How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?(plosone.org)

20 pointsby iamelgringo17 anni fa9 comments

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

7 comments

Maro17 anni fa

I think most career-scientists don't fabricate research, they're just very conformists. They have to publish x papers a year in respected journals, so there's not much wiggle-room (in astrophysics, x is roughly 3-10).

For a good rant, see "What do astrophysics and the world's oldest profession have in common?" at

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310368

"[Chandrasekhar] used to say, ironically, that the increasing velocity of the paper number is higher than the speed of light, but there is nothing to worry about for there is no violation of any physical law because these papers carry no information."

PS: I'm a PhD student in physics.

tokenadult17 anni fa

Thanks for the link to this very important article. The submitted article describes the worst case in "hard" sciences. What I encounter in my community volunteer work as president of a statewide organization about education of gifted children is commonly believed statements that have no research base at all. Many plausible ideas that are widely believed are nonetheless wrong and without any empirical support.

tybris17 anni fa

If an experiment is not repeated, it's not important.

jzachary17 anni fa

That comment suggests an interesting study: how many experiments published in papers are actually repeated by other researchers. I think in computer science it is very low. I would bet that in the physical sciences it could be even lower given the cost of physical laboratory equipment and time constraints to publish "original" research.

Does anybody have data or experience to suggest repeat rates?

kirse17 anni fa

This pristine image of science is based on the theory that the scientific community is guided by norms including disinterestedness and organized skepticism, which are incompatible with misconduct [8], [9]. Increasing evidence, however, suggests that known frauds are just the “tip of the iceberg”, and that many cases are never discovered.

This just about reinforces my attitude on science of today. I love the vast knowledge and technical advances science has brought us, but heaven forbid one question the results of an experiment or take a skeptical attitude towards particular theories, and one is typically beaten over the head with the Great Stick of Cult Science.

There really is no room for skepticism anymore in the science of today. Either you agree with "us" or you don't, and if you don't then you're shunned from the community. Studies like this further prove to me that my continuing healthy dose of skepticism in all matters of science is fully justified.

plesn17 anni fa

This is not very surprising, "Science" is a human playground as many other fields: scientists produce publications, and are confronted to other schools. So yeah, they can slightly cheat sometimes. Moreover even something as big as the Sokal hoax can happen...

The important thing is to keep the field intellectually stimulating and honest enough to 1) keep progressing in the average case 2) keep the most brilliant ones in.

TriinT17 anni fa

The Sokal affair happened because the so-called Social Sciences (an oximoron) tend to have zero standards...

xenophanes17 anni fa

This study might be a fraud ;)

d0mine17 anni fa

Typo: s/misconduct my any standard/misconduct by any standard/