One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

www.timesonline.co.uk

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 sourc

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.freerepublic.com
www.thefoxnation.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Embryonic stem cell cloning scientist admits fakery
MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism

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.

The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees of anonymity.”

It's time scientists started biting the hands that feed them. Because the hands that are feeding us are giving us rat poison.

Science is the last vestige of hope for providing accurate data. If we can't trust them for integrity in data, then who can we trust?

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

IMO the worst fields are: Global Warming, Vaccines and Pharmaceuticals.

Other than that I think most fields are way better than those three. Those three are complete frauds most of the time.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
IMO the worst fields are: Global Warming, Vaccines and Pharmaceuticals.

Other than that I think most fields are way better than those three. Those three are complete frauds most of the time.

I spent a few years doing 'fundamental research' in the transportation sector at a major America university and I can tell you what happened to all the 'outliers' in our field data : we just 'threw it away' ...

If there was a data point 'out in left field' it was just ignored.

This practice led to graphs, charts, and other presentations looking nice and pretty for our quarterly reports to the funding agencies - typically the US government ...

My own opinion is that this approach is the rule rather than the exception ...

Originally posted by Vitchilo
IMO the worst fields are: Global Warming, Vaccines and Pharmaceuticals.

Indeedy.

Pharmaceutical corporations - Profit Vs human health:
www.youtube.com...


OP Great thread






[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

You kind of have to figure that this was comming, with scientist say one thing and another group say another thing. No wonder we are so stupid and hell bent on destroying are selves.

research is a major revenue source for our higher educational system. The institution is overflowing with cronyism, fraud, and even conspiracy.

Many academicians seek research opportunities simply to enable them to either:

a - line their pockets with loot
b - garner political relevance for their future career ambitions
c - serve corporate masters who promise them a 'stable' future

By no means is the true researcher an extinct species..., but they ARE working on it.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Agreed for the most part. But how can we forget the distortions of NIST regarding 9/11, and as well- the reports from the EPA on the supposed safety of the air in NYC in the weeks following?

So not only do they have to control the media, but they have to infiltrate science too? Man!

This honestly wouldn' surprize me that they are faking or covering up stuff in science. Isn't that what everyon on this site knows already?

S&F

Nope. It's not new. And it's NOT only dealers from Big Pharma doing it.

Here's a blast from the past, circa 2004:

U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

More than 200 biologists and other researchers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirm that they have been directed to alter their official scientific findings, says a survey released last week. The scientists say business interests apply political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions that might interfere with profits, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies.

U.S. Charged With Silencing Scientists

The U.S. government is making it harder for scientists to speak to their global colleagues and restricting who can attend an upcoming major AIDS conference, a congressman charged.

Rep. Henry Waxman said he has a letter showing that the Health and Human Services Department has imposed new limits on who may speak to the World Health Organization.

Fighting for integrity. Scientists Dismayed at Corporate Influence, Politicization of Science

"Whether they are studying global warming, environmental toxins, or workplace safety, scientists who find their research unjustifiably shunned or suppressed face similar challenges from corporate and special interests, said (CSPI Integrity in Science project director) Merrill Goozner.

...Baird also took the scientific community to task for failing to respond to the suppression of science (and contended that) scientists ... must "stand up for the democratic process itself."

...An April 2004 General Accounting Office report titled "Federal Advisory Committees: Additional Guidance Could Help Agencies Better Ensure Independence and Balance" ...said some departments have appointed members of industry and stakeholder groups, persons who are exempt from conflict-of-interest rules. Industry leaders may therefore theoretically be profiting from their own advice."

Thanks much sofi for bringing in those stories to further confirm "what we on this site already knew." lol

Is there any organization that you know of that ethics-minded scientists have started to counter this viral infection of politics and business interest in the scientific community?

Scientists at the FDA Revolt Against its Corruption

www.grassrootsnetroots.org...

I wouldn't be surprised one day to find one of these intimidated scientists showing up at work and going Columbine on a few of the top FDA officials who are the masterminds behind these crimes against humanity. If that happens, perhaps the saying, "Going Postal" will be updated as, "Going FDA."

Because if there's anyone with a justified reason to be violently angry at their bosses, it's gotta be this group of intimidated scientists who are trying to save people's lives by making FDA approvals based on solid science. Instead, they're being routinely overruled by politics and Big Pharma deception, which they know will result in the loss of human life as consumers are harmed or killed by dangerous medical devices and pharmaceuticals.

How would you like to work at a company with a crime boss, knowing your boss is a white-collar criminal whose decisions are going to get people killed? That's the reality these FDA scientists live with every day! And they're tired of it. They're beginning to revolt...

It was J. Allen Hynek who once said "Science is not always what scientists do".

Commercial interests are only one factor in scientific fraud: I think you will find political and ideological conflicts also make a large part of of it as well. Science is not a neutral area, it is a minefield. Thus, scientific data should be treated as one part of a greater mystery or puzzle, not as the answer. Scientific data should be used and balanced with common sense, experience, as well as many other things.

Does anybody remember the scientists who lost their jobs, and or their funding because they were casting doubts on the Global Warming hoax?

Even scientists who were part of the IPCC have spoken out and stated that the science behind such topics as Climate Change/Global Warming has become politicized.

One of the scientists who renounced his position as a member of the IPCC because of this fact was Christopher Landsea.

I know this is wikipedia, but that was the first link to appear in my search, and right now I can't spent a lot of time researching.

In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.[2] Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: "global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent". He strongly questions the accuracy of the historical global hurricane database for comparisons with current observations, citing an uncounted, catastrophic 1970 storm as an example.[3] According to agency emails gathered by Salon and later released by Rep. Henry Waxman, Republican administrators chose Landsea over another scientist in the NOAA to speak to the media about the link between hurricanes and climate change after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.[4][5]

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 4-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Heh, funny:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have never believed that humans were the sole cause, if at all, of global warming....

[edit on Thu Jun 4th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

And lets not forget the tobacco industry and their "scientist" down playing the harmful effects of smoking.

www.tobaccofreedom.org...

As a grad student doing research for an archaeologist, I saw data and statistics manipulated to fit the Phd grant holder's preconceived ideas.
If you wanted to keep your research asst. job you kept your mouth shut.

Originally posted by whaaa
................
As a grad student doing research for an archaeologist, I saw data and statistics manipulated to fit the Phd grant holder's preconceived ideas.
If you wanted to keep your research asst. job you kept your mouth shut.

Appart from your other comment, I have witnessed almost the same thing, but in my case just so that the company I was working for could sell their services of scientific data collected to the government, and private businesses, and at times when there were errors in the data we would be told to use certain programs that would correct the errors, and make the data look "better" even when we knew the conclusions reached by such software program could be 50-50 correct, and of course we could not tell this to any of the clients.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Heh, funny:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have never believed that humans were the sole cause, if at all, of global warming....

i take your comment means you think i directed my response directly at you for some reason, or that it says anything against you?... i never implied anything like that, please read again my response.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Nope, I didn't take it that way at all. Had just seen that other thread pop up, and shot you a reference to it. No prob.

This study is overdue, I have a hard time beliving that it isnt a higher ratio that fake data. Its ovbious because scientific standards are placed on diagnosis technitions in hospitals re-use screenings of other patients to save money. Our economy is a signal marker too in the U.S. but hey what is one to do when the moffia runs the bull market?