
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?  - iamelgringo
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
======
Maro
I think most career-scientists don't fabricate research, they're just very
conformists. They have to publish x papers a year in respected journals, so
there's not much wiggle-room (in astrophysics, x is roughly 3-10).

For a good rant, see "What do astrophysics and the world's oldest profession
have in common?" at

<http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310368>

"[Chandrasekhar] used to say, ironically, that the increasing velocity of the
paper number is higher than the speed of light, but there is nothing to worry
about for there is no violation of any physical law because these papers carry
no information."

PS: I'm a PhD student in physics.

------
tokenadult
Thanks for the link to this very important article. The submitted article
describes the worst case in "hard" sciences. What I encounter in my community
volunteer work as president of a statewide organization about education of
gifted children is commonly believed statements that have no research base at
all. Many plausible ideas that are widely believed are nonetheless wrong and
without any empirical support.

------
tybris
If an experiment is not repeated, it's not important.

~~~
jzachary
That comment suggests an interesting study: how many experiments published in
papers are actually repeated by other researchers. I think in computer science
it is very low. I would bet that in the physical sciences it could be even
lower given the cost of physical laboratory equipment and time constraints to
publish "original" research.

Does anybody have data or experience to suggest repeat rates?

------
kirse
_This pristine image of science is based on the theory that the scientific
community is guided by norms including disinterestedness and organized
skepticism, which are incompatible with misconduct [8], [9]. Increasing
evidence, however, suggests that known frauds are just the “tip of the
iceberg”, and that many cases are never discovered._

This just about reinforces my attitude on science of today. I love the vast
knowledge and technical advances science has brought us, but heaven forbid one
question the results of an experiment or take a skeptical attitude towards
_particular_ theories, and one is typically beaten over the head with the
Great Stick of Cult Science.

There really is no room for skepticism anymore in the science of today. Either
you agree with "us" or you don't, and if you don't then you're shunned from
the community. Studies like this further prove to me that my continuing
healthy dose of skepticism in all matters of science is fully justified.

------
plesn
This is not very surprising, "Science" is a human playground as many other
fields: scientists produce publications, and are confronted to other schools.
So yeah, they can slightly cheat sometimes. Moreover even something as big as
the Sokal hoax can happen...

The important thing is to keep the field intellectually stimulating and honest
enough to 1) keep progressing in the average case 2) keep the most brilliant
ones in.

~~~
TriinT
The Sokal affair happened because the so-called _Social Sciences_ (an
oximoron) tend to have zero standards...

------
xenophanes
This study might be a fraud ;)

------
d0mine
Typo: s/misconduct my any standard/misconduct by any standard/

