How Often Do Economists Commit Misconduct?

schwit1 (797399) writes A survey of professional academic economists finds that a large percentage are quite willing to cheat or fake data to get the results they want. From the paper's abstract: "This study reports the results of a survey of professional, mostly academic economists about their research norms and scientific misbehavior. Behavior such as data fabrication or plagiarism are (almost) unanimously rejected and admitted by less than 4% of participants. Research practices that are often considered 'questionable,' e.g., strategic behavior while analyzing results or in the publication process, are rejected by at least 60%. Despite their low justifiability, these behaviors are widespread. Ninety-four percent report having engaged in at least one unaccepted research practice."

That less than 4% engage in "data fabrication or plagiarism" might seem low, but it is a terrible statistic . ... 40% admit to doing what they agree are "questionable" research practices, while 94% admit to committing "at least one unaccepted research practice." In other words, almost none of these academic economists can be trusted in the slightest. As the paper notes, "these behaviors are widespread.""

Comments

Political/Moral

[wisnoskij]

These are people who analyze and predict the health of countries. Of course their results are more politically motivated than evidence based. Would it even be ethical to tell a truth that would cause an economic disaster? If economists had known in advance of one of the great depressions that it was going to happen, and releasing the results would of only sped-up the collapse, should they release the information? And it will always be better politically for the government to be just as surprised as everyone else when things go belly up, instead of being the president who predicted, but was unable to solve, the coming collapse.

Re:Political/Moral

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I point out "Government just wanted to help people get homes" isn't a good thing as you attempt to pass it off. There is that whole thing about needing to be able to pay for it. The GP does have a point about Fannie and Freddie being created basically for the purpose of securing junk mortgages that in any sane lending world would have never been granted to give underprivileged a chance to buy a house. The problem is, as cruel as it may be, is that if the underprivileged can't afford to buy a house, they shouldn't be given a loan allowing them to in the first place.

Tough love is sometimes the best love, and not helping people get themselves into trouble is usually the right thing to do, even if it means doing something that isn't nice. I believe the term is "enabler" and it's not a good thing when you're talking about destructive behavior. And I at least would call allowing people to bury themselves in debt as destructive behavior.