Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers
#1
I just read this report this afternoon: Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers

Quote:A review of retractions in medical and biological peer-reviewed journals finds the percentage of studies withdrawn because of fraud or suspected fraud has jumped substantially since the mid-1970s. In 1976, there were fewer than 10 fraud retractions for every 1 million studies published, compared with 96 retractions per million in 2007.

The study authors aren't quite sure why this is happening. But they and outside experts point to pressure to hit it big in science, both for funding and attention, and to what seems to be a subtle increase in deception in overall society that science may simply be mirroring.

To be perfectly honest, why am I, or anyone for that matter, surprised? After all, science fraud really does pay well. This is seen all the time. All one has to do is just spend a short time reading all of the science fraud radiating out of the 'so called' Antropogenic Global Warming field.

Science Fraud is rampart. And it is so pervasive because it financially pays so well. Grants in the billions of dollars have been handed out for anything pertaining to the study of AGW.

So, why is anyone surprised? And why is there almost no legal, or scientific reputations at stake here? If the AGW crowd can do this 'en mass', why not others? I'm more than sure that this is having a huge 'rubbing off' effect on other sciences.

Here is the latest example of science fraud I have come across personally. Its found in the peer reviewed paper, in Nature: Natural and anthropogenic variations in methane sources during the past two millennia. For an easier read on the meat of the subject, you can read further here: Roman, Han Dynasty kick started climate change.

This is so fraudulent in purpose, and so blindingly transparent, that even the dumbest of the dumb should be able to see through its purpose. Its purpose is to erase away another natural warming period during the Holocene so as to promote the AGW fraud of today. And all of this is for the love of money, reputation, and other political things as well. Here are Anthony Watt's comments on the 'so called' study.

So why shouldn't other science branches do the same thing, since getting away with all this is so easy, and so enriching?

This is a perfect example of why loose morals of one group can have such a negative effect on the rest of society, if not nipped in the bud. Its just.........so sad to see what is passing for science these days. S7

Can you think of any other reasons for drastically downsizing the size and scope of Big Government, which is financially helping promote all this?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#2
An encouraging point is that a single man of honor, in charge of honesty in science, could do wonders. Groups and panels help insulate liars and charlatans. Of course, the media must hold those accountable who are caught.
Reply
#3
I have read that in medicine (to a smaller degree) and the social sciences that "experiments" (analysis of collected data) from which conclusions are drawn are rarely repeated to validate the conclusions. In medicine, many studies can be made with conflicting results, and eventually some grand amalgamation and analysis of the data is done, perhaps decades later.

So, in the social sciences, there is never a need for a retraction, since once data has "yielded a conclusion" that conclusion is accepted as fact. Once and a while there are debunkers or new studies, but it is rare and usually late.

W. Lambert is an idealist to suppose that "one honorable man" can overturn the mob. Cf. AGW. Scientific battles can last for decades (e.g. Einstein v Bohr, Einstein v quantum mechanics). Perhaps the truth will eventually out, and perhaps the contradiction found by the honorable man will fall on receptive ears and cause an immediate change (e.g. cold fusion). The latter is not guaranteed if egos, grant money or politics are involved.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#4
I think money is so big today that it is always going to be a huge temptation to give the "required answer" . Not just in science, I see this happening in Christian theology where researchers that are outside the box often lose their jobs.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Most scientific papers are probably wrong Aretstikapha 5 1,943 09-12-2005, 06:05 AM
Last Post: henrylee100

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)