It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

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?

...Lots. But remembering names/finding links is not so easy.

Not sure about FASEB, but a must-read anyway.

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) advances health and welfare by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to its member societies and collaborative advocacy.

New rules at the NIH:

Conflict of Interest

The NIH has had a longstanding interest in objectivity in research and financial conflict of interest. We have initiated this web site to provide information on this important topic. We will continue to add to and update this web site. Readers are encouraged to check back periodically.

Good stuff, good people: is a community of global citizens who take action on the major issues facing the world today. The aim of is to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decisions. members act for a more just and peaceful world and a globalisation with a human face.

ETC Group Board of Trustees

Andrés Barreda
Mexico City, Mexico
Andrés is the General Coordinator of Centre for Social Analysis, Information and Popular Training (CASIFOP) in Mexico City. He holds full-time tenure at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), in the Faculty of Economics, teaching Political Economy and Critical Geopolitics. He has participated in several research projects, in collaboration with social movements, indigenous and workers organizations, as well as several research centres within the UNAM, and with other academic institutions.

Regassa Feyissa
Addis Abba, Ethiopia
Dr. Regassa Feyissa, a physiologist and biochemist by training and is a professional in the area of genetic resources conservation and use. He worked as a germplasm conservation manager at the Plant Genetic Resources Center/Ethiopia (PGRC/E), and later as a Director of the Center, promoting the Center to the Institute of Biodiversity. Together with the earlier Director of PGRC/E, Dr. Melaku Worede, he developed the scientific basis for on-farm/ in situ conservation and enhancement as well as strategies for linking off-farm/ex situ and in situ systems for farmers' varieties (landraces), and for restoring the displaced genetic diversity. He is the founder and the Executive Director of Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA), a technical NGO working on sustainable Agrobiodiversity management and use. He is also a winner of the Slow Food Award for the defense of Biodiversity.

Michael Hansen
Yonkers, NY, USA
Dr. Michael Hansen is a researcher and spokesperson for the Consumer Policy Institute, a division of the Consumers Union of the United States (the same organization that publishes Consumer Reports magazine). Hansen currently works on biotechnology issues and has become a visible opponent to genetic engineering in agriculture. Despite his ideological biases, Hansen is frequently quoted by mainstream media outlets as an impartial scientific expert on the subject of mad cow disease. He is also the author of Biotechnology and Milk: Benefit or Threat?

Mariam Mayet
Richmond, South Africa
Mariam Mayet obtained a BA. LLB.LLM from the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. She is the founder and director of the African Centre for Biosafety, a non-profit organisation, based in Johannesburg South Africa. The ACB provides authoritative, credible, relevant and current information, research and policy analysis on issues pertaining to genetic engineering, biosafety and biopiracy in Africa.

Ditdit Pelegrina
Los Banos, Laguna Philippines
Wilhelmina (Ditdit) R. Pelegrina - with a background in horticulture and environmental sciences...

Ricarda A. Steinbrecher
Oxford, UK
Dr. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher is a biologist and geneticist. She has specialised in gene regulation since 1982 and has worked as a research scientist in the field of mutational analysis, gene identification and gene therapy in university and hospital settings. Since 1995 she has focused on genetic engineering in food and farming, its risks and potential consequences on health, food security and the environment.She received a first class honours M.Sc. (Dipl.rer.nat.) in biology with a focus on developmental biology at the University of Kiel, Germany and a Ph.D. in molecular genetics with focus on gene regulation at the University of London, UK. She is a member of the Federation of German Scientists and the British Society for Allergy, Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. At present she is Co-Director of EcoNexus, a not-for-profit public interest research organisation based in the UK.

Who Owns Nature?

In this 100th issue of the ETC Communiqué we update Oligopoly, Inc. – our ongoing series tracking corporate concentration in the life industry. We also analyze the past three decades of agribusiness efforts to monopolize the 24% of living nature that has been commodified, and expose a new strategy to capture the remaining three-quarters that has, until now, remained beyond the market economy.

[edit on 4-6-2009 by soficrow]

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 09:44 PM
lol i thought all of this was obvious. Anything man does is eventually corrupted for the goal of money. Kinda why they never find cures for diseases only patches and make you live with it using 5+ medications that'll all end up crippiling some other part of you. sad world we live in when little pieces of green paper run it

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:02 PM
NASA scientist must be included in that group surely!

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:08 PM

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.

Global warming has without doubt been infested with bias as polluters, corporations and right wing government attempt to dilute the undeniable facts of global warming - along with intellectual globules.

Not sure what on earth you are referring to with Vaccines - anyone who thinks these are unneccary need their head read - whooping cough has recently made a come back in Australia due to this type of asinine claptrap, a condition which is completely preventable, as with all vaccinated diseases, yet kill in the most despicable manner. Unless you are talking about flu shots - in which case you should specify.

Pharmaceuticals have a great deal to answer for in this field - no doubt, but that is the only thing which should be on your list.

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:12 PM
reply to post by audas

Or, left wing governments and their cronies have been pushing the religion of global warming to jack up their own agendas at the expense of others.

It works both ways, you know.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:30 AM
We rely too much on spoon feeding we dont realise that many professions can get away with what they do. This is why independent studies are always needed. Without them we can go down the loophole.
Statistics is also another dubious area that needs to be investigated.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:43 AM
Soficrow, Hansen and ethics are two words that don't go together. They are nowhere near in the same universe for that matter. Hansen has been caught at least twice publishing erroneous data just because it justified his claims that "warming is extreme", yet later to find out by the hands of skeptics that the information was erroneous. The first was with the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in the century when 1934 was just as warm. The second time was when he accepted the Russian raw data from temperature stations, from Russia of course, and Hansen published it as "the truth and nothing but the truth" without checking it out. That's without mentioning that he recently called for violent demonstrations to make Washington accept his Global Warming faith. Hansen, and "ethics" do not go together at all.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:13 AM
Dr Simon Wessely and his Wessely school of Psychiatry have long been the shills of the insurance industry.

Dr Simon Wessely has run many bogus research studies that show the disorders like fibromyalgia, gulf war syndrome,Chronic fatigue syndrome,Myalgic Encephaloyelitis are medical disorders but psychiatric illnesses.

This saves the insurance industry billions of dollars because most medical insurance policy limit coverage for psychiatric disorders to a set amount.

Wessely School psychiatrists are heavily involved with UNUM and with the medical insurance industry in general; insurance companies in addition to UNUM with which they are known to be directly involved include Swiss Life, Canada Life, Norwich Union, Allied Dunbar, Sun Alliance, Skandia, Zurich Life, and Permanent Insurance, and as re-insurers, the massive Swiss Re (whose building in London has been dubbed the “gherkin”). For further information on the involvement of Wessely School psychiatrists with the insurance industry. -

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:55 AM
im beginning to think the prophecies are true after all...

the Light is actually beginning to shine upon the darkness that we have been suffering under...

its so cool to be alive right now to see the truth come out and the lies start to wash away

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:00 AM

Originally posted by audas
Global warming has without doubt been infested with bias as polluters, corporations and right wing government attempt to dilute the undeniable facts of global warming - along with intellectual globules.

Riiight...this coming from the same person who claims the books from a "mammalogist" about Climate Change have more credence than peer-reviewed scientific research from all over the globe.....

[edit on 5-6-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:56 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

This article makes complete sense when used in conjunction with global warming. So much pressure has been put on scientist that if they disagree they get pinched. Basically making them an outcast in their own field. Remember the catholic church did this same thing to Davinci and other bright minds of that time, driving them underground and essentially bringing about the dark ages. I truly believe global warming is a hoax, used for someone to make money. A cause for the liberal society to rally around. I hope people take notice of this study and decide that we need to pursue science wherever it leads us.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:41 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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.

I believe this may be what you're after:

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

This is from his open letter to the community here.

I might also mention Dr Vincent Gray.Here is a link to Dr Vincent Gray's (who is a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception) letter to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. In it, he states:

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

Also Nils-Axel Mörner, regarding sea level change.

A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.


Would anyone really trust Gore, Hansen, Mann, IPCC and co more than skeptics? Apparantly so.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

I do have to say having worked in pharmeucetical trials myself, this does happen and the main reason it happens is because of the cash involved.

Completely hypothetical scenario here , lets say you have a vaccination for a particular virus. The vaccination has to go through numerous trials that cost a fortune.
It reaches its final test and is tested it on 10000 people, 9000 have a positive reaction to it but 1000 fall ill.
The target was 9500 positive results. Temptation is there to change the data as the funding that goes into trials is in the millions and sometimes billions. How many people would admit mistakes and lose their jobs these days??

Dont get me wrong I think this is pathetic but it is the consequence of the W.H.O. and governments having regulations that do not work. Also the fact that the pharmeuceutical industry is profit based. The whole system does not work.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:25 AM
not at all surprising. This is what happens when marketing needs a source to validate products in order to boost consumer confidence. have product, make claim, support claim with science. however, when science is contrary to claim, give science money through funding to make science realize its conclusions were "in error" and reevaluate to garner results more in line with supporting the claim which leads to....profit!

science is the new religion - time to start getting used to it.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Soficrow, Hansen and ethics are two words that don't go together. They are nowhere near in the same universe for that matter. Hansen has been caught at least twice publishing erroneous data just because it justified his claims that "warming is extreme", yet later to find out by the hands of skeptics that the information was erroneous. ....

EU - I think you are confusing JIM Hansen the meteorologist/climatologist(?) with MICHAEL Hansen the biologist/bioethicist.

...You didn't provide links, so I don't know for sure.

Can you follow up please?

Thanks, sofi

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by soficrow

I believe he is talking about James Hansen. He's NASA's chief climate scientist and one of the most prominent global warming alarmists who has been caught out twice fudging data to enforce his AGW case. Here is a little more info on James Hansen

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in