It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
Mendel's experimental results have been the object of considerable dispute. A renowned statistician, R. A. Fisher analyzed the results of the F1 (first filial) ratio and found them to be implausibly close to the exact ratio of 3 to 1. In 1936, Fisher (1990) published an analysis that concluded "the data of most, if not all, of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel's expectations," and in private, he referred to this discovery of "faked" data as "abdominable" and a "shocking experience" (Box 1978). The subject remains controversial today. Only a few would accuse Mendel of scientific malpractice or call it a scientific fraud—reproduction of his experiments has demonstrated the accuracy of his laws. However, the results have continued to be a mystery for many, though it is often cited as an example of confirmation bias, and he is generally suspected of having "smoothed" his data to some degree (not knowing about the importance of blind classification).
The fact that Mendel's reported results concentrate on the few traits in peas that are determined by a single gene has also suggested that he may have censored his results, otherwise he likely would have stumbled across genetic linkage, either in peas or in the other species he studied. Genetic linkage occurs when particular alleles (different DNA codings of the same gene) are inherited together. Because chromosomes are sorted randomly during meiosis, generally an allele can be passed on and considered independent of those alleles for other genes. However, alleles that are on the same chromosome are more likely to be inherited together, and are said to be linked.
These facts remain a paradox, as Mendel has a reputation as someone of great integrity with a passion for science, as well as intellectually gifted with strong powers of observation.
Originally posted by C0bzz
Eliminating this is part of the peer review process, although that can become corrupt occasionally.
Originally posted by Maddogkull
There is evidence that some scientists do fake data. But a lot are very trustworthy. Hopefully they won’t take into account all scientists are crooks. That is not the message me or the article is trying to portray.
Originally posted by Threadfall
There is no excusing faking scientific data. But just to be sure lest everyone who checks this thread call all scientists fakers and deceivers it should be noted... The article says that 1 in 7 scientists believe other scientists manipulate data. It DOES NOT say that 1 in 7 scientists fake data.
Originally posted by Maddogkull
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results.
The distinction made in this review between “fabrication, falsification and alteration” of results and QRP is somewhat arbitrary.
Originally posted by wiredamerican
It would make total sense that scientists would not bite the hand that feeds. When scientists get funding, they usually are instructed to come to the conclusions of what the "funders" wished from the analysis.
If you were a scientist and you got 10 million in funding to help prove cancer is caused by smoking...... would your final results be tilted toward genetics? Or would your results be tilted toward smoking cigarettes like your funders requested?