Boop His Nose
Diving Tiger Says
Time to Support Free Republic
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/02/2011 6:34:40 PM PDT by neverdem
One of the Netherlands' leading social psychologists made up or manipulated data in dozens of papers over nearly a decade, an investigating committee has concluded.
Diederik Stapel was suspended from his position at Tilburg University in the Netherlands in September after three junior researchers reported that they suspected scientific misconduct in his work. Soon after being confronted with the accusations, Stapel reportedly told university officials that some of his papers contained falsified data. The university launched an investigation, as did the University of Groningen and the University of Amsterdam, where Stapel had worked previously. The Tilburg commission today released an interim report (in Dutch), which includes preliminary results from all three investigations. The investigators found "several dozens of publications" in which fictitious data has been used. Fourteen of the 21 Ph.D. theses Stapel supervised are also tainted, the committee concluded.
Stapel issued a statement today in which he apologizes to his colleagues and says he "failed as a scientist" and is ashamed of his actions. He has cooperated to an extent by identifying papers with suspect data, according to university officials. The investigation by the three universities is ongoing and should ultimately investigate more than 150 papers that Stapel has co-authored, including a paper published earlier this year in Science on the influence of a messy environment on prejudice. "People are in shock," says Gerben van Kleef, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, who did not work directly with Stapel. "Everybody wonders how this could have happened and at this proportion."
Stapel's work encompassed a broad range of attention-catching topics, including the influence of power on moral thinking and the reaction of psychologists to a plagiarism scandal. The committee, which interviewed dozens of Stapel's former students, postdoctoral researchers, co-authors, and colleagues, found that Stapel alone was responsible for the fraud. The panel reported that he would discuss in detail experimental designs, including drafting questionnaires, and would then claim to conduct the experiments at high schools and universities with which he had special arrangements. The experiments, however, never took place, the universities concluded. Stapel made up the data sets, which he then gave the student or collaborator for analysis, investigators allege. In other instances, the report says, he told colleagues that he had an old data set lying around that he hadn't yet had a chance to analyze. When Stapel did conduct actual experiments, the committee found evidence that he manipulated the results.
Many of Stapel's students graduated without having ever run an experiment, the report says. Stapel told them that their time was better spent analyzing data and writing. The commission writes that Stapel was "lord of the data" in his collaborations. It says colleagues or students who asked to see raw data were given excuses or even threatened and insulted.
At least two earlier groups of whistleblowers had raised questions about Stapel's work, the commission found. No one followed up on their concerns, however. Stapel's fabrications weren't particularly sophisticated, the committee says, and on careful inspection many of the data sets have improbable effect sizes and other statistical irregularities. His colleagues, when they failed to replicate the results, tended to blame themselves, the report says. Among Stapel's colleagues, the description of data as too good to be true "was a heartfelt compliment to his skill and creativity," the report says.
The report recommends that the universities of Groningen and Tilburg look into whether criminal charges are appropriate based on the misuse of research funds and possible harm to Stapel's students resulting from the fraud. The University of Amsterdam, where Stapel did his Ph.D., has apparently not been able to determine whether his thesis was fraudulent or not, in part because some of the original data records were destroyed. The committee suggests that the university consider revoking Stapel's degree, however, based on conduct that is "unbecoming" to the degree holder. (The University of Konstanz in Germany revoked disgraced physicist Jan Hendrik Schön's Ph.D. for that reason.)
UPDATE: The Dutch report noted in the article has now been released in an official English version. The report says that Diederik Stapel voluntarily identified a list of journal articles he authored or co-authored that were "based on fabricated data" but that list is not in the report and has not yet been made public.
Correction: This item has been changed to remove an inaccurate identification of what the whistle-blowers reported to university officials. It also notes that the committees will be investigating all of Stapel's publications, not just those since 2004.
Data and results were never really examined closely, when results could not be replicated researchers blamed themselves and on and on.
In how many other fields is this occurring?
if the so-called “peer review” folks don’t act
decisively for objectivity within academe,
they will find themselves out of the game.
Socialism demands sacrifice.
I wonder how much leftist social dogma was created this way, with phoney "social science" studies?
Would you ask a lawyer to do your heart transplant surgery? Would you ask an English professor to build a bridge? And yet almost every scientific study published in the world, particularly in the biological sciences, involves the collection, analysis and interpretation of data by non-statisticians, or by statisticians who are the principal investigator’s employees. Duh.
This same philosophy is at work at the EPA justifying further tightening of environmental regulations.
Does anyone care to guess how much this has infiltrated the FDA, DEA and law enforcement?
Of course it’s just “anecdotal” that folk diagnosed with “drug problems” come out of “rehab” with about eight or nine prescriptons.......
I would guess that most of it is done this way. It is sort of like the “rock soup” method where the bum creates a nice meal by first asking for something to add to his rock soup.
When I was in grad school, there were huge numbers of material published. Once it got published, it had a life of it’s own. People would cite it and then cite the one who cited etc. Finally they would create an entire system or truth which was based on many phoney studies to start with.
The times we live in. Even “science” has been perverted to politics.
This “system of truth” has been perverted for decades. Our “intellectual elites” are mostly Marxist/atheists who have no ethics and all have agendas that have to be pushed. The Christians with ethics have been marginalized and pushed out long ago. I would guess that every “study” on homosexuality and children is a a fraud since 1980.
Everything that is “new” contradicts thousands of years of studies, including the studies of Freud, Piaget, and Erikson—people much brighter, more ethical, and much more thorough than “todays” “scientists”. It is known that the majority of high school students are cheaters for decades now (unheard of in the 50’s and 60’s when Christian ethics were dominant.)
I wouldn’t even trust vaccine companies since 1980 or before since they put known toxin that they KNEW were extremely toxic to kids in their vaccines—Never ever got a “flu” shot either....nope—never will...there is way too much corruption and money to be made and you never ever can be sure what is in those “shots” since parts are made in China and India and drug manufacturers would profit if they made you sicker. Many would like billions of people sterilized also.
It is best to be skeptical of everything....sad, but necessary in today’s world. But when you have had a Marxist/atheist paradigm shift—it always gets ugly and it it is like in Winston Smith’s world in 1984 now.
I have to wonder, but I don't think it's that much. Any experiment that generates a novel hypothesis is bound to be repeated. When the data can't be reasonably replicated, questions will be asked. This phony was begging for trouble.
Fighting Fire With Fire: 'Vampire' Bacteria Has Potential as Living Antibiotic
Exenatide (Byetta) Has Rapid, Powerful Anti-inflammatory Effect, UB Study Shows
Probiotics effective in combating antibiotic-associated diarrhea
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Pournelle has called these so-called disciplines “the voodoo sciences” for many years. His essay on the topic is worth reading.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/voodoo.html
Too many. Criminal charges are needed. These ‘white collar’ crimes cause much more harm than people realize. How many decisions have these false studies affected?
Design of experiments is critical to successful science. Science being the pursuit of truth must harshly respond to lies. If not, you just get more self-serving or cause-serving lies.
Polar bears dying off for instance.
HUD had them arbitrarily lower the safe blood levels of lead in children to half the original amount based on... the fact that lead-risk was dropping.
The kids were alright, but the bureaucrats and control freaks were on the verge of losing a cause that has earned them so much.
Outstanding post. It is more like their findings contradict thousands of years of human history and experience. Find one instance of a great society that thrived in the absence of man-woman families?
Thanks neverdem.
Thanx for the ping SunkenCiv !
“Studies show” is a phrase which the Left uses constantly to move the ball down the field.
Most of the “studies” are done in such a way to have a predetermined outcome, when they are not falsified outright.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.