Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Survey: Scientific Misbehavior Is Common
Yahoo! News ^ | June 8, 2005 | MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer

Posted on 06/08/2005 1:55:46 PM PDT by mlc9852

NEW YORK - It's not the stuff of headlines, like fraud. But more mundane misbehavior by scientists is common enough that it may pose an even greater threat to the integrity of science, a new report asserts.

One-third of scientists surveyed said that within the previous three years, they'd engaged in at least one practice that would probably get them into trouble, the report said. Examples included circumventing minor aspects of rules for doing research on people and overlooking a colleague's use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: behavior; scientificfraud; scientists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

1 posted on 06/08/2005 1:55:47 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Can you say Global Warming?
2 posted on 06/08/2005 2:00:53 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws spawned the runaway federal health care monopoly and fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Sounds like a lot of scientists are throwing rocks in glass houses when they criticize creationists!


3 posted on 06/08/2005 2:03:11 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

*\ enlargement pills?


4 posted on 06/08/2005 2:06:18 PM PDT by sure_fine (*not one to over kill the thought process*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Sounds like a lot of scientists are throwing rocks in glass houses when they criticize creationists!

You have to do research before you can mess it up.

5 posted on 06/08/2005 2:07:45 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

lol that's the first thing that came to my mind.


6 posted on 06/08/2005 2:12:52 PM PDT by Nyboe (From God we receive both our freedom and morality. A Godless society will have neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

bttt


7 posted on 06/08/2005 2:14:21 PM PDT by trisham ("Live Free or Die," General John Stark, July 31, 1809)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

How about "Pepper Moth"?


8 posted on 06/08/2005 2:18:00 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Since they interviewed the scientists themselves rather than discovering it empirically, I would not take much stock in the results. Human nature is such that most will not admit making such mistakes.


9 posted on 06/08/2005 2:23:52 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

That's funny...pity the poor scientists not doing the research on creationism before they actually criticize it!


10 posted on 06/08/2005 2:33:40 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sure_fine
But...This guy swore they worked!


11 posted on 06/08/2005 2:36:23 PM PDT by LexBaird ("Democracy can withstand anything but democrats" --Jubal Harshaw (RA Heinlein))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
not doing the research on creationism

How would such research be conducted?

12 posted on 06/08/2005 2:38:16 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Actually those numbers look pretty good to me.

Last I heard, we don't get fitted for halos upon being awarded a PhD.

That's why scientific papers are required to be very specific...the labs at Harvard get a chance to double check Stanford's work. Any experimental process has to work the same way in my lab as in yours. Predicions have to be published.

A mistake may get a (sort of) pass if immediately acknowledged. Indications of deliberate distortions can end a career.


13 posted on 06/08/2005 2:47:26 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; All

By making up the data of course, as the article stated! Sounds like corruption has entered even into the Elysian fields of science....it's one thing if you question the 'honesty' of creationist scientists...but now you can't even trust the ethical atheism of the practitioners of the "New Way" known as the scientific method!(sarcasm on)

Well I guess its back to feathers, incense, or to the bowing down before little black meteorites! (just be mindful of who is behind you)


14 posted on 06/08/2005 2:48:31 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Ain't Misbehavin'
By Louis Armstrong

No one to talk to ....all by myself
No one to walk with.....I’m happy on the shelf
Ain’t misbehavin’......savin’ all my love for you

I know for certain......the one I love
I’m through with flirtin’......it’s just you that I’ve been thinkin’ of
Ain’t misbehavin’.......savin’ all my love for you

Like jack horner.....in that ole corner
Don’t go nowhere.....what do I care?
Your kisses are worth waitin’ for......believe me

I don’t stay out late.......no where to go
I’m home about eight......just me and my radio
Ain’t misbehavin’.......savin’ all my love for you

(instrumental break)

Like jack horner.....in that ole corner
Don’t go nowhere.....what do I care?
Your kisses are worth waitin’ for......believe me

I don’t stay out late.......no where to go
I’m home about eight......just me and my radio
Ain’t misbehavin’.......savin’ all my love for you

Ain’t misbehavin’......I’m savin all my love for you


15 posted on 06/08/2005 2:50:50 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
question the 'honesty' of creationist scientists

Maybe we should, if we find one.

16 posted on 06/08/2005 2:50:56 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; All

Well since we can't trust the veracity of established scientists in maintaining the integrity of reason and logic amongst their own members...we can't even trust them to define what a scientist truly is now can we?


17 posted on 06/08/2005 2:56:42 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; bondserv; GrandEagle; ...
ping


Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info

18 posted on 06/08/2005 3:00:29 PM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Scientists constantly circle each other like sharks, waiting for a sign of weakness. A piece of bad logic would bring them all in for the kill. A piece of bad math would bring in mathematicians as well, and they are even more predatory. They are not working together even if they appear to be working in the same direction.


19 posted on 06/08/2005 3:01:34 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
since we can't trust

This is funny. We, for the most part, don't have the ability to pass judgement on scientists. It takes math; if you don't have math you can't even speak science.

20 posted on 06/08/2005 3:04:38 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson