Scientific Fraud: A Reminder...

[Uncle Gord]

http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=articl-
e&sid=1265

Gord.

[John Sanke]

From the article cited: "In a survey published June 9 in the
journal Nature, about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who
responded admitted to falsification or plagiarism."

These two charges are totally different! Falsification is
contrary to the most basic elements of science, while
plagiarism is merely a human failing.

Gee, I was lucky in my scientific career. No one ever put a
pascal of pressure on me to exceed my abilities, or that of my
experiments or equipment. All I needed was curiosity, a
fondness for economy of explanation, and the belief that if I
couldn't explain anything I was doing even to my youngest
child I didn't really understand it myself.

[Tc]

And those are only the ones stupid enough to admit to it!!!!!!

TC

John Sankey wrote:
> From the article cited: "In a survey published June 9 in the
> journal Nature, about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who
> responded admitted to falsification or plagiarism."
>
> These two charges are totally different! Falsification is
> contrary to the most basic elements of science, while
> plagiarism is merely a human failing.
>
> Gee, I was lucky in my scientific career. No one ever put a
> pascal of pressure on me to exceed my abilities, or that of
> my experiments or equipment. All I needed was curiosity, a
> fondness for economy of explanation, and the belief that if
> I couldn't explain anything I was doing even to my youngest
> child I didn't really understand it myself.

[Dz]

Uncle Gordon <UGbod@dod.com> wrote:
> http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article-
> &sid=1265

I like the part that says that according to research by Prof.
David Wright "foreign nationals who learned somewhat different
scientific standards" is one of the "basic reasons" of "why
scientists cheat".

Does that imply that Canadian nationals are the culprits and
the basic reason of why scientists cheat? :-) Seriously, I
doubt cheating is tolerated any more lightly in any non-US
system that produces research scientists.

That said, I openly admit that I fake data all the time,
except that I call it "simulations". "Real" data is such a
hindrance anyway.

1) It is expensive. Many people won't spit for $20 to give a
DNA sample not to mention give blood to benefit ungodly
research they don't trust.

2) You'd have to be careful not to overstep consent, protect
privacy, keep the lab notebook, ... In short, become a
part-time accountant.

3) With real data, you never know "the truth", whereas with
samples taken from a simulated population you're the one
who specified all the parameters. So you know how often
what you're finding is what you're supposed to find and
thus determine how well your method works.

4) Any results obtained with a real data set are subject to
statistical sampling whereas with simulations, the
distribution of results can be examined over repeated
samples produced under exactly the same conditions.

[Tc]

DZ wrote:
> Uncle Gordon <UGbod@dod.com> wrote:
> > http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=artic-
> > le&sid=1265
>
> I like the part that says that according to research by
> Prof. David Wright "foreign nationals who learned somewhat
> different scientific standards" is one of the "basic
> reasons" of "why scientists cheat".

American scientists are just so goll-darned honest and they,
in no way, are motivated by the billions of $$ being spent by
industry to fund their studies.

Dontcha know?

I don't think most american researchers understand the basic
concepts of ethics. They are almost all crooked, you know like
the politicians that direct the FDA, the NIHs and the USDA.

TC

>
> Does that imply that Canadian nationals are the culprits and
> the basic reason of why scientists cheat? :-) Seriously, I
> doubt cheating is tolerated any more lightly in any non-US
> system that produces research scientists.
>
> That said, I openly admit that I fake data all the time,
> except that I call it "simulations". "Real" data is such a
> hindrance anyway.
>
> 1) It is expensive. Many people won't spit for $20 to give a
> DNA sample not to mention give blood to benefit ungodly
> research they don't trust.
>
> 2) You'd have to be careful not to overstep consent, protect
> privacy, keep the lab notebook, ... In short, become a
> part-time accountant.
>
> 3) With real data, you never know "the truth", whereas with
> samples taken from a simulated population you're the one
> who specified all the parameters. So you know how often
> what you're finding is what you're supposed to find and
> thus determine how well your method works.
>
> 4) Any results obtained with a real data set are subject to
> statistical sampling whereas with simulations, the
> distribution of results can be examined over repeated
> samples produced under exactly the same conditions.