PDA

View Full Version : One In Seven Scientists Fake Data (Lowball Figure).



Gingersnap
06-05-2009, 03:22 PM
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

Hannah Devlin

Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data, are less unusual than is generally assumed. “Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered,” he said.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.

In all the surveys people were asked about both their own research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under the heading “questionable practices”. These included dropping data points based on a “gut feeling” and failing to publish data that contradict one’s previous research.

(snip)

The study included scientists from a range of disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.

These figures are low - very low. I'd love to see the actual break-out across disciplines. No matter what the data says, however, I know that academic researchers in the soft sciences have to be at the top of the list.

Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6425036.ece)

Teetop
06-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Global warming/climate change come to mind....

PoliCon
06-05-2009, 03:36 PM
by soft sciences - do you include climate change as science? ;)

Gingersnap
06-05-2009, 03:57 PM
by soft sciences - do you include climate change as science? ;)

Climate change isn't a discipline - it's an ideology. But I was actually thinking more along the lines of the social sciences, pedagogy, and psychology.

FlaGator
06-05-2009, 04:47 PM
Climate change isn't a discipline - it's an ideology. But I was actually thinking more along the lines of the social sciences, pedagogy, and psychology.

Political science is still ok isn't it?

Gingersnap
06-05-2009, 04:51 PM
Political science is still ok isn't it?

If you thinking clapping your hands makes Tinkerbelle feel better, then yes. :D