Many Scientists Admit Unethical Practices 610
jangobongo writes "A surprising number of scientists engage in questionable research practices says a story at the Washington Post. According to a large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior, 15% admit to changing a study under pressure from a funding source. Other reasons for altering data include dropping data from a study based on a gut feeling and failing to include data that contradicts one's own research. This chart gives a quick rundown of the percentage of U.S. based scientists who reported having engaged in questionable research practices according to the survey."
Fortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fortunately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. Religion never reviews its own practices, views, and procedures, and changes them. That's why Catholic masses are still spoken in Latin, women must wear hats in church, women can't be deacons or altar servers, diabetics are forced not to eat on Fridays, the church condemns homosexuality as an abberation (actually, some Christian churches do this, but Catholic Canon Law states that homosexuality is not chosen by the individual, the causes of it are unknown, and a man cannot be condemned for being something that is not of his choosing).
I'd posit that religion is much slower to change than science, but no less capable of it.
For the record, I am not a practicing religious person of any kind and generally distrust organized religion in general. I did, however, think your post was predictable backlash against what you believe to be Christian hegemony.
Re:Yay, lots of science isn't. (Score:1, Insightful)
This is not to say that it is often not reliable -- there are many social mechanisms built into scientific practice that help assure that scientists are trustworthy.
But the notion that peer review assures truth and the idea that experiments could in theory be replicated are more ideals than realities.
This is not the first study of scientists that has revealed the tremendous pressures to produce that at times cause a surprising number of them to violate what we think of as scientific norms.
Re:Already covered (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not as simple as that. Many research actually are reproducible. However, in most cases, they only show specific datasets that highlight of their research without mentioning that for other datasets the result of their research would be abysmal.
Another common misuse is that they handwave intermediary processes so that it's completely impossible to duplicate. The scientists have the alibi for the limit on the number of pages imposed by the scientific journal.
Both of these need an immediate attention.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
white house response (Score:2, Insightful)
What are the odds that the Republicans are going to use this report to try to smear scientists even more than they have?
Although if you look at the original Nature article...
...it actually sounds an awful lot like the Bush White House [bbc.co.uk].
Re:Fortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike religion? How can somebody on the side of science feel comfortable making statements about something they only have vague stereotypical impressions of?
Re:government pressured unethical scientific behav (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree that the current administration appears to be most guilty of fudging numbers, I seriously doubt that they originated it or that previous administrations didn't fudge numbers elsewhere.
Changing a study is not necessarily unethical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, science is by nature self-correcting, but when the errors are endemically embedded in the existing systems it can take a lot of time and convict a lot of Gallileos before it gets around to it.
In the meantime time, money and even lives are lost over bullcrap.
The practice of "science," as she is spoke, has become just another job undertaken by people who happened to go for a science degree instead of an MBA or joining the plumbers union.
I have come to empathize with Heinlein, who, through the mouth of Lazarus Long, said something along the lines of "I stopped calling myself doctor when they started handing out PhDs to anyone."
KFG
Re:I for one (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism (Score:4, Insightful)
A century ago, virtually all christian sects had no problem with the scientific conclusion that the Earth is several billion years old.
Starting in the 1960s, and just reaching a fever pitch, we have millions of christians who swear that their bible/religion/church says that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Sure, religion changes all the time. It's just that science generally changes in response to *evidence*. Religion changes in response to someone's agenda.
Re:Scientists of course deny this... (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I'm not a big fan of scientists who don't make a stand. If the most educated of us won't cry foul when something is wrong, who will?
Re:government pressured unethical scientific behav (Score:3, Insightful)
Here in Canada it was all over the news... The white house changed the wording of scientific research to make it sound like there was a great doubt on the climate change and its link to human activity.
I guess that would confirm the affirmation "encouraged by the Bush Administration"
Re:Fortunately... (Score:2, Insightful)
The cause of cancer is a coverup. (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe this article would shed some light [preventcancer.com] on how the plastics and pesticide industry owns the media and covers it up. They actually control the American Cancer Society which they use skillfully use to control anything that might hurt business.
We know the cause of cancer. More here on cause of breast cancer and organochlorides. [fwhc.org] We just can't stop the industry that owns our government.
One more link on the frontline investigation that industry tried to stop on pestcide effects on children. [cjog.net]
Re:The study used loaded questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:government pressured unethical scientific behav (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at the various reactions to studies that show different ethnic groups, nationalities, and other genetically-similar categories of people (including men vs. women) have different intelligence distributions. The less-controversial results are the ones that say "Men are better at this type of abstract task, women are better at this other type of brain use," and even these get attacked by people who simply don't want to believe that their could be built-in differences.
And then you have "The Bell Curve" and similar studies. That specific study is questionable (not wrong, but it has issues), but other studies have repeatedly confirmed that different ethnicities can have markedly differing average IQs. The differences are statistically significant (meaning that they're not attributable to mere chance), though they're probably not practically all that significant. And it's not like saying "I'm Chinese, you're African, therefore I'm smarter than you," it's just saying that Chinese people tend to be smarter.
Strangely enough, the Left attacks these results bulldog-style. And most of the attacks aren't about the methodology, or the validity of the results. Most of the attacks seem to be "How could you possibly say such a thing?" It's like the reactions to Kinsey's sexuality studies: people base their values on assumed truths about the world, and when careful study reveals that the assumptions are false, people don't want to discard the basis of their value systems.
The point is, ANYbody, regardless of politics, can fall victim to resisting the truth because it's intellectually convenient to do so. Don't just blame the Bushies.
Re:Yay, lots of science isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a graduate student, I feel pressure from my advisor to not mention discrepant data or those conclusions/questions which detract from my overall hypotheses. It is unfortunate that such should occur, but I can see why it does happen. People want to be proven correct. If they set out to prove a hypothesis with a scientific experiment, and then after a few months or years of research, they discover that the evidence points against their hypothesis or that the method which they employed doesn't provide a conclusive solution, it can be tempting to 'throw out' some data. After all, they put in all of that effort, and they want their recognition. Usually, it means more papers, which oftentimes means more notoriety, job security, money, etc.
I'm not justifying this behavior because science should be done for the sake of understanding nature, not for making a paycheck, but I see where these scientists might be coming from.
Re:I've got one thing going for me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about South American, European, Asian, ... (Score:1, Insightful)
for instance, in the UK we have research councils that give funding (to much public criticism) rather blindly, and do not follow the work with an eye to receiving an expected outcome
organisations like the EPSRC don't offer problems, they offer money and you offer the problem
i believe this goes some way to removing the pressure to cheat
Robert Anton Wilson, Prometheus Rising, chapter 1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Science achieves, or approximates, objectivity not because the individual scientist is immune from the psychological laws that govern the rest of us, but because scientific method--a group creation--eventually overrides individual prejudices, in the long run.
linky [amazon.com]
Re:The cause of cancer is a coverup. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/48/3/739 [ajcn.org]
Be clunt (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's be blunt...
There are too many stupid people in university and from that pool graduate students are selected. Often ambitious, but not too bright, undergrads ingratiate themselves to faculty who for any number of reasons enlist these students within their labs. It ranges from needing a free RA to having a good looking girl in the lab. In the end these students are provided glowing letters of reference without ever being challenged to think and produce.
Further faculty suffer the same personality defects found in the population - laziness, indifference, self-absorbed, and so on. All of these contribute to the the large percentage of PhDs without a clue. -- I firmly believe students should also be weighed on their apparent ethical stance. Toss them if they are loose with the rules.
That said, the average PhD is in fact smarter and for the many that slave over their research we are indebted. Take a look at the technologies and discoveries that make your life better - or the services rendered (as a whole). The reason places like Google seek the highly educated is because it is a reasonable filter to begin the selection of the best. (Yes, many will be missed because they chose to leave after an undergrad degree.)
To continue those not so bright with perhaps less than honourable personalities will engage in the same level of deceit found in the population. This includes unethical research practices to further personal agendas or they simply don't have the skills to do research.
Another source of extremely bad and dishonest science is the medical community. Too often medical students are selected based on personality and appearance rather than the ability to think. These are self-promoters who often continue as researchers or pretend researchers who attach their names to papers because of participation in clinical trials.
Society as a whole accepts and even praises a system based on other than merit (e.g., the MDs).
Re:The cause of cancer is a coverup. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even those studies may be flawed if they didn't check for toxins in the fish or animal meat. [allenpress.com]
These organochlorines do NOT decompose and accumulate in the breast area.
It explains everything. The plastics and pesticide industry are very corrupt just like cigarette industry.
Re:Creationism (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent "Earth is only 6000 years old" movement really needs a better name, because while it's tied to creationism, it isn't exactly the same thing. The fundies started up with the insistence on 6000 years simply because it pretty much dismisses the possibility of any evolutionary processes. By the 60s, with the overwhelming majority of science pointing to evolutionary theory as correct, they needed *something* as evidence against it.
But you're right, by the proper definition of the word, creationism has been around for a long, long time. We really need a term to separate the two. Ussherism, named for the bishop who originally calculated the 6000 years back in the 17th century?
(And no, I didn't see the movie. Maybe it's an American thing only? Got a link?
Re:government pressured unethical scientific behav (Score:4, Insightful)
Its the Sudo corrupt people who find it acceptable , those who are unwilling to change and only wish to have their world vies justified . This is not an issue of Right vs. left but Right(as in correct) vs. wrong.
15% wrong - not bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The cause of cancer is a coverup. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, jeez. Stop it already! The voters own the gov't! Quit trying to pass the buck. If all you're going to do is view spoon fed info and vote for for the major party, then you don't deserve to have a democracy(democratic republic to you nit pickers). Is this continued voter ignorance just another attempt to avoid responsibility for the actions of the people YOU voted for? If all of you can divert your attention away from American Idol or whatever for ten minutes, you might find that you can own the media also. The cause of your mis-fortunes is completely self contained within your own cranium. Accept it. Them move on to step 2.
Re:Yay, lots of science isn't. (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone knows there are mistakes in science. People make mistakes. As long as there are lots of eyeballs someone will find it out.
I have reviewed papers and usually it is hard to understand everything the person is putting forth.
Peer review at the journal boundary is not exhaustive; nor should it be.
Re:The cause of cancer is a coverup. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is my vote the equal of some lobbyist for a megacorporation donating big $$$ ?
Re:http://www.phrma.org/ (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The cause of cancer is a coverup. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact is, you're gonna die of something. In my opinion, cancer is a natural cause of death. Now, it may be abberant concerning the human system, but I wouldn't go and say it is unnatural. I do acknowledge that there are environmemtal factors that will increase the likely hood of developing cancer, but I just don't feel comfortable with out human definitions of what is and isn't natural.
If it exists, it seems to be natural, because it exists in nature. Even if it is an environment that we transformed around us. Ant's build anthills, and we consider that nature, yet our own houses are not considered in the same light.Re:The study used loaded questions (Score:3, Insightful)
It is perfectly legitimate to toss out data in the early stages when you are working the bugs out of an experimental method. But you have to toss all of it, not just the part you don't like. But at some point, you have to decide to "go live." After that, you have to keep all of the data unless a control fails. You can't pick and choose data based on the result that bears on the question that you are asking, but you can have "quality control" measures that are independent of the main question. But the rule has to be absolute. If the control fails, you have to throw out the data whether or not the results agree with your expectations.
One often-overlooked source of bias is going back and double-checking procedures when the results turn out "wrong." It can be very tempting to throw out the data if you find a mistake. The problem is that you don't double-check when you like the results, so you miss the errors that appear to support your hypothesis.