How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

[Man of Faith]

Interesting analysys of surveys of scientists. It shows, in my opinion that scientists are fallible like anyone else. Would research improve if it was built on biblical ethics? When 15% are willing to falsify data to get noticed, can we no longer wonder why evolution is promoted so hard? It looks like to me, whether or not their research is true, or their results show evolution or not it is reported as such because that gets the grants and papers published.

Next question for science lovers, is Ida a link to human or not? Maybe you aren't so sure now.

When explicitly asked if they ever fabricated or falsified research data, or if they altered or modified results to improve the outcome, between 0.3% and 4.9% of scientists replied affirmatively." "Consistently across studies, scientists admitted more frequently to have “modified research results” to improve the outcome than to have reported results they “knew to be untrue”

"When asked if they had personal knowledge of a colleague who fabricated or falsified research data, or who altered or modified research data between 5.2% and 33.3% of respondents replied affirmatively." Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego, 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past, but 15% were “willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper”

PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes...thank goodness the Scientific Community as a whole is regulated by peer review. Otherwise these false claims would be accepted by all, instead of torn down by their peers.
Case in point, the study you cited was conducted by a scientific peer review.
When making major claims (Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines, Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs,Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's Cold Fusion claims) there is no shortage of peers eager to tear them down, looking for any flaws in the data or methods.

Whereas unscientific claims of Young Earth, humans walking with dinosaurs and global floods are easily accepted by creationist without any peer review. All they need in these claims is to line up with an old black book.

 

[Autodidact]

Interesting analysys of surveys of scientists. It shows, in my opinion that scientists are fallible like anyone else. Would research improve if it was built on biblical ethics? When 81% are willing to falsify data to get noticed, can we no longer wonder why evolution is promoted so hard? It looks like to me, whether or not their research is true, or their results show evolution or not it is reported as such because that gets the grants and papers published.

Next question for science lovers, is Ida a link to human or not? Maybe you aren't so sure now.

When explicitly asked if they ever fabricated or falsified research data, or if they altered or modified results to improve the outcome, between 0.3% and 4.9% of scientists replied affirmatively." "Consistently across studies, scientists admitted more frequently to have “modified research results” to improve the outcome than to have reported results they “knew to be untrue”

"When asked if they had personal knowledge of a colleague who fabricated or falsified research data, or who altered or modified research data between 5.2% and 33.3% of respondents replied affirmatively." Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego, 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past, but 81% were “willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper”

PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

You don't love science? You hate it?

Biblical ethics would be the worst thing that could happen to science. All that slavery and purity taboos, and honesty thrown out the window.

Because there's no liar like a Creationist. They flat out lie around 90% of the time. The rest of the time they're ordering lunch.

 

[Autodidact]

Has it occurred to you that there's something ironic about using your computer to attack science? Just wondering.

 

[darkendless]

How many Scientists fallsify and fabricate research?

Depends what Christian ID organisation is paying them to find absolute BS.

Biblical ethics on science would destroy the accuracy we currently have in science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interesting analysys of surveys of scientists. It shows, in my opinion that scientists are fallible like anyone else. Would research improve if it was built on biblical ethics? When 81% are willing to falsify data to get noticed, can we no longer wonder why evolution is promoted so hard? It looks like to me, whether or not their research is true, or their results show evolution or not it is reported as such because that gets the grants and papers published.

To an extent yes. but................

Yes...thank goodness the Scientific Community as a whole is regulated by peer review. Otherwise these false claims would be accepted by all, instead of torn down by their peers.
Case in point, the study you cited was conducted by a scientific peer review.
When making major claims (Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines, Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs,Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's Cold Fusion claims) there is no shortage of peers eager to tear them down, looking for any flaws in the data or methods.

Whereas unscientific claims of Young Earth, humans walking with dinosaurs and global floods are easily accepted by creationist without any peer review. All they need in these claims is to line up with an old black book.

......assuredly any falsification gets ferreted out.

There are at times desperate scientists who for one reason or other will falsify to politically achieve an ulterior objective (such as grants) but assuredly most scientists wont and don't take those kind of chances. Reputation and accuracy happens to be everything to a scientist and if this should happen to get tainted by motive, that scientist just isn't going to get very far with their fellows and the public if he/she happens to have a stigma attached as the result of low brow action.

 

[Morse]

I agree with everyone above and their statements. But even if those statements were incorrect, evolution does not need scientists to be proved. Three days ago my LA teacher and I had a debate about Creation vs Evolution, and if a 16 year old child can almost convince somebody, any average Joe can.

 

[Man of Faith]

Has it occurred to you that there's something ironic about using your computer to attack science? Just wondering.

I am attacking the "science" of evolution, not of computers.

 

[Autodidact]

Why, are biologists less reputable than other scientists?

 

[Morse]

Actually yes they are.

Creationists don't have direct problems with chemistry, for that deals with chemicals and elements.

Creationists don't have direct problems with physicists, because they tell us how gravity, velocity, and other such things work.

Creationists don't have problems with geologists, because they just dig **** up.

BUT when you get to Biologists, ohhhhh boy! These guys tell us how beasties and peoples was made! We cant trust them. *vetoes a major project involving evolution*.

That plus the fact that only 34% of Americans believe in Evolution. But look on the bright side! 74% of college graduates believe in evolution, and 64% of Republicans don't believe in evolution.

EDIT: I'm sorry for that.... I feel bad now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually yes they are.

Creationists don't have direct problems with chemistry, for that deals with chemicals and elements.

Creationists don't have direct problems with physicists, because they tell us how gravity, velocity, and other such things work.

Creationists don't have problems with geologists, because they just dig **** up.

BUT when you get to Biologists, ohhhhh boy! These guys tell us how beasties and peoples was made! We cant trust them. *vetoes a major project involving evolution*.

That plus the fact that only 34% of Americans believe in Evolution. But look on the bright side! 74% of college graduates believe in evolution, and 64% of Republicans don't believe in evolution.

EDIT: I'm sorry for that.... I feel bad now.

At least we have a gauge on who's more emotional as opposed to who's more rational.

 

[YmirGF]

Why, are biologists less reputable than other scientists?

Actually yes they are.

According to who precisely?

Creationists don't have direct problems with chemistry, for that deals with chemicals and elements.

Well that is certainly informative.

Creationists don't have direct problems with physicists, because they tell us how gravity, velocity, and other such things work.

No doubt Stephen Hawking would be greatly impressed with this description.

Creationists don't have problems with geologists, because they just dig **** up.

I guess we could say that paleontologists dig science, eh?

BUT when you get to Biologists, ohhhhh boy! These guys tell us how beasties and peoples was made! We cant trust them. *vetoes a major project involving evolution*.

Are you actually serious?

That plus the fact that only 34% of Americans believe in Evolution. But look on the bright side! 74% of college graduates believe in evolution, and 64% of Republicans don't believe in evolution.

Appealing to numbers can itself be a slippery slope.

 

[Morse]

Shall I introduce you to an art form known as sarcasm?

 

[YmirGF]

Shall I introduce you to an art form known as sarcasm?

Hehe. I doubt very much that that will be necessary. We get all kinds here on RF, so it is difficult to tell at first. Trust me, you will find few on RF who are more sarcastic than I.

 

[Autodidact]

I am attacking the "science" of evolution, not of computers.

Oh I see, you love science, as long as it agrees with your preconceived notions. We can both agree that's Biblical ethics. Thank God science is immune from it.

 

[Alceste]

Man of Faith, what is a superior method of learning about the world than methodical, peer reviewed, empirical investigation?

I bet you're thinking "the Bible" is a superior method of learning about the world. But do you know what percentage of writers lie and make stuff up to improve the narrative? Let me tell you: 100 %.

 

[Morse]

^
Personal experience? Eh he eh?

Yeah, its true....

 

[Autodidact]

Here's the thing about science, MoF, and follow me closely here. It's a method. It either works, or it doesn't. Part of the method is to make a commitment to accept its results, whether they fit with your preconceived notions or not. In other words, honesty. Failing to do that, the opposite of honesty, is what you're calling for.

You don't get to pick and choose, accept the part that you like and reject the part you don't.

The only legitimate attack on a scientific result is to criticize the methods used. Do you have a legitimate criticism of the methods Biologists use? Or do you even know the first thing about what they are?

 

[Morse]

Its actually called The Scientific Method by most people.

Look it up, it works.

Moldy paper written by moldy men, well...

 

[Amill]

Yes...thank goodness the Scientific Community as a whole is regulated by peer review. Otherwise these false claims would be accepted by all, instead of torn down by their peers.
Case in point, the study you cited was conducted by a scientific peer review.
When making major claims (Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines, Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs,Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann's Cold Fusion claims) there is no shortage of peers eager to tear them down, looking for any flaws in the data or methods.

Whereas unscientific claims of Young Earth, humans walking with dinosaurs and global floods are easily accepted by creationist without any peer review. All they need in these claims is to line up with an old black book.

Nothing more needs to be said:clap

Here's some videos by Aronra on the Ida fossil though. I dare creationists to watch.
YouTube - Ida Know
YouTube - Ida done better
YouTube - Ida met the challenge
YouTube - Ida met the challenge too
YouTube - Ida met the challenge again

We have plenty of fossil evidence to suggest that our lineage share ancestors with the lineages of other apes. I mean, what exactly is a neanderthal to a creationist? I mean, when God made all the animals did he make some to purposely look like a basal form of 2 other creatures, AND make it go extinct before those other 2 kinds of creatures? What exactly did he think we'd think? But seriously, what about neanderthals and any other hominid fossils we've discovered? Did god purposely make other kinds of human subspecies, and not realize that we may come to think that we all of us share an ancestor, especially when it all lines up with geology. I mean, if there were homo sapien fossils buried in sediment dated longer ago than the Lucy fossil, then it would be odd.

Here's articles on the examinations of the fossil closest in lineage to the chimp/human ancestor
http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/