The numbers on "bad science"

If you don’t believe it, follow this site:
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

There is a 2009 study called, “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data” here-
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
“…while surveys asking about colleagues are hard to interpret conclusively, self-reports systematically underestimate the real frequency of scientific misconduct. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that data fabrication and falsification –let alone other questionable research practices- are more prevalent than most previous estimates have suggested.”
“…scientists were less likely to reply affirmatively to questions using the words “fabrication” and “falsification” rather than “alteration” or “modification”. Moreover, three surveys found that scientists admitted more frequently to have “modified” or “altered” research to “improve the outcome” than to have reported results they “knew to be untrue”. In other words, many did not think that the data they “improved” were falsified. To some extent, they were arguably right. But the fuzzy boundary between removing noise from results and biasing them towards a desired outcome might be unknowingly crossed by many researchers.”
The research includes some interesting diagrams such as, ” Admission rates of Questionable Research Practices (QRP) in self- and non-self-reports.”
http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.g002#

Heh, another timely post! Clearly this isn’t confined to psychology. Nothing can be more clear that bad science is prevalent throughout than the circular and contradictory blatherings about our corals.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/new-information-demonstrates-why-alarmist-scientists-can-not-be-trusted
We simply cannot trust scientists to give us the whole unabridged truth. They won’t do it even when their own recent blatherings contradict their already accepting ravings.

Anonymous publication is especially important because there you can report unlikely, surprising observations and theories, which are exactly the ones that have the highest value.
Think just about cold fusion. Devastating change if proven true, but also high risk of being wrong.
Peer-review is anonymous in principle, but not in reality. Scientific publications are nowadays like newspapers and report things that we already “know”. Confirmation bias is palpable.

Perhaps Climate Science needs an Office of Climate Science Research Integrity, similar to this
http://ori.hhs.gov/case_summary
In a case involving a scientist at the University of Michigan Medical School, the Office of Research Integrity “found that the Respondent knowingly and intentionally tampered with research materials related to five (5) immunoprecipitation/Western blot experiments and switched the labels on four (4) cell culture dishes for cells used in the same type of experiments to cause false results to be reported in the research record. ORI also found that the Respondent tampered with laboratory research materials by adding ethanol to his colleague’s cell culture media, with the deliberate intent to effectuate the death of growing cells, which caused false results to be reported in the research record. ORI has concluded that these acts seriously deviated from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, and/or reporting research.”

At first I had a really hard time accepting what they said about medical research, then I remembered all the crap that passes for “medical research.” A really good example are the last studies that “proved” second-hand smoke presents a health risk. There were three very large, well designed studies that explored this question. Problem was they kept getting “the wrong answer”. Eventually the anti-tobacco zealots cobbled together a much smaller study with ridiculous confidence limits. At last! They got the desired answer. It was politically correct but scientifically meaningless. I’m not defending smoking, but I strongly oppose fraudulent science. A lot of the stuff that comes out of the CDC under the guise of “medical research” is actually crap. I’m sure a lot of grad students in academia cheat and fudge data and results of their projects which could be called “medical research”.
Most of what I consider “medical research” is funded by the private sector and is conducted with strict scientific rigor and intensive review.

Thanks antony it was way off topic LOL

Matt in Houston
Spot on post. If that post was serious about racism, how come no-one else saw it? Says more about the observer as in too many real life cases of racism
DaveE.

Good post, Anthony. Thank you.
I think that some scientists are willing to make such admissions in a survey, despite the conceivable risk to themselves, because of a feeling of guilt over not having admitted them publicly. Of course, the one does not remit the other, but it is better than nothing, and deserves our praise.
Thank you, scientists who answered these survey questions truthfully — especially those scientists whose truthful answer was in the affirmative. May your honesty be rewarded.
RTF

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-epidemic-of-false-claims
one more link – could be re-written with “climate science” replacing “medical” in about one minute.

How much research science is actually done by students under supervision for their doctoral thesis ?
When you see how the “team” behave there is no reason to doubt their students would do anything to keep the “research” true to the holy grail.

renowebb says: “These people are racist , every caricature is of a minority type person. I am calling the Whitehouse.”
Wal… I laughed along with you, renowebb. Nice!