the “results matter” so much.
But, it is the “peer review” half of the coin that is never discussed.

Peer review takes time, LOTS of time spent “on the other guy’s research” and NOT “your own research”, right?

But, there are (now) NO REWARDS, NO RECOGNITION for “good, quality peer review”, and MUCH REWARDS for “quick” and complacent peer review, for acceptance reviews of “wanted papers” and “desired conclusions”. And MANY, MANY rewards for two other things equally troubling:

(1) Harassing and delaying or denying papers from “enemies” of your own research, or research that disturbs your field and hurts others in your field.

(2) Prompting and promoting and fast-tracking and accepting and publishing results (in your field) that DO promote your friends’ ideas, fast-tracking and casually reviewing ideas and papers that DO promote your field and PROMOTE your own (future) funding and your friend’s funding and their promotions.

Method +
Motive +
Money +
Morals +
Mistakes.
= Opportunity for Errors, Opportunity for and Seduction of the Mind.

The only person who an prevent this from happening is the 6-8-12-16 editors of the “scientific journals” who assign the people for peer-reviewing, and who accept the results of that peer-review. Good reviews, AND bad reviews. Or who selectively assign peer-review requests to squash ideas and decisions and results they (the editors) DO NOT WANT APPROVED.

SO, the solution?

Keep the peer review selection anonymous, as we do now. BUT! After acceptance and at publication, publish and praise those who peer-reviewed the paper as equally as the AUTHORS. Include them in the document, include the data in the document (perhaps not “printed” but archived at a minimum accessibly). If a reviewer does disagree with the paper - and that will happen too! - then INCLUDE the disagreement statement or action. (Probably not a full rebuttal, but as a “dissenting reviewer” at a minimum. That is, after all, how the Supreme Court cases publish their agreements, AND their dissents!)

Honor and Recognize every paper that a man or woman peer reviews as a “paper” in its own right, and include peer-review activities as valuable for promotions and pay and tenure (the real driving forces for “bureaucratic scientists and administrators anyway!)

We have seen now the way the entire peer-review process has been corrupted in the climate catastrophic anthropogenic global warming schemes: papers, industries, funding, politics, promotions, selections and labs and firings and publications. (CAGW) Editors and publication selections deliberately corrupted and peer-review (pal-review) are epidemic. And now: Biomedical, psychological (for a long time, and pharmaceutical.

[NCLaw441]

Everyone has biases as well as hope for recognition and fame. This leads to “scientific” predictions that most often do not come true. Climate science is a great example:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/