June
4, 2009
We strongly believe that there are no
greater issues with falsified data than Global Warming/ Climate Change where only
bad news makes government write their pay checks, and in idological driven studies regarding
the support of Homosexuality. Medical
conpanies are forced to conduct independ blind studies of any medication they
seek to market, yet in scientific circles studies are conducted for government
and organizations that have strong idealogical bents making the relationship
with scientists and researches too cozy, so that almost without quest he who
finances a study gets results that lean to or prove their POV.
This is one reason that it is inherently
dangerous to tout science proving some point in the bible, or to use science to verifty God, Creation or
whatever as it is the wisdom of men and is by nature an ever shifting morass that
can only in time reverse itself as to
the current madness. In that face we do
not espouse on this website anything about Intelligent Design, Mathamatical Structures in the bible,
or any such things.
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
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.”
The
study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although higher than most previous
estimates, is still likely to be conservative.
Another
explanation for the differences between the self-report results and
colleague-report results could be that people consider themselves to be more
moral than others. In a marginal case, people might characterise their
colleagues’ behaviour as misconduct more readily than they would their own.
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.