Misconduct of scientists? Are we surprised?

[AlAyeti]

Why aren't the educated elite put to the same test in the public square and places of higher council, as the garden-variety religion promoting agenda-ist? A sham artist is a sham artist. It's all about money or power or both.

Interesting little story running on Yahoo!

Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct

By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thu Jun 9, 1:00 AM ET

Few scientists fabricate results from scratch or flatly plagiarize the work of others, but a surprising number engage in troubling degrees of fact-bending or deceit, according to the first large-scale survey of scientific misbehavior.

More than 5 percent of scientists answering a confidential questionnaire admitted to having tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research or said they had circumvented some human research protections.

And more than 15 percent admitted they had changed a study's design or results to satisfy a sponsor, or ignored observations because they had a "gut feeling" they were inaccurate.

None of those failings qualifies as outright scientific misconduct under the strict definition used by federal regulators. But they could take at least as large a toll on science as the rare, high-profile cases of clear-cut falsification, said Brian Martinson, an investigator with the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, who led the study appearing in today's issue of the journal Nature.

Here's the url for your convenience:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/200506 ... misconduct

/ / /

Too bad that some deceptions like Haeckels recapitulation "theory" made up out of the thin air in his head, still find its way into school books, still printed as fact today. And, the peppered moth. Two different varieties of moth touted by the educated as one.

Both are in todays high school text books. And the researchers of both knew what they did and why.

If students were taught about life in the womb, or sexuality in general, in a more honest and accurate presentation of scientific facts, many of today's greatest ills would be wiped away or minimized to a far greater extent.

Weiss' opening paragraph reads as an example of twisting words to alter their meanings.

"Fact-bending" or "deceit," is what any good mother would call lying and lying is what any good mother knows is fabricating something that is knowingly false into something that looks true.

[steen]

I don't see the point in discrediting science. It is a perfectly valid discipline that lends plenty of support to Christianity.

And plenty that doesn't. It seems that you define the value of science as to how well it supports Christianity? That's kind of an odd way of lookign at Science, one that is doomong you to run into plenty of inconsistencies in your claims. Like the next one:

Just because some scientific conclusions aren't so great (evolution, perhaps?) doesn't mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water.

And here is where you flounder.

Science that is "not so great" seems defined per whether it fits your literal interpretation of Bible verses, doen't it? That is an indication that you see science as Christianity's string puppet, merely there to confirm what you have already concluded per your beliefs in Biblical text. As such, why bother doing science and exploring what actually happens? Why not just decide that "good" science is what confirms the Bible and decide that all biblical events and descriptions are "Scientific" Why the middle-man, other than for some attemt at lending "legitimacy" to hristianity. You seem to feel a need for Christianity and Faith to be "proven," seemingly just like the Israelites building their Golden Calf?

Is that how you see science, as an attempt at "proving God"?

Or is it that what scientific research actually finds does have a value in itself? Certainly, your post seems to contradict this, in which case arguing about the evidence in science seems dishonest. because of course, your view of evidence then solely would rest on its congruence with Biblical text, not with the actual data.

Only that is, as far as I can see, the reason why you would label some science "aren't so great" when its exploration through the Scientific Method is as valid as all other science that has thus been explored!

[jerickson314]

Steen, you completely misunderstood what I meant by my post. I was explaining to AlAyeti why we shouldn't attack science, and explaining that it wasn't simply an attack on Christianity.

And did you notice my "perhaps" with regards to evolution? I was actually referring to both scientific and theological arguments against it, not just theological ones.

And if the Bible is true, science will naturally support a proper interpretation of it.

[steen]

Steen, you completely misunderstood what I meant by my post. I was explaining to AlAyeti why we shouldn't attack science, and explaining that it wasn't simply an attack on Christianity.

Ok.

And did you notice my "perhaps" with regards to evolution? I was actually referring to both scientific and theological arguments against it, not just theological ones.

Hmm, maybe you mistyped, then? because you were referring to not-so-great science and used evolution as a potential example. At least as I read it.

And if the Bible is true, science will naturally support a proper interpretation of it.

Of course. If there is evidence, then that is what Science supports.

[QED]

Misconduct of scientists? Of course, they're human.
Are we surprised? Of course not, nobody's perfect.
But are they held accountable for lying? If they're caught, yes...

...And that's the most important bit. The main thing about science is that it must be repeatable. Take for example Pons and Fleischmann's experiment in which they claimed they'd achieved cold fusion. If other scientists cannot reproduce an experiment then it's simply not accepted.

Another safeguard exists for theoretical work. Theories are published and reviewed by a whole army of other scientists who have made a name for themselves by publishing similar stuff and surviving the ordeal. That is to say it's a highly competitive process in which any inconstancies are readily challenged by people keen to make their own mark.

Other checks exist for all types of scientific theories which customarily include suggestions for their own dismantling. The emphasis here not being on how correct they are but on how they might be disproved. This results in the making of predictions about things that we would expect to see and those that we wouldn't. Thus researchers are equipped with plentiful opportunities to confirm or contradict others findings.

What all this creates is an averaging effect: From time to time science gets things wrong (more so in certain fields than in others) but over time the irregularities settle into a valuable pattern which can be relied upon to guide us in whatever endeavors interest us. The fact that you can hop across the Atlantic at 30,000 feet in the air as a matter of routine is testimony to this approach.

[Jose]

Peer review boards are virtually impossible in scientific circles more so than in the religious, because in the case of the New Testament, the guide book is finished. Scientists don't even have to agree with each other. They just have to be working on a newer theory. Whether or not they are lying about the theory.

I can see that you haven't served on a peer review board. Consider the grant review board: There are 20 or so scientists sitting aroung the table. Most have read the grant proposal under discussion (each is assigned to 3-5 reviewers, but some read more than they are assigned). The one who has been assigned to lead the review must give a short summary and critique of the proposal. If s/he doesn't do it fairly, s/he is severely embarrassed in front of the others.

Certainly, mistakes can be made. Sometimes, people's reputations lead to overly-optimistic, or overly pessimistic reviews of their grants. I've seen both. But consider the alternatives: having some Big Guy just hand out the money on the basis of whim.

The scientists who have been caught fudging things tend not to be the reviewers. Except in the case of a pathological liar (one case I know of), the others are low- or mid-level folks who crack under the pressure. It's not much fun being told repeatedly by your peers that you're an idiot, and some folks go bonkers and start trying to save themselves. Quite sad, really.

The important thing to remember here is that they are not trying to fool the public. If they are trying to fool anyone, it is other scientists. This is in contrast to the deceptive creationists, whether YEC, moonie, or scientologist. Their goal is to fool the public, and they generally know better.