Scientists confess their experimental sins
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.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...This entry was posted on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 at 1:02 pm and is filed under General, Policy and Advocacy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
5 Responses to “Scientists confess their experimental sins” (Pingbacks/trackbacks not shown below)
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.
Be a Part of the Conversation! Comment on this Entry Now:
Sadly, I expect the Intelligent Design nuts will seize on this as “proof” that all of science is flawed.
Empirical data that Empirical research is flawed? Impossible vjack, because it would in fact proove itself wrong in the process wouldnt it?
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.
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.
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.
