Wendee, you asked: "I think its pretty obvious that consultants are hired by certain 'sides' to prove their point (tobacco lobbyists, drug manufacturers) but the person hiring a consultant would not come out and say 'here do research and show this' right? So what I want to know is how DO they operate? Is it just 'expected' that the research will show a certain thing?"
I have worked as a consulting ecologist, both for government and private entities, both as an independent consultant and as part of team. Yes, you are right, most industrial clients do not come out and ask for certain results. Usually they want you to collect all the relevant information and analyze and interpret it so that it can be used to properly but not falsely support their interests. Unfortunately, a consultant has no control over how a client uses or does not use this information and your contract prevents you from releasing the information independently. So you might do an ethical and scientifically supportable job of collecting, analyzing and reporting but the client may use only that part that favors their interests and suppress the rest. If this happens and you believe it improper, the only ethical thing you can do is try to educate your client, possibly protest, and perhaps refuse to do any more work for them. But they can shop around and probably find someone who is not quite so ethical and they will probably bad-mouth you to other potential clients. This has not happened to me, perhaps because I and my superiors were careful in deciding who to work for. Where I have most often seen bad science is in the political and policy making arenas, where "scientific" documents have been produced to support an organization's particular agenda. In many cases these were produced by unidentified individuals or identified individuals with weak credentials. Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wendee Holtcamp Sent: Sunday, 30 October, 2005 07:30 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: questionable research practices Thanks for your feedback Wen. The really blatant cases of scientific misconduct where someone gets fired seem clear. I wonder more about those situations that fall under "questionable research practices" How do those who come across these situations of questionable research practices deal with it? Ignore it or call the scientist on it? On one hand people need to be sensitive about casting doubt on someone's scientific reputation if the person is making an honest mistake but on the other hand, I think for nonprofits and thinktanks and scientific organizations and "consultants" funded by industry and such, this kind of "research" is standard practice and people too often turn a blind eye for fear of stirring up the muck or getting fired (and its a reasonable fear esp if you don't work for government where laws protect whistleblowers). Is it naivete on the scientists part (they can always claim it) or blatant? Proving causation is difficult. But do we need somehow to show the public (and the media) whose science is more rigorous, when the media often has no clue if a study is actually scientifically valid? I wonder if there's an organization/website that outs nonprofits funded by particular groups - in fact I think I saw something like that. We need somehow to educate the public about why questionable research practices and so-called science done to "prove a point" undermine the actual integrity of real scientific inquiry. Most media can't assess the statistical methods, the respectability of a particular journal (the loose tier system of journal pubs), the difference between a single study and the "truth" or a scientific consensus. And they don't know to ask these questions so they just report whatever they hear. A similar but different example is an article in People Magazine about the ID/evolution trial in Dover PA, and it quotes two teenagers with their opinions on teaching ID in the classroom, putting their opinion on equal footing with scientists with long careers and much more life experience behind them. There is after all a reason we don't let people vote until they are 18 and why people in their 30s, 40s, 50s etc with long careers and much life/professional experience have a MORE valid opinion than a teenagers. The teen has a right to an opinion but they simply can not have the depth of understanding of the issue that say Eugenie Scott or Kenneth Miller would. But the public reading the article does not necessarily understand this! And if those teens don't get an adequate education learning the actual scientific facts as we know them to be, then they will end up with a skewed understanding of the world and causing more harm than good in society by voting out of ignorance. I think academic institutions tend to be more scientifically rigorous than some of the non-academic scientific organizations out there. I think its pretty obvious that consultants are hired by certain "sides" to prove their point (tobacco lobbyists, drug manufacturers) but the person hiring a consultant would not come out and say "here do research and show this" right? So what I want to know is how DO they operate? Is it just "expected" that the research will show a certain thing? Wen your story about your friend's colleague is interesting. There's a lot of unrepeatable research and the question is, was it falsified or was there just some fluke? We want to give the benefit of the doubt but professors do have favorites sometimes and they want to believe what they want to believe. Wendee > complain that previous students made fake results and graduated and became > faculty elsewhere, then a new student came along, and he/she had to > reproduce the previous "good' results to continue the research. While he > couldn't repeat the results and the professor would think he is stupid, > and > he wasted a lot of time. So it's quite hard for the new student to > continue, > should he also falsify and make "good" results? The answer is NO, but I > think professors should also listen to students on producing results. If > he/she couldn't repeat results well enough and you know that he/she is not > lazy and stupid, you probably have to take a second thought and accept > the > fact and find out what's going on. This is especially important for Famous > professors who only think that his/her previous students did great > job,,,,and blame the new students being stupid and lazy. > > Wen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. ~ LOGOS Communications Freelance Writer-Photographer ~~ http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com Bohemian Adventures Blog ~~ http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com 281-798-8417 ~ ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Better to light a candle than curse the darkness - Chinese proverb >
