One in seven scientists have known colleagues to falsify research findings

uprising

One in seven scientists report that they have known colleagues to falsify or slant the findings of their research.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1483899

http://www.newstin.com/tag/us/139541093

http://www.naturalnews.com/026865_natural_health_technology_renewable_energy.html

http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55408/

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5438844/Scientists-faking-results-and-omitting-unwanted-findings-in-research.html

SkepticOne

One of the reasons why repeatability is important.

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote: »

One of the reasons why repeatability is important.

That, and the entire gamut of other "safeguards" built into the established scientific process.

meglome

I don't doubt that research is slanted, how much and how often is what's up for debate with me. That said there is no one like conspiracy theorists to slant information to fit an agenda. So when CT's post this stuff I do find it funny somehow.

uprising

meglome wrote: »

So when CT's post this stuff I do find it funny somehow.

Yea I find it hillarious myself, all us eejits falling for this shower of lying so and so's.
It's even more hilarious we have a shipment of a couple of million doses of great medicine on the way from these comedians, and some of us take their word as solid as concrete, can't type any more with this laughter, but I do enjoy a great laugh.

thecommander

Those numbers can mean anything really.

If in their lifetime, one in seven scientists knew one other that falsified results, out of hundreds of others, doesn't really seem that much.

The real questions should be, if one in seven scientists knew another was falsifying results, would he/she say anything, or keep quiet?

bonkey

uprising wrote: »

Yea I find it hillarious myself, all us eejits falling for this shower of lying so and so's.

Are you talking about those peddling conspiracy theories, or scientists?

If its the latter, then the figures you've pointed out show that the vast majority are not known to falsify results, and - as has been pointed out - the entire scientific system is set up to avoid falling for falsified (or otherwise incorrect) results.

Not only that...but the figures you have come from those "lying so and so's", and you're apparently happy enough to believe them.

It's even more hilarious we have a shipment of a couple of million doses of great medicine on the way from these comedians, and some of us take their word as solid as concrete,

The risks that have been identified...they've come from scientists.

The potential hazards...again...from scientists.

This is, of course, with the exception of those risks and hazards that have just been made up by people who don't actually know what they're talking about....scaremongers who are willing to make up whatever suits them to serve an ulterior agenda.

So its kind of interesting...either you're basing your opposition to the vaccine on information from the very people you want us to mistrust...or you're basing it on people who aren't qualified to give trustworthy information.

uprising

bonkey wrote: »

Are you talking about those peddling conspiracy theories, or scientists?

If its the latter, then the figures you've pointed out show that the vast majority are not known to falsify results, and - as has been pointed out - the entire scientific system is set up to avoid falling for falsified (or otherwise incorrect) results.

Not only that...but the figures you have come from those "lying so and so's", and you're apparently happy enough to believe them.


The risks that have been identified...they've come from scientists.

The potential hazards...again...from scientists.



This is, of course, with the exception of those risks and hazards that have just been made up by people who don't actually know what they're talking about....scaremongers who are willing to make up whatever suits them to serve an ulterior agenda.

So its kind of interesting...either you're basing your opposition to the vaccine on information from the very people you want us to mistrust...or you're basing it on people who aren't qualified to give trustworthy information.

When and where have I tarred ALL scientist with the same brush like you seem to be suggesting?, I HAVEN'T, theres good and bad in every crevice of society including science.
Most of the information I have passed on here has been from scientists, good honest scientists, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

EDIT: the entire scientific system is set up to avoid falling for falsified (or otherwise incorrect) results make HUGE profits for BIG PHARMA, plain and simple, and if you can't realise that I dont think you should be modding a CT forum as your definately anti CT even conspiracy fact.

meglome

uprising wrote: »

When and where have I tarred ALL scientist with the same brush like you seem to be suggesting?, I HAVEN'T, theres good and bad in every crevice of society including science.
Most of the information I have passed on here has been from scientists, good honest scientists, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

But you've posted time and again about how these vaccines are very dangerous and we shouldn't take them. There are known side effects sure, but most of the scientists seem to be saying we should take the vaccine if we need it. So you're only tarring the scientists that don't agree with you I assume? the majority perhaps?

uprising wrote: »

EDIT: the entire scientific system is set up to avoid falling for falsified (or otherwise incorrect) results make HUGE profits for BIG PHARMA, plain and simple, and if you can't realise that I dont think you should be modding a CT forum as your definately anti CT even conspiracy fact.

You seem to be angry that Bonkey might have made a assumption or generalisation about you, then you proceed to make two sweeping generalisations. I love irony.
Bonkey is without doubt the most balanced and scientific person who posts in here, which has been shown time and time again (the posts are all there, go look). So you'll forgive me if I ignore your 'fact' and stick with provable reality.

bonkey

uprising wrote: »

When and where have I tarred ALL scientist with the same brush like you seem to be suggesting?,

You've referred - in this thread - to scientists working on vaccines for the current flu pandemic as "lying so and so's".

The evidence, however, that you've presented, suggests that some unknown subset of scientists are claimed to have falsified data at least once in their career.

There is no information as to who those scientists are.
There is no information as to whether or not their falsifications were one-offs or frequent occurrences.
There is no information as to what the impact of said falsification was.
In short, there is no information to go from the evidence supplied to the claim presented.

The evidence referred to scientists in general. Your argument, following from this is that "these lying so and so's" are misleading us.

There is, simply put, no information in the evidence supplied to determine who has falsified information, so either you're making assumptions about those scientists you choose to believe are lying, or you're making assumptions about all scientists in general.

Most of the information I have passed on here has been from scientists, good honest scientists, so don't try to put words in my mouth.

How do you know they're good and hoenst? How do you know that one in seven of those that you trust haven't also falsified their data? If - as has been claimed - funding etc,. is what rules (dis)honesty in science, why is a scientist investigating a link between vaccine and side-effect immune to this flaw....but one investigating a link between cirus and vaccine somehow more susceptible? The answer certainly isn't in the content you linked to.

EDIT: the entire scientific system is set up to avoid falling for falsified (or otherwise incorrect) results make HUGE profits for BIG PHARMA, plain and simple,

And yet, this system which is set up to make these HUGE profits, is the system which allows "good and honest" scientists to supply you with the trustworthy information you've been supplying us with, which shows the (small) risks associated with vaccines.

Its almost as though they've figured out that the best way to make big money is to provide something that provides the best balance of risk and reward....that you can make a fortune by saving the most lives for the lowest risk.

and if you can't realise that I dont think you should be modding a CT forum as your definately anti CT even conspiracy fact.

If you have a problem with the moderators or moderation of the forum, there is an appropriate forum for it.

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

Bonkey is without doubt the most balanced and scientific person who posts in here, which has been shown time and time again (the posts are all there, go look). So you'll forgive me if I ignore your 'fact' and stick with provable reality.

This thread isn't about me

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

This thread isn't about me

Sorry. His contuniung sweeping assumptions/generalisations and scaremongering should be pointed out as much as possible, even if in this case it should have been ignored.