Slashdot Mirror
How Common Is Scientific Misconduct?
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.'"
During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks. Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate. Only about 65% of them supported Obama.
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.
Don't pull your leg. It might make your knee grow!
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
Yes, and if "white people" were not racists, then at most 35% of them would have supported McCain. Without any supremacists (and apologists) Obama would still have won with about 65% of the votes according to the statistics you present.
You've posted this a few times and on the off chance you actually believe this then you're a tit.
There are racist people of all colours but black people primarily vote democrat in every election and there's a good chance Obama would have lost as a Republican. Especially when the last government was Republican and complete cocked up the US.
Who was in control of Congress the last two years of Bush's presidency, when things got REALLY fucked up? That's right, the Democrats. Clearly you don't understand the American political system, my European friend, so let me lay out a few basics: Congress controls the purse strings. The President can do nothing without their approval. I didn't see any Democrats in Congress growing a pair and voting to cut off Iraq war funding. Even now, with the most rabidly liberal ideologue this country has seen since FDR sitting in the White House, they refuse to end funding for this war. The more things "change," the more they stay the same. The only thing that did change was that now we have a Chicago political machine thug as a president instead of a country club good old boy. And P.S. - this Chicago thug seems to have a special hatred in his heart for the British, as evidenced by his shitting all over the Queen, the Prime Minister, and most recently the British press. So I hope you're not British, for your sake.
I was born in American and lived there for the first 24 years of my life so I am aware of how the system works and in fact I'm still part of the system since I have to file US taxes and, in fact, received a economic stimulus check to spend on the UK economy courtesy of Bush.
I'm fully aware of when the democrats had taken control. I do agree that congress has to take responsibility too. So it's a bit unfortunately that people forget either blame the democrats for the supposed woes of the Reagan era or give the democrats praise they deserve for whatever it is they like about the Reagan era.
The economic problems started under Clinton with the dot com bust and Bush did inherit an economy that wasn't in the greatest shape. His priority should have only been to fix the economy. Up until 11/9/01 when his focus should have been the economy and going after Bin Laden.
Instead he blew a big wad of money on just about everything except Bin Laden. While at the same time the housing market was going shit.
The democrats could have done more but the damage was done long before. You can't just undo a sham of a housing market by electing democrats.
I didn't vote for Obama but I also didn't vote for McCain. Neither was a good choice though ultimately better than the likes of Hillary.