Scientists confess their experimental sins

By John M Grohol PsyD
June 9, 2005

To seek the truth about life, the universe and everything - the lofty goals of science. But it seems scientists cut corners just as much as the rest of us.

Questionnaires returned by 3247 researchers for the US National Institutes of Health reveal that bad behaviour is rife. A third confessed to at least one of the top 10 “sins” listed.

Although less than 2 per cent owned up to fraud, falsification or plagiarism, less serious misdeeds were widespread: 15.5 per cent admitted changing the design, methodology or results of a study to suit a sponsor, and 6 per cent admitted suppressing data. More than a quarter owned up to inadequate record keeping, and 10 per cent confessed to inappropriately giving credit to an author (Nature, vol 435, p 737).

Just in case you thought just because something was published in a study, it must be true… There’s a 1 in 9 chance the study itself has been designed specifically to find pre-determined results. Scary stuff.

Dr. John Grohol is the CEO and founder of Psych Central. He has been writing about online behavior, mental health and psychology issues, and the intersection of technology and psychology since 1992.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

5 Comments to
“Scientists confess their experimental sins”

vjack at 8:14 am on June 10th, 2005

Sadly, I expect the Intelligent Design nuts will seize on this as “proof” that all of science is flawed.

MatS at 10:42 am on June 10th, 2005

Empirical data that Empirical research is flawed? Impossible vjack, because it would in fact proove itself wrong in the process wouldnt it?

Larry Welkowitz at 1:21 pm on June 14th, 2005

Science is hard laborious work…one thing the “intelligent design” folks don’t understand is that lots of hard work and good science has been done to provide support for evolution…in that sense, it is a much more “supported” if not “proved” theory compared with intelligent design.

SamL at 12:46 pm on June 20th, 2005

Pleeeease, lets leave the bigottry against scientists who believe in “Intelligent Design” out of the debate. The article is referring to “fudging” experimental processes. Any dishonest ‘Joe’ could be culprit.

SamL at 9:13 pm on June 20th, 2005

I would appreciate that we leave the comments implying that those who believe in “intelligent design” are nuts [See vjack's remark]. That is unbecoming of persons claiming to be intelligent.