U.S. scientists say they break rules

Science Daily ^ | June 8

[nickcarraway]

BLOOMINGTON, Minn., June 8 (UPI) -- Minnesota researchers found one in three U.S. scientists admitted in an anonymous survey they committed scientific misconduct in the previous three years.

Related Headlines Blacks more likely to have enlarged heart (June 8, 2005) -- Blacks are twice as likely as whites to have an enlarged left side of their heart, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center scientists said ... > full story

Research misbehavior may be widespread (June 8, 2005) -- The first large-scale survey of scientific misconduct suggests a significant proportion of U.S. scientists routinely engage in questionable behavior, ... > full story

DNA extracted of bear dead 40,000 years (June 3, 2005) -- U.S. scientists have extracted and decoded the DNA of a cave bear dead for 40,000 years, but doing the same for dinosaurs remains science ... > full story

U.S. med school drug tests vary widely (May 26, 2005) -- Wide variations in new drug testing standards have been found throughout more than 100 U.S. medical schools, the New England Journal of Medicine ... > full story

British group asks an end to animal tests (May 25, 2005) -- Britain's Nuffied Council on Bioethics has recommended scientists explore alternative research methods to animal testing. The committee -- ... > full story

The survey, conducted by HealthPartners Research Foundation, found 33 percent of scientists admitted breaking rules that are supposed to ensure the honesty of their work, the authors report in the British journal Nature.

The misbehaviors range from claiming credit for someone else's work to changing study results due to pressure from a sponsor, reported the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

"Our findings suggest that U.S. scientists engage in a range of behaviors extending far beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism that can damage the integrity of science," the authors write in a commentary in the journal, which is released Wednesday.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

It has been obvious for awhile that scientists will cheat at the drop of a hat for political reasons, i.e., second hand smoke, asbestos, global warming, endangered species, etc., are all examples of scientists serving politics rather than science.

[Sparticus]

It's also largely about money and tenure. In order to continue receiving grant money, researchers need to have something interesting to publish. Also, professors need to publish on a regular schedule to get tenure. Both of these factors encourage many researchers to fudge on the rules.

[B4Ranch]

Blacks more likely .....

Research misbehavior may be .....

DNA extracted of bear dead .....

U.S. med school drug tests .....

British group asks an end .....

[Desdemona]

The misbehaviors range from claiming credit for someone else's work to changing study results due to pressure from a sponsor, reported the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

And this is surprising how? Watson and Crick won a Nobel Prize with information they "adopted" shall we say. They weren't the only ones who came to that conclusion, but they were the ones to claim it.

And the entire thought of commercially funded research coming up with any other results than the ones the sponsors want is ludicrous. Too much money is at stake.

There are people who have left the biomedical research industry for these very reasons. This shouldn't be any surprise at all.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

It's also largely about money and tenure. In order to continue receiving grant money, researchers need to have something interesting to publish. Also, professors need to publish on a regular schedule to get tenure. Both of these factors encourage many researchers to fudge on the rules.

Good points and I know much is done for those reasons, but does the result of research have to "prove" a particular point to meet those goals or will any result do the trick? I can see that the time required to do honest research may cause some to cut corners in order to meet grant application deadlines, etc., but I also think most "cheating" is done to validate points for political purposes, often when the research actually refutes rather than substantiates the goals sought.

[Sparticus]

Researchers, especially in the social "pseudoscience" fields, usually have a theory that they want to support. I think you're right and a lot of what passes as research is highly biased by a leftest world view. Also, it is difficult to get things published if you don't conform to the multicultural/socialist/do-it-for-the-children sensibilities of journal editors.