Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Common Is Scientific Misconduct?

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-steal-plutonium-from-terrorists dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud. Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals. Daniele Fanelli has an interesting paper on PLoS ONE where she performs a meta-analysis synthesizing previous surveys to determine the frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct. A pooled, weighted average of 1.97% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once — a serious form of misconduct by any standard — and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. 'Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct,' writes Fanelli. 'It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.'"

7 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Then how can we know? by Firkragg14 · · Score: 3, Funny

    But if there are so many examples of scientists providing fake data how do i know the results of the survey in the FA are correct?

    1. Re:Then how can we know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I like the results I get, but my partner seems to fake hers

  2. Really? by Jeff+Carr · · Score: 5, Funny

    And how exactly are we supposed to believe her study?

    --
    The television will not be revolutionized.
  3. Re:Yeah... by Epistax · · Score: 3, Funny

    Check your math. I got 83%.

  4. Missed one statistic by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many researchers are having sex with the lab chimps?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. Re:Of course they're not all honest by Requiem18th · · Score: 2, Funny

    The solution is to give up on science and rely on religion, Ray Comfort is a geniusa and Kevin Hovind was right all along! </sarcasm>

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  6. meta meta by solweil · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to do a meta-meta-analysis to see how common meta-analyses are fraudulently conducted.