Scandal Rocks Scientific Community (Bell Labs)

DW-WORLD.DE ^ | 9-30-02 | Science & Technolocy report

[madfly]

FYI

[Sgt_Schultze]

Will the newfound allegiance to proof apply to the global warming debate?

[ER_in_OC,CA]

I am absolutely shocked, SHOCKED, S-H-O-C-K-E-D to hear that scientists are tweaking data, building presumptouous conclusions, etc.

After all, if an article is "peer reviewed" and published in major scientific journals, then it MUST be true.

How many papers in these journals have falsehoods in them that aren't yet discovered?

[Spirited]

"How many papers in these journals have falsehoods in them that aren't yet discovered?"

Or if the scientists are as "favored" as Clinton was, covered up.

[thinktwice]

There's also a Nobel prize winning ozone-hole environmental scientist with data that looks fishy, too.

[Aquinasfan]

Schön’s work, published in renowned scientific journals like Science and Nature, was ground-breaking and quickly catapulted the physicist into the top tier of his field. Almost overnight he became a favored nominee for the Nobel prize.

Golly, his work was peer reviewed and everything. The strange thing is that when evidence like "peppered moths," "finch beak variation," and "Haeckel's embryos" are debunked as evolutionary evidence, the hypothesis of evolution continues to be presented as scientific fact and these evidences are perpetuated as textbook orthodoxy.

[DrDavid]

There's also a Nobel prize winning ozone-hole environmental scientist with data that looks fishy, too.

The 1995 Nobel prize for Chemistry was for a theory about how CFC's (Freon and its replacements!) might be able to break down Ozone.

[Orual]

When a researcher is able to publish at such a prolific rate with the near awe-struck reverence of the entire physics community and no one stops to question his experiments, it throws a negative light on the reputation of objective scientific inquiry.

Even with the publish-or-perish mentality of scientists today it is amazing that he got away with it for so long and that there were only "a few inquisitive researchers" who attempted to duplicate his results and failed.

[robertpaulsen]

Whatever happened to cold fusion?

[struwwelpeter]

I have to admit I made various mistakes... which I deeply regret

WHERE have I heard this before?

[FreedomPoster]

Good for Bell Labs. Emory University should get on the stick and fire Michael Bellesiles for making up his research, instead of continuing to hem and haw.

[RightWhale]

A further problem is with his co-authors and the ways co-authors become co-authors.

[DoctorMichael]

His career is over. No one will ever hire him if they can't believe his work.

I hope he knows how to flip hamburgs or that the fuzzy end of the mop goes down, against the floor.

[FreedomPoster]

Bellesiles articles on FreeRepublic.com

[LA-Lawyer]

Wonder if Shon is a Democrat. Seems to be able to use Dem-playbooks like a pro.

[TopQuark]

I am absolutely shocked, SHOCKED, S-H-O-C-K-E-D to hear that scientists are tweaking data, building presumptouous conclusions, etc. Your statement is false and betrays wishful ignorance. Scientists (note plural) are not tweaking data: only one of them did, and he is no longer a scientist.

After all, if an article is "peer reviewed" and published in major scientific journals, then it MUST be true. No one but you has ever claimed that.

How many papers in these journals have falsehoods in them that aren't yet discovered? The question is not whether there are falsehoods but, in this context, whether these falsehoods were placed their knowingly. The answer is very few, if any, remaining.

YOu are defaming the character of the whole community, bearing false witness. That's not nice at all, didn't yout mother, as well as pastor/priest/rabbi tell you so?

[ER_in_OC,CA]

Top quark writes: Your statement is false and betrays wishful ignorance. Scientists (note plural) are not tweaking data: only one of them did, and he is no longer a scientist.

Only "one" of them did? So -- If I can give you more examples of scientists publishing fraudulent peer-reviewed articles, then I've disproven your claim and you'll post a retraction? Please reply to this.

Also, I did nothing to defame a "whole community." I only posted a sarcastic remark. The real defamation is being done by those who publish false data and those "peer-reviewers" and "research partners" who sign their names onto projects without participating.

[RightWhale]

"research partners" who sign their names onto projects without participating.

There is discussion in the sciientific community of tightening rules for listing co-authors. The process would have to be more than automatically adding the name of the chief scientist at the laboratory and the guy down the hall who loaned a spectrophotometer.

[omega4412]

The scientific community cleaned up this mess in two years -- two years from the start of the experiments, not two years from the first suspicions. And the perp is discredited -- he'd better start rehearsing "Would you like fries with that?" or "Mochten Sie auch Pommes frites?"

I wish the pols could clean up their deceptions half as fast.