It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Scientists At Large Admit of Fabricating Data, Other Forms of Misconduct

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Many scientists have reported questionable research practices according to a study conducted by the University of Minnesota and a Minneapolis research foundation. The study, appearing in the journal Nature, questioned some 1,768 mid-career scientists and 1,479 scientists early in their career. The study concluded that the research practices of such scientists are a grave threat to the science world. The top two reported forms of misconduct are changing a study under pressure from a funding source (15.5%) and dropping data on an analysis because of a "gut feeling" (15.3%). A run-down of the data can be found from the Washington Post link.
 



www.baltimoresun.com
The scientists had all received National Institutes of Health funding but were not NIH employees. Their names, which were withheld, were culled randomly from NIH databases.

The 2002 survey was funded by the NIH and supported by the federal Office of Research Integrity, which investigates scientists accused of research fraud and can bar them from receiving federal funds.

"Our evidence suggests that mundane 'regular' misbehaviors present greater threats to the scientific enterprise than those caused by high-profile cases such as fraud," the authors wrote. They speculated that intense competition among scientists to attract grants and publish in prestigious journals, among other things, might be the problems.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


We place a lot of trust upon scientists, governmental officials, and corporations on giving us truth. But, this trust is essentially blind, with our lives and future dependent on research being conducted. I remember a story being reported on ATS not too long ago about the project leader for a Taser safety study leaving since he was the head scientist for the Taser manufacturer! I can't stress enough that in today's time, in the so-called information age, a healthy amount of skepticism is necessary even from the most trusted news sources.

You don't know these people, have you ever talked to the president personally, how about the science board of the NIH? We don't know their desires, their "gut feelings", we know essentially nothing about them except for what they want us to know.

Even schools aren't safe:

In May, for example, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that found that about half of 107 U.S. medical schools surveyed would let companies that sponsor academic research draft resulting articles that appear in medical journals.


I've seen a lot of peope rely on news sources for "evidence" of their thought and beliefs about the world. Question yourself about why you believe what you do. Where does this belief come from? What might be the reason for your source saying what they do? Do expect the head of a Taser safety study to report that Taser's often kill people even though he is the head scientist for the manufacturer? These are the kinds of questions people should be asking themself, whatever story you may read, even this one.

Trust yourself, your senses and your analytical thinking.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
www.azcentral.com




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I understand the term 'scientists' comes up much in the source but this study is based on those working in the HealthCare field only. It is common knowledge that pharmaciticul companies are 'aggressive' in their marketing and devolopment approach. It is not indicative or related to 'scientists' as a whole.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   


I understand the term 'scientists' comes up much in the source but this study is based on those working in the HealthCare field only.


I'm the author of the article, and I thought I read over everything carefully.

Where in one of the 3 articles does it say it's only in the HealthCare field? And even if it is only those in the pharmaceutical field, does this make it excusable?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Jamuhn



The scientists had all received National Institutes of Health funding but were not NIH employees. Their names, which were withheld, were culled randomly from NIH databases.
from the news source.

No cosmologists there, I wasnt knocking the peice I just dont feel It represents a true sample of 'scientists' only Those on the NIH database.

Regards Elf

[edit on 13-6-2005 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
...I just dont feel It represents a true sample of 'scientists' only Those on the NIH database.


Oh, I see, I didn't make that connection. But the NIH still represents a large portion of fields of research.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Asking reasearchers to 'spin' data in all fields is common place. I worked as an survey archeologist and was fequently asked ot falisfy data so the project [pipline] could meet its schedule. Money talks, BS walks. Corprate power rules the research/academic sector as thorughly as it rules the political world. That's the way it is and I don't see ANYBODY standing up to the status quo. The only time REAL research is condoned is when it ultimately benefits the corps.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
You can also add to the list all of the Scientists who spun so well the numbrs to demonstrate that smoking tobacco was not only not harmful but in some studies were actually good for you. They did this for over 50 years.
Here is another one. Some of you may remember the statistics that wee used to "prove" that slower speed limits would lower fuel emmisions. This lead the country into enforcing a 55mph speed limit throughout the country. Problem.... They forgot to add that the slower speed limits caused the vehicles to be in the same area for longer times thus poluting the air more than was done previously.
Saying that scientists do not spin data is not something that is new. Scientists and doctors are not the only ones. For every statistic out there. A person can take the same exact data and prove the exact opposites are true. It just depends on how you massage the numbers.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
so, now you gotta wonder. Are the "for" global warming guys spinning data? How about the "against" global warming guys? How much of the environmental movement is buoyed by manipulated data that didn't fit "gut" instincts of "feelings"?

Might be a good idea to keep that in mind when going over another news topic on here about data being "spun" to disprove global warming by oil company representatives.

For every side that spins something you don't believe in, you must understand there is spin on the side you believe in as well. Money or politics, the two things that fund or promote research, are the two things that must *never* be allowed to influence it.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Kenshiro
And what about the scientists who tried and tried to give animals cancer by making them inhale smoke, but couldn't succeed? Don't forget them in your eagerness to reinforce one of the tightest pieces of government spin in American history.

Smoking isn't nearly as bad for you as some would have you believe. It's still bad for you, but so is breathing the air, drinking the water, and eating the food. We live on a poisoned planet. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Rarr rarr.




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Thanks for the reminder



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join