How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

[Nepenthe]

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?

Of course scientists are fallible. Nobody claims otherwise. And what the hell are Biblical ethics? What research methods does the Bible offer?

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.

As Tumbleweed41 already pointed out, it's ironic you say this when it was a peer reviewed meta-analysis of the data that revealed the degree of fraud in research. That's why the scientific method works: it's open to critique, repeatable, and peer reviewed. It's the most successful method of inquiry available.
As for evolution, how would the drive to get grants have any effect on the molecular, fossil, biological, geological, anthropological, etc., evidence? Are there specifics you can point to to justify your allegation? Any papers or studies that would show Australopithecus afarensis is something other than what 35 years of research have revealed? Or Ida since you mentioned her- what research should be second guessed or scrutinized now that the potential for fraud is introduced?

Mendel faked his research- maybe genetics needs an overhaul now.

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

Uh, it's still uncertain- she's likely connected to the lemur lineage and not humans. What's this have to do with scientific fraud?

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

One problem I see is how long does it take before false claims to be torn down, or what if some claims can't be falsified like common ancestry of all species?

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

You mean the biblical ethic of "thou shalt not lie" would destroy science?

 

[Man of Faith]

Why, are biologists less reputable than other scientists?

No, but we can validate most science. When I jump, I come back to earth, I just validated the theory of gravity. When I type on a computer keyboard, I see it appear on my screen, I just validated my computer, but I cannot validate common ancestry of all species because that would take millions of years, so that takes faith to believe, and I'm not willing to have faith in something that goes agin the Bible.

 

[Duck]

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 realize that in modern science (this is simplified but generally applies) research grant = job, right? In other words, research grant = eating. Colleagues (unless working on the same grant, and sometimes even then) = job competition. Better results from "colleagues" = loss of research money --> Not paying rent --> living on the street.

So, because between .003 and 4.9 scientists out of 100 likely selected the results of experiments that would keep them employed all scientists are dishonest? And because between 5.2 and 33.3 out of 100 scientists said that they had knowledge of a competitor for their job making false claims to keep that job, all scientists are dishonest and not to be trusted? Because up to 81 in 100 college students were willing to select things to make themselves look good so that they could get a job, all scientists are dishonest and making crap up about evolution?

Except for the part about biomedical trainees (you know the ones likely to be trying to get a job at a pharmaceutical company, not necessarily the ones figuring out things about Life as we know it(c) ) I notice that you don't reference which brand of scientists were doing the "dishonest" things, for all I know from the quotes given in the OP you were referencing young earth creation scientists. It would be more appropriate for you to cite from your paper those statistics dealing strictly with biologists, and I will grant, the biomedical sciences, not "scientists". Instead, you strongly imply that an important part of one branch of science, is suspect because of the behavior of a bunch of people competing for jobs. You then ask if a return to "biblical" ethics is necessary in the sciences to counter this "dishonesty" that runs rampant in the sciences. No doubt you are referring to the whole "thou shalt not bear false witness" part of "biblical" ethics. I would agree that honesty is the better path, but I would also have to say that people advocating a return to "biblical" ethics should really make more of an effort themselves to be comply with those "biblical ethics" and rules before insisting on compliance from others. When was the last time you protested Red Lobster? After all, eating shell fish is prohibited just as strongly by "biblical" ethics and rules as bearing false witness.

 

[Man of Faith]

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 %.

Science is great to learn about creation, but not the creator or how we got here, that takes faith. Science has to have a theory on how we got here, I understand that, but it could be wrong because it can't be validated.

 

[Man of Faith]

Of course scientists are fallible. Nobody claims otherwise. And what the hell are Biblical ethics? What research methods does the Bible offer?


As Tumbleweed41 already pointed out, it's ironic you say this when it was a peer reviewed meta-analysis of the data that revealed the degree of fraud in research. That's why the scientific method works: it's open to critique, repeatable, and peer reviewed. It's the most successful method of inquiry available.
As for evolution, how would the drive to get grants have any effect on the molecular, fossil, biological, geological, anthropological, etc., evidence? Are there specifics you can point to to justify your allegation? Any papers or studies that would show Australopithecus afarensis is something other than what 35 years of research have revealed? Or Ida since you mentioned her- what research should be second guessed or scrutinized now that the potential for fraud is introduced?

Mendel faked his research- maybe genetics needs an overhaul now.

Uh, it's still uncertain- she's likely connected to the lemur lineage and not humans. What's this have to do with scientific fraud?

Good post, we need you on the light side.

 

[McBell]

... what if false claims can't be falsified like common ancestry of all species?

I much prefer the evidence of the common ancestry of all species over your faith it is wrong any day.

 

[Man of Faith]

You realize that in modern science (this is simplified but generally applies) research grant = job, right? In other words, research grant = eating. Colleagues (unless working on the same grant, and sometimes even then) = job competition. Better results from "colleagues" = loss of research money --> Not paying rent --> living on the street.

So, because between .003 and 4.9 scientists out of 100 likely selected the results of experiments that would keep them employed all scientists are dishonest? And because between 5.2 and 33.3 out of 100 scientists said that they had knowledge of a competitor for their job making false claims to keep that job, all scientists are dishonest and not to be trusted? Because up to 81 in 100 college students were willing to select things to make themselves look good so that they could get a job, all scientists are dishonest and making crap up about evolution?

Except for the part about biomedical trainees (you know the ones likely to be trying to get a job at a pharmaceutical company, not necessarily the ones figuring out things about Life as we know it(c) ) I notice that you don't reference which brand of scientists were doing the "dishonest" things, for all I know from the quotes given in the OP you were referencing young earth creation scientists. It would be more appropriate for you to cite from your paper those statistics dealing strictly with biologists, and I will grant, the biomedical sciences, not "scientists". Instead, you strongly imply that an important part of one branch of science, is suspect because of the behavior of a bunch of people competing for jobs. You then ask if a return to "biblical" ethics is necessary in the sciences to counter this "dishonesty" that runs rampant in the sciences. No doubt you are referring to the whole "thou shalt not bear false witness" part of "biblical" ethics. I would agree that honesty is the better path, but I would also have to say that people advocating a return to "biblical" ethics should really make more of an effort themselves to be comply with those "biblical ethics" and rules before insisting on compliance from others. When was the last time you protested Red Lobster? After all, eating shell fish is prohibited just as strongly by "biblical" ethics and rules as bearing false witness.

Great post except for the last line because that was in the old covenant, not the new covenant in the Bible which is Jesus Christ where all things are allowed to be eaten.

 

[Duck]

Great post except for the last line because that was in the old covenant, not the new covenant in the Bible which is Jesus Christ where all things are allowed to be eaten.

weren't the "thou shalt nots..." also old covenant?

 

[Man of Faith]

weren't the "thou shalt nots..." also old covenant?

Yes they were part of the old covenant and they are part of the new covenant. Jesus said to keep God's commandments which he outlined in the New Testament. The Ten Commandments form the central basis for all of the lesser and more detailed civil laws, judgments, statutes and precepts and were brought over to the new covenant. Also they were the same Commandments that Adam and Eve disobeyd which brought death, so they are important.

Matthew 19:18 "Which ones?" the man asked.
And Jesus replied: "'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely.19 Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

 

[Morse]

If you believe in Evolution, you have to believe in common ancestry. Humans are not exempt from the rule.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/86703-evolution-again-but-better-right.html

Post your argument there if you think you have one against evolution. (Shameless promotion of my own topics, yaaaay!)

Oh, and the creationist side isn't "the light side". Life isn't quite so black and white.

 

[Man of Faith]

If you believe in Evolution, you have to believe in common ancestry. Humans are not exempt from the rule.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/86703-evolution-again-but-better-right.html

Post your argument there if you think you have one against evolution. (Shameless promotion of my own topics, yaaaay!)

Oh, and the creationist side isn't "the light side". Life isn't quite so black and white.

Here is the problem I have with common ancestry of all species, it is not observable. What we do observe is exacly what the Bible says, animals and man reproducing after their own kind.

Feel free to promote yourself all you want in my thread. We are all humans on the same planet and need to share resources.

 

[McBell]

Here is the problem I have with common ancestry of all species, it is not observable.

Yet you believe that god created everything?
Did you observe this action of creation?
No

So why is it that you accept the 'evidence' for your belief, but not the evidence for something you think goes against your belief?

I strongly suspect that you do not even know what the evidence actually is for common ancestry.

 

[Duck]

Yes they were part of the old covenant and they are part of the new covenant. Jesus said to keep God's commandments which he outlined in the New Testament. The Ten Commandments form the central basis for all of the lesser and more detailed civil laws, judgments, statutes and precepts and were brought over ot the new covenant. Also they were the same Commandments that Adam and Eve disobeyd which brought death, so they are important.

Matthew 19:18 "Which ones?" the man asked.
And Jesus replied: "'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely.19 Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Which commandment(s) did Adam and Eve disobey? Cause from the dim reaches of my memory, I seem to recall that the part about being given the tablets, etc happened significantly later (like entire chapters of 'so-and-so begat such-and-such and lived to be 800' later). So how exactly did Adam and Eve (or really just Adam since he was the only one yahweh told not to eat from the tree) disobey commandments not given for several hundred more years? In fact not until well after both had died?

 

[Man of Faith]

Yet you believe that god created everything?
Did you observe this action of creation?
No

So why is it that you accept the 'evidence' for your belief, but not the evidence for something you think goes against your belief?

I strongly suspect that you do not even know what the evidence actually is for common ancestry.

We need faith to believe in the unobservable, I have no problem with that, if someone wants to have faith in God, or in common ancestry of all species that is fine.

I believe the evidence for evolution is the exact same evidence for creation, it depends on your worldview on how you interpret the evidence. For example is homogenous bone structure because of common ancestry or a common designer? It depends on who you ask, someone that believes in creation or someone that believes in ToE.

 

[Alceste]

One problem I see is how long does it take before false claims to be torn down, or what if some claims can't be falsified like common ancestry of all species?

If the folks who insist the Biblical story of creation is the literal truth are any indication, it takes thousands of years.

 

[Alceste]

Science is great to learn about creation, but not the creator or how we got here, that takes faith. Science has to have a theory on how we got here, I understand that, but it could be wrong because it can't be validated.

The field of genetics - mitochondrial DNA analysis, specifically - unquestionably offers very strong evidence for common ancestry. What counter-evidence have you got?

 

[Alceste]

We need faith to believe in the unobservable, I have no problem with that, if someone wants to have faith in God, or in common ancestry of all species that is fine.

I believe the evidence for evolution is the exact same evidence for creation, it depends on your worldview on how you interpret the evidence. For example is homogenous bone structure because of common ancestry or a common designer? It depends on who you ask, someone that believes in creation or someone that believes in ToE.

You (and Ken Ham) are wrong. You are not aware of the enormous wealth of empirical evidence for common ancestry. If you were, it would be impossible for you to believe in Biblical creation.

 

[Autodidact]

One problem I see is how long does it take before false claims to be torn down, or what if some claims can't be falsified like common ancestry of all species?

Then we know it's correct.

Do you accept the scientific method or not?