Posted on 09/15/2014 1:13:19 PM PDT by lbryce
Why should research misconduct be illegal? After 30 years of observing how science deals with the problem, I have sadly come to the conclusion that it should be a crime, for three main reasons. First, in a lot of cases, people have been given substantial grants to do honest research, so it really is no different from financial fraud or theft. Second, we have a whole criminal justice system that is in the business of gathering and weighing evidence – which universities and other employers of researchers are not very good at. And finally, science itself has failed to deal adequately with research misconduct.
How can we recognise honest mistakes? It's quite difficult. Clearly not every minor misconduct should be regarded as a crime. And as with all laws, it will take time to establish what merits prosecution and what can be dealt with by a reprimand. But we know peer review doesn't detect all misconduct. If research seems wrong or impossible, we start with the assumption that it's just an honest mistake and then look into it. You can sometimes detect fraud statistically, because if you invent data you tend to come up with a recurrent pattern. But in most cases, it is detected because somebody blows a whistle.
Are there cases in which you think researchers should have been prosecuted? There are cases where someone demonstrated intent, not simply made a horrible mistake. For example, I was involved in the case of a researcher named Malcolm Pearce, who published two papers in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. One was a case report of successfully re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy into a patient's womb and another was a randomised trial about treating recurrent miscarriage. It turned out the case study patient did not exist, and there was also
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
No, it’s not.
Otherwise we would find politically incorrect scientific research suppressed with the threat of criminal prosecution.
Eric Holder would be all too eager to prosecute anyone who dares question AGW. Or whether homosexuality is genetic trait vs a choice. Or whether fetus feels pain.
Most scientific papers conclude exactly what the funding entity wants them to conclude.
Because, if in the preliminary findings the study is “going the wrong way”, funding is withdrawn.
So, there just MIGHT be some incentive on the part of the “scientists” to conclude EXACTLY what the funding entity wants.
Speaking of childbirth, what about prosecuting the invalid “study” that led to higher numbers for caesarean sections due to hospitals not wanting to be sued....
[ Because, if in the preliminary findings the study is “going the wrong way”, funding is withdrawn.
So, there just MIGHT be some incentive on the part of the “scientists” to conclude EXACTLY what the funding entity wants. ]
That and once they get on the gravy train of their conclusion they become a “self feeding machine”....
I think a better way to fund science would be some sort of system where funding was abstracted from the study being performed somehow....
Equally important is the fact that gov’t policy is based on that research. Everything from the Endangered Species List to EPA’s reaction to Global Warming “research” is predicated on this kind of research. That said, there’s a fine line to walk, however. If it is criminalized, one runs the risk of ending some research that might lead to major breakthroughs. On the other side is the pure crap that some put out under the guise of research, when it is little more than empirical How To Lie With Statistics meant to please the underwriters of the research so the researchers can get more funds. Perhaps a good place to start is to throw Al Gore in jail and see what happens.
We should be careful here. Or should we. Should we trust the government to decide which science is science and which is heresy? This is like trying to get congress to pass laws enforcing the enforcement of the constitution with criminal reprisals for deriliction of duty.
Anyway you look at it, you are inviting the source of the problem to go against it’s own instincts and natural tendency to change itself. It’s like trying to get big snakes to raise baby rats. A lot of snakes eat their own young. Same thing goes here.
We don’t want to invite anymore government oversight over anything the government has an interest. Today, unfortunately, our government is vested in EVERYTHING. They can no longer “help” fix anything for the citizenry.
The irony is emphatically compelling.
Criminalize it and you’ll have grad students turning up dead.
Some of you know what I’m talking about.
Here is why (in very few words.)
Science has been corrupted by the liberal politicians.
The liberal politicians more or less own the courts.
The liberal politicians absolutely own the Department of Justice
The Global Warming “Denialists” would be the first to see the inside of a jail.
From Amazon (emphasis added):
"In this illuminating book, the renowned theoretical physicist Lee Smolin argues that fundamental physics -- the search for the laws of nature -- losing its way. Ambitious ideas about extra dimensions, exotic particles, multiple universes, and strings have captured the public’s imagination -- and the imagination of experts. But these ideas have not been tested experimentally, and some, like string theory, seem to offer no possibility of being tested. Yet these speculations dominate the field, attracting the best talent and much of the funding and creating a climate in which emerging physicists are often penalized for pursuing other avenues. As Smolin points out, the situation threatens to impede the very progress of science. With clarity, passion, and authority, Smolin offers an unblinking assessment of the troubles that face modern physics -- and an encouraging view of where the search for the next big idea may lead."
Sound familiar?
Better idea: let whoever funded the research sue to get their money back.
This makes me very concerned, because the very first people who would be attacked with this would not be the real fraudsters, like the MMGW crowd, *but* those skeptical scientists who did not toe the MMGW line, and have already been threatened, and in some cases punished, for doubting.
[ We should be careful here. Or should we. Should we trust the government to decide which science is science and which is heresy? This is like trying to get congress to pass laws enforcing the enforcement of the constitution with criminal reprisals for deriliction of duty. ]
If we criminalize “Non-consensus Science” we would solidify the existing academic “Orthodoxy” and further cement in place the emerging “Secular Theocracy” that is struggling to establish itself....
Or perhaps this fraud by the CDC?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/health/irpt-cdc-autism-vaccine-study/
The funding entity WANTS the conclusions that are reached, or they pull their funding.
THAT’S why we get this misconduct and outright deceit.
Instead, the “deniers” will be criminalized.
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.