1/3rd of Scientists admit to Research Violations

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-06-09 05:00am

Linka

One-third of scientists admit to research violations
Maura Lerner
Star Tribune
Published June 9, 2005

A third of the scientists in a nationwide survey admitted to violating some of the bedrock rules of scientific research, according to a report by a team of Minnesota researchers.

The survey, of more than 3,200 U.S. scientists, found that hardly anyone admitted to falsifying data outright.

But a surprising 33 percent confessed to other kinds of misconduct -- such as claiming credit for someone else's work, or changing results because of pressure from a study's sponsor.

The survey indicates that the misconduct involves more than a "few bad apples," said the lead author, Brian Martinson.

Martinson is a sociologist at the HealthPartners Research Foundation in Bloomington.

"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 report in today's issue of the British journal Nature.

The researchers surveyed young and mid-career scientists throughout the United States in 2002. They asked about a long list of questionable actions, from making up data to improper relationships with research subjects.

Among the findings: only three-tenths of 1 percent admitted to "falsifying or cooking research data." Slightly more, 1.4 percent, said they had potentially improper relationships with students or subjects. The survey did not define improper, but researchers said it could include such things as hiring relatives or having an affair.

A significant number --15 percent -- said they had changed the design, methods or results of a study in response to pressure from a financial sponsor.

In addition, 7 percent admitted ignoring "minor" rules for protecting human subjects. And 6 percent said that they failed to report data that contradicted their previous work.

Martinson said this was the first survey of its kind, so it is not known whether the conduct is growing more common.

If anything, he said, the survey probably underestimates the misconduct, because some scientists may have feared discovery if they admitted their actions.

The survey also suggested that younger scientists (average age 35) were less likely to admit to most types of misconduct than their colleagues in mid-career (average age 44).

Scientists, Martinson said, are "one of the hardest-working groups of people that I know." But he said there may be something about their working environment -- the mountains of rules, the pressure to compete for grants and to produce results -- that leads them to compromise their ethics.

"A lot of other professions engage in a lot of misbehavior -- look around at corporate America," he said. "There's been this kind of idea that scientists ... are super-humans or something, that they're immune from these kinds of pressure. But scientists are human."

The survey results came as a surprise to R. Timothy Mulcahy, vice president for research at the University of Minnesota. He called it "a very important study," but said that some of the categories of misconduct may not be as black or white as they seem.

"I think there are a lot of gray zones," he said. Scientists may not always realize they're crossing a line, he said, and universities should do a better job training them in research ethics.

A top official with the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents major research institutions, declined to comment on the findings, saying she hadn't had time to study them.

But Susan Ehringhaus, the group's associate general counsel in Washington, D.C., praised the researchers for raising the issues. "Of course, it's a matter that should be taken seriously," she said. "I am glad to see the questions engaged, and look forward to the debate that I'm sure that they will produce."

The survey was conducted jointly by Martinson and two researchers from the University of Minnesota, Melissa Anderson, an associate professor of higher education, and Prof. Raymond de Vries of the university's Center for Bioethics.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-06-09 05:03am

I wonder if these researchers are part of that 1/3.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-06-09 05:17am

Ugh. Bit these questions need to be adressed. Hopefully it will lead to improvement in how science is done in the future.

Am I naive to be surprised by the high number, I wonder?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-06-09 05:41am

I wonder how long it will be before assholes hop onto this and use it as ammo for why science is teh great satan. SEE THEY DO LIE! I can see it now.

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2005-06-09 06:44am

Lord Zentei wrote:Ugh. Bit these questions need to be adressed. Hopefully it will lead to improvement in how science is done in the future.

The scientific process has been comrpomised because of pressures from outside (financial mostly).
How many of these misconducts would have been avoided without those pressures?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-06-09 07:04am

Also, lets be clear, this is only in the US...land of the fundy fucktrard lobbyist holding the purse strings.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-09 07:07am

Look at the Microsoft vs Linux cases, the results reverse depending on the sponsor

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-06-09 08:07am

If this is true it´s quite disappointing.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-06-09 08:27am

Before anyone gets all worked up, you should consider that science isn't something that you can easily falsify.

If you tweak a study of a new medicinal product in favour of it because that product's manufacturer is bankrolling your operation, you might well get away with it because there is a limit to how carefully your work is reviewed. But the first time an honest scientist reviews your work, you're fucked sideways.

Take note as well that many of the infractions mentioned are in a grey area, ethically, such as having a relationship with a co-worker and ignoring safety precautions when performing experiments - the former being something that many people figure has nothing to do with professional competency in this field and the latter being something which in some people's view falls into the category of acceptable risk in pursuit of progress.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-09 09:19am

It sounds like the study included social "scientists" as well as real ones. In the social sciences, it's far easier to bullshit data and because of the huge sources of error, much easier to get away with it during the process of peer review. I'd bet that the percentage of dishonesty goes down when you take sociologists and psychologists out.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2005-06-09 09:27am

Wonder how long it will take fundi's to incorporate this information into their arguments.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-06-09 09:51am

mplsjocc wrote:Wonder how long it will take fundi's to incorporate this information into their arguments.

Fundamentalists don't need actual information to make arguments. We already know they've been saying this for years based on the mistakes or fabrications of only ONE or TWO famous examples, some almost a hundred years ago.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-06-09 10:10am

mplsjocc wrote:Wonder how long it will take fundi's to incorporate this information into their arguments.

They already have it in their arguments. I had one the other night on just this kind of thing. They assert that science has no formalised method, and parts of the process are routinely ignored and considered scientific. So things like falsifiability, or ability to predict things do not always apply. Therefore, ID is scientific.

This study will bolster that assertion, I'm sure.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2005-06-09 10:33am

A significant number --15 percent -- said they had changed the design, methods or results of a study in response to pressure from a financial sponsor.

This might not be quite as bad as it seems. Changing results is simply wrong, but tweaking the design of a study to make it more attractive to sponsors might not be that big a problem, provided it doesn't actually distort the results.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-09 10:40am

In all honesty, even though I know those fundy ass holes will probably use this against scientific findings in a debate, I'm also quite certain that it's those same ass holes who cause scientists to have to skew findings a bit. This IS a study in the US...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-09 10:46am

I would like to know how many of these researchers who skew study results just happen to work in medical research. No offense to medical researchers out there, but it's not exactly a secret that the drug companies do not pay you to make their products look bad. Hence, for example, it took so long to admit that Tylenol could cause liver damage that it was virtually common knowledge by the time we finally got a study confirming it.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-06-09 12:42pm

It's true. I can't think of a reason why a scientist would be bribed to find a certain date for a radiometric dating test, unless you buy into that whole Evil Atheist Conspiracy thing.

To put it another way, no one is going to bribe Kirkland to find that Utahraptor has a 15 inch, rather than 14 inch claw.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-06-09 12:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Hence, for example, it took so long to admit that Tylenol could cause liver damage that it was virtually common knowledge by the time we finally got a study confirming it.

I didn't know that! What pain relievers should I take then?

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-06-09 01:30pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Hence, for example, it took so long to admit that Tylenol could cause liver damage that it was virtually common knowledge by the time we finally got a study confirming it.
I didn't know that! What pain relievers should I take then?

It is supposed to be safe within limits. Just that you really can't think of taking one more pill. Typically, tylenol where I live is sold in concentrations up to 500mg per pill. We are then told to take 2 of them, up to four times a day.

So that's 4 whole grams. Gee, I never knew I was so close to the limit at times!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2005-06-09 01:37pm

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Hence, for example, it took so long to admit that Tylenol could cause liver damage that it was virtually common knowledge by the time we finally got a study confirming it.
I didn't know that! What pain relievers should I take then?

Opium. Just like in the old days.

I'm interested in the 1.4 percent who had "potentially improper relationships". How would having an affair significantly distort research?

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-06-09 01:43pm

I'm interested in the 1.4 percent who had "potentially improper relationships". How would having an affair significantly distort research?

More susceptible to bribery\blackmail perhaps?

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-06-09 01:46pm

I'm sure we will all be seeing this statistic in future books on creationism.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-06-09 01:46pm

A significant number --15 percent -- said they had changed the design, methods or results of a study in response to pressure from a financial sponsor.

Wasn't it Reagan who said there was no place for government sponsorship of pure science? What a fucking idiot.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-06-09 01:48pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
A significant number --15 percent -- said they had changed the design, methods or results of a study in response to pressure from a financial sponsor.
Wasn't it Reagan who said there was no place for government sponsorship of pure science? What a fucking idiot.

He also said evolution is a "dying theory." The tard should have fucking known that just because a preacher says so doesn't make something true.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-06-09 01:48pm

Durandal wrote:It sounds like the study included social "scientists" as well as real ones. In the social sciences, it's far easier to bullshit data and because of the huge sources of error, much easier to get away with it during the process of peer review. I'd bet that the percentage of dishonesty goes down when you take sociologists and psychologists out.

As likely as it seems, that is stated nowhere in the article. Wishful thinking and implication aren't the same thing.