Posted on 12/20/2005 12:10:57 AM PST by neverdem
The South Korean scandal that shook the world of science last week is just one sign of a global explosion in research that is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud.
Experts say the problem is only getting worse, as research projects, and the journals that publish the findings, soar.
Science is often said to bar dishonesty and bad research with a triple safety net. The first is peer review, in which experts advise governments about what research to finance. The second is the referee system, which has journals ask reviewers to judge if manuscripts merit publication. The last is replication, whereby independent scientists see if the work holds up.
But a series of scientific scandals in the 1970's and 1980's challenged the scientific community's faith in these mechanisms to root out malfeasance. In response the United States has over the last two decades added extra protections, including new laws and government investigative bodies.
And as research around the globe has increased, most without the benefit of such safeguards, so have the cases of scientific misconduct. Most recently, suspicions have swirled around a dazzling series of cloning advances by a South Korean scientist, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.
Dr. Hwang's research made him a national hero. His team outdid rivals by claiming to have extracted stem cells from cloned human embryos and to have cloned a dog, an extraordinary feat. Some observers hailed the breakthroughs as worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Last month, critics charged that Dr. Hwang's published findings hid ethical lapses. And last week, collaborators accused the researcher of fabricating results in one of his landmark human cloning studies, published in Science last spring.
Dr. Hwang has insisted on his innocence but said he would retract the Science paper. Now questions are growing about his earlier...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
bump
It seems all three of these "guards" against disinformation are sadly lacking, and the loons on the left, the crooks in the UN greedy for control over national sovereignty, nutter groups within the UN like Greenpeace, are all pumping out disinformation as fast as they can think it up.
A good example of this is the recent "polar bears drowning swimming out to ice flows" story.
They don't swim OUT to ice flows, they swim IN from them in the spring, after spending the winter eating up as many baby seals as they can.
The TV commercial these so called "scientists" have been putting out is so blatantly wrong, it constitutes fraud. The problem is, the general public is just to stupid to realize it. After all, what does the Average American know about polar bears, wildlife near the arctic, and how the ecosystem works.
Showing a 30 second film clip of polar bears running along the ice flows as if they are trying to escape something, which the commercial claims is "global warming", is a blatant lie. They are running from so called "environmentalists"(activists) chasing them in a helicopter. That commercial is clear evidence of these activists breaking the law, as chasing wild animals in such a manner is illegal, causes them extreme stress, and probably killed them.
There is no limit these freaks won't stop at to extort money from the unknowing sympathetic public. Running down these bears with a helicopter to make a fake scare add is criminal. They should be tossed in jail for cruelty to animals, have their helicopter sold at government auction, the Greenpeace ship sunk.
But - but - scientists are above suspicion! Aren't they the new high priests, that we trust implicitly with child-like faith?
On the other hand, I haven't heard any theologians doing any retractions lately...
Quel surprise!
If there is more of any particular kind of human endeavour going on than in previous decades doesn't it stand to reason that because of that factor alone one might expect to see more examples now than then of the various misdeeds that seem inherent in the 'Human condition' in said increasing endeavours?
Why would anyone expect science to be different than any other variety of human endeavour?
It isn't done by robots afterall.
So perhaps this is simply a result of 'more scientists doing more science will predictably mean more bad scientists doing more bad science' than of any systemic fault in Science.
Is there any more fraud in science than any other field of human endeavour?
I can think of no logical reason to expect that, and scientists I know seem at least as decent as any other human occupation, if not more so :-).
But the many representations in popular media of scientists as polarized into either 'mad scientist' archetypes of evil or conversely 'selfless seekers of objective fact/truth' only serve to mystify science and scientists to the lay public and obscure that there are as many motivations and gradations of character in scientists as, well, there are scientists.
C'est la vie.
Another stupid commercial on TV lately is a Coca-Cola one, where they have penguins at the north pole, playing with polar bears.
There are no penguins at the north pole. And if there were a pack of penguins playing on the ice when a bunch of polar bears came by, they wouldn't be sharing a coke. It would be a blood bath, dead penguins all over, and the ice bloodstained all the way to open sea. They bears would stay there and feast all winter until the ice melted, then swim back to land, eat a few spring baby caraboo, then take a nap for a month or two.
Polluted Town Alarmed by Shortage of Sons
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Oh, thanks for setting the record straight. Scientists are so purely motivated that they always admit mistakes, fraud, lies, and deceit. Now I can sleep soundly.
I am so relieved that all Scientists' sole desire is to find Truth with a capital T. They care naught for money, fame, government grants, power, and any other dreck which us mere mortals (so full of fault, compared to the Scientists) fall prey to.
It's so comforting to know that I can always trust Scientists!
If you're going to mock what I say, at least mock what I said. (laugh)
My understanding of the process they talk about here isn't what it should be. But I believe referees are a component of the peer review process, not a separate safeguard. And their definition of peer review is at least lopsided, as it involved much more than what governments decide to publish.
Michael Chrichton's recent book, which is otherwise crap, has an excellent description of the corruption of science by funding mechanisms and for ideological and other reasons.
At least the Coke commercial is just a cartoon.
I enjoyed the March of the Penguins movie, but it was easy to see that this method of reproduction could only exist on a continent with no true land predators.
>>>>>>>There is no limit these freaks won't stop at>>>>>>>>
Maybe I am just a grouchy old man but double negatives reverse the meaning, this should be "there is no limit these freaks WILL stop at", this error is so common it is unnoticed now, I hear it every day on news commentary. I put it in the same category as "I can't get none".
No, actually they aren't. The scientific correction process works---it's just SLOW. The REAL problem is the speed with which NON-scientifically validated notions can be promulgated world-wide, by the "popular media" and the internet.
Actually, that's largely true. The reason "scientific fraud" gets so much media traffic is because it's UNUSUAL--of the same order as "man bites dog". In large part, scientists ARE motivated by seeking "Truth with a capital T", but, as with all human endeavors, some do a better job of it than others--who fall victim to the lure of "government grants, power, and other dreck".
Still relevant today...
Cheers!
Snarks, that's a bumper sticker, or at least a T-shirt. :-)
May I use the quote?
Cheers!
(laugh) Go for it, g_w!
Actually, scientists are as human as anyone else and they want to keep getting government (and other) funding - they only way to get this is to publish 'hysteria' research. In fact, in an article which I believe appeared in the once great 'Scientific
American'- an environmental scientist insisted they were justified in printing false results because otherwise the
'uninformed' masses wouldn't pay attention to them.
I have contact with research scientist on a regular basis. Many have very highly developed sense of their own worth as well as their intellectual and moral superiority. Many also have a barely concealed contempt for those in 'fly-over' country.
"Scientific research" is as honest as any other entirely self-monitored and self-governed group. Think about it.
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.