more than 3 or 4...
Posted by anyman on Jul 06, 2002 at 05:40
Re: well... (DA Morgan)
hmm...there was the melanic moth fraud from just under 50 years ago...you know the one... nature recently published an article stating that they should never have published the work in the first place...the one where kittlewell glued and pinned moths to trees and warmed them with engine heat on the bonnet of his car...the one that has been the prize horse in the evolutionary stable for the last fifty years...the one that has still not been withdrawn from many textbooks where it continues to influence students, and teachers (some that know better and some that don’t) continue to teach it as an example of evolution (aside from the fact that even when it was accepted it was never an example of evolution :-)
but we’ll leave that one for another day
then there are haeckel’s fraudulent claims regarding embryos from various creatures, and while his fraud was first exposed more than 100 years ago, it was apparently forgotten and his garbage found its way into maistream american science books and classrooms after the turn of the 20th century...then it was exposed again in 30s 40s and 50s...but perhaps the most tragic fraud of all is that it can still be found in some textbooks and is still being taught by professors at major universities TODAY as evidence of evolution
and more evidence of fraud in haeckel’s work that had been previously unexposed was published in a medical journal by researchers from the UK a few years ago
but we’ll leave that for another day too :-)
let’s start here...this guy says many of the things that i have been saying for years...only better :-)In the routine practice of scientific research, there are many types of misrepresentation and bias which could be considered dubious. However, only a few narrowly defined behaviours are singled out and castigated as scientific fraud. A narrow definition of scientific fraud is convenient to the groups in society -- scientific elites, and powerful government and corporate interests -- that have the dominant influence on priorities in science. Several prominent Australian cases illustrate how the denunciation of fraud helps to paint the rest of scientific behaviour as blameless.
That is the usual picture, anyway, for public consumption. Probe a bit more deeply into scientific activities, and you will find that fraud is neither clear-cut nor rare. Stories abound of the stealing of credit for ideas. They range from the PhD supervisor who published his student's work under his own name, to the top scientist who, as a referee, delayed publication of a rival's work in order to obtain full credit for it himself -- including a Nobel Prize. There are also stories of various other forms of cheating.
One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself . It presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis. The misrepresentation of the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method .
Another misrepresentation occurs in the list of publications cited in any scientific paper. The publications cited serve many purposes, but a principal one is supposed to be giving credit to prior work, in particular work which formed the basis of the present contribution. In practice, citations give a very poor picture in this regard. Citations are often included not because they have been read -- Erwin Chargaff refers to slabs of bibliographies "wafted in their entirety from one paper to the next"  -- or had any impact on the research, but because it is useful to have a long list to impress referees or to enhance one's own work while denigrating competitors or enemies.
Many PhD students in science feel obliged to list their supervisor as a co-author of papers, even though the supervisor did little or no work on the project. This practice is another example of misrepresentation. By informal accounts it is more widespread than commonly acknowledged, but is seldom documented .
Intellectual exploitation is not only common: in many situations it is required. In scientific papers it is considered inappropriate to acknowledge typists, secretaries, librarians, lab assistants and others not involved in 'real science'. (In books, these individuals sometimes are mentioned.) By contrast, those in a position of equality or superiority expect generous acknowledgement. The heads of some departments and research labs expect to have their names attached to every paper produced under their aegis, whether or not they had anything directly to do with it . Some would claim such co-authorship is necessary so that they can raise more funds to keep their junior reseachers employed.
Another common misrepresentation of research work is exaggeration of its quality, progress and social importance. This is almost essential for a successful scientific career. A modest and honest grant application stands little chance of success: the applicant, to obtain money, must puff up the quality and importance of previous work and give a highly unrealistic assessment of the likely results of funding future work -- or, as is common, request money to carry out research which actually has been completed. Most grant applications are convenient fictions.
The flip side of bias built into the structure of science is suppression of dissent. The few scientists who speak out against dominant interests -- such as against pesticides, nuclear power or automobile design -- often come under severe attack. They may have their reputations smeared, be demoted, be transferred, have their publications blocked, be dismissed, or be blacklisted .
It can be argued that there is bias in all scientific research. Whether bias is seen as a problem depends on what the bias is. Biases that are no threat to powerful interests are treated as standard or tolerated. Biases that do threaten powerful interests are, often enough, attacked with full fury.
William McBride is one of Australia's best known scientists, widely noted for his discovery of the link between thalidomide and deformed babies. In 1987, Norman Swan of the Australian Broadcasting Commission published allegations that McBride had falsified data in a paper published in the Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, namely changing figures for doses of scopolomine administered to pregnant rabbits and manufacturing data for two nonexistent rabbits. This had occurred in the early 1980s. Two junior researchers under McBride, Phillip Vardy and Jill French, had tried to raise the problems with directors of Foundation 41 where the research was done, but got nowhere and resigned. Seven other junior researchers wrote to Foundation 41's Research Advisory Committee about the allegations; they were retrenched. The Australian Journal of Biological Sciences did not publish a letter sent by Vardy and French. The case would never have received public attention but due to the persistence of journalist Norman Swan. Another persistent journalist, Bill Nicol, had written a book about McBride, including this case and other information, but for years was unable to obtain publication due to the risk of defamation. Nicol's book only appeared after Swan's stories and with Swan's help .
After the public revelations about McBride, Foundation 41 set up an inquiry which found that McBride had engaged in scientific fraud. Yet, some time after the inquiry reported, McBride returned to the Board of the Foundation.
That these sorts of experiences are common is attested by Charles McCutchen, a researcher at the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare who has considerable experience with cases of scientific fraud. McCutchen writes that:
"In protesting scientific fraud, the whistleblower soon realizes that he or she will have few allies. The biomedical science establishment has taken the position that fraud is very rare, and will use almost any means to maintain that illusion. Its response is sufficiently savage to make whistleblowing professionally suicidal if the accused is either important or can involve someone important. This means that one cannot in good conscience ask for support, because one has no right to get the career of an innocent third party destroyed.
"The de facto alliance between perpetrators of scientific fraud and the biomedical science establishment is reflected in the response of the scientific journals.
Scientists can be quite righteous about honesty in their profession. They typically claim that fraud is very rare, much less common than in other occupations. [now where have we heard this before...maybe here, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence :-] This belief is made possible initially by the definition of corrupt behaviour, limiting it to particular extreme cases of misrepresentation such as blatant and detectable altering or manufacturing of data. Such behaviour is defined as terrible and punishable. It is conveniently defined as being quite distinct from the wide range of other misrepresentations and biases that pervade scientific practice. clicky
and then this...A literature search using the key words "SCIENCE & FRAUD" on an INFOTRAC CD-ROM-based data system yielded over two-hundred and thirty citations regarding these topics during the years from 1988 to 1991. Typical citations in the popular literature were available for news-magazines and newspapers such as Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and U.S. News & World Report. Commonly cited science related publications included Science, Nature, New Scientist, Science News, Omni, Discover, and The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Business related publications such as Forbes, Fortune Magazine, The Economist, and Business Week were cited as well. It would seem that discussions of "SCIENCE & FRAUD" in contemporary periodicals have become quite fashionable.
and from the same site (under “the types of scientific misconduct,” then go to the second section titled “deliberate dishonesty”)In 1986, a researcher in the field of immunology, Margot O'Toole, raised questions about a paper submitted to the journal Cell by Thereza Imanishi-Kiri. At that time, O'Toole was a postdoctoral student in Imanishi-Kiri's laboratory and she lost her job as a result of this whistle-blowing.(8) David Baltimore, former president of Rockefeller University, shared responsibility for the paper as one of five authors. Baltimore discussed the disputed data with Imanishi-Kiri in 1986; however, the records weren't scrutinized due to reported disorganization of the notebooks and supporting documents. Baltimore staunchly defended the work of his co-author; a retraction of the paper in question was not initiated. O'Toole was not satisfied. She brought her concerns to immunologists at Tufts University and in June of 1986 they concluded that there was no evidence of foul play. This conclusion was supported by a following review at MIT. O'Toole persisted. In January 1989, an NIH panel investigated the matter. Although some questions were raised regarding the acquisition of the scrutinized data, the panel concluded that the paper was essentially sound. Baltimore continued to support the work of his colleague and placed 100% trust in the integrity of the Cell paper.
In May of 1989, Baltimore, Imanishi-Kiri, O'Toole, and others participated in official hearings before a U.S. Congress investigations subcommittee. The Secret Service offered potential evidence of foul play obtained from forensic analyses of ribbon ink, printer, and paper upon which the data in question were produced. Baltimore dismissed this evidence and continued to adamantly defend his colleague. He provided a stirring commentary regarding these hearings for the periodical Technology Review. Titled "Self-Regulation of Science", Baltimore offered the view that "The worth of a piece of research is determined when scientific peers attempt to reproduce or, more commonly, extend an experimenter's results.".(9) He argued that there were those who
"want to substitute criteria and methods more appropriate for ferreting out corporate fraud than for evaluating a scientific investigation. They wish to impose rules that would not merely regulate science but regiment it. This poses a danger to the integrity of the scientific process.".(9)
It is ironic that Baltimore would agree in his short essay that "We must be alert to indications of fraud and misconduct, and ready to discipline the perpetrators.". In March of 1991, NIH investigators concluded that Imanishi-Kiri forged entire sets of data during the years from 1986 to 1988 in order to support her Cell paper. The investigation didn't resolve the question of whether simple error, mistakes, or fraud led to the original discrepancies in the paper. Once it came under scrutiny however, Imanishi-Kiri began to systematically fabricate data to support it.(10) In March of 1991, Baltimore finally requested that Cell retract the paper in question. In May, he issued a statement to NIH that included an apology to Margot O'Toole.(11) He cited that his defense of his colleague was fueled "by my respect for Dr. Imanishi-Kiri's demonstrated abilities as a scientist, by my belief that the paper's scientific conclusions were sound, and by my trust in the efficacy of the peer review process.". It is tragic that Baltimore would argue so adamantly for the self-regulation of science and yet not make a positive contribution to the process himself.
Those who read Baltimore's literary accounts will find that he is a very careful writer. Many of his statements express keen insight into the workings of science as an institution. At the same time, his handling of the affair as portrayed by the media is a terribly embarrassing example of 'how not to handle an allegation of scientific misconduct'. Dr. Baltimore wanted to be such a strong spokesperson for his colleagues (and seemingly defend the honor of science as well), that he neglected to mind the affairs at hand. He made extraordinary statements before NIH investigators; such as "You can make up anything that you want in your notebooks, but you can't call it fraud unless it's published."! (10) He responded with hostility toward the initiators of the congressional investigative committees in which he was invited to participate. Baltimore's credibility was soon damaged if not completely destroyed. He has since resigned from his position as president of Rockefeller University. Even Nobel laureates share human character flaws and motives -- both his personal and scientific reputations have undoubtedly suffered dearly following this spectacle. A full literary account of this affair will undoubtedly provide for interesting reading.
here are a couple of books dedicated to the issue of fraud in science cited by the above author
(1). W. Broad and N. Wade. Betrayers of the truth. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
(2). A. Kohn. False Prophets. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1986
here is another book dedicated to the issue
there is also congressional documentation of scientific fraud here is a list of bibliographies of transcripts of hearings concerning scientific misconduct and academic fraud. It has links to each transcript's table of contents as well. Some of these hearings are quite famous.
you can peeky here
and here How much fraud is there in science?
The picture of scientists politely discussing theories, proposing new ones in view of new data, etc. appears to be completely devoid of any emotions. In fact this is far from the truth, the discussions are very human, even though the bulk of the scientific community will eventually accept a single theory based on it explaining the data and making a series of verified predictions. But before this is achieved, does it happen that researchers fake results or experiments for prestige and/or money? How frequent is this kind of scientific fraud?
In its simplest form this question is unanswerable, since undetected fraud is by definition unmeasurable. Of course there are many known cases of fraud in science.
keeping the faith is a video dedicated to the issue
my server blocks geocities but you can go here and let me know what you find
my server also blocks tripod but you can go here
something else of interestScientific Method Amended
Here's something I picked up from one of Geof Metcalf's columns which reveals one of the unspoken tenets of the "modern Scientific Method" being employed by today's fraud-mongering scientists:
Maier's Law states:
~ "If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of" (sounds like darwin in a letter to his brother dated the day before origins was published when he said something like...***the ideas put forth in “origin” are so satisfying that if the facts be found to differ, then so much for the facts*** [rough paraphrase...i’ll post the actual quote when i find it] :-)
~ "the bigger the theory, the better"
~ "the experiment may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory." (there’s more of interest here
hope that helps...it more than satisfies your request for 3 or 4 :-)
as in all walks of life...including christians and preachers...fraud is also common among scientists
i have a couple of personal friends that have been found guilty of fraud in science...one of them is my brother in christ...too bad, so sad...he has since sought and got forgiveness
dreamtime is over, dano...fold up the fantasies and fairy tales, and venture out into reality :-)
above emps and brackets mine