THis is just my guess, but I would think that most people who are = accused of this, are probably really victims of poorly designed = experiments or experiments in which blinded or double blind studys are = either impractical or impossible. Such studies could easily be = susceptible to subconscious biasing of data collection. Although I am = sure there are unscrupulous scientists out there, I would expect this to = be the bigger problem than deliberately "faked" data. =20 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas A&M University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-233-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html =20
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Morty Ortega Sent: Sun 10/30/2005 9:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: questionable research practices Hi, Two more cents. Make sure to read the article by Bob Montgomerie and Tim Birkhead, 2005. A beginner's guide to scientific misconduct. ISBE Newsletter. 17:16-24. You can find the pdf at http://web.unbc.ca/isbe/newsletter/commentaries&editorials/Montgomerie&Bi= rkhead_vol17(1).pdf In the lastes issue of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology (ISBE) there is another interesting article by Anders Pape M=F8ller, unfortunately is not in pdf format yet, but as soon it gets in I will post it. cheers Morty Ortega Natural Resources University of Connecticut On 10/29/05, wenlong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > He are my two cents: > > If you check out New York Times on Oct 28, there is a news about a > professor in MIT got fired because of misconduct in scientific = research. > > or go to > = http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/10/28/mit_pr= ofe > ssor_is_fired_over_fabricated_data/ > > Another thing that I want to point out is that some professors only = want > to see good results and that makes students fabricate or falsify = research > results only in order to get him/her pleased. I have heard student = friends > 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 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wendee Holtcamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 3:04 PM > Subject: questionable research practices > > > > I want to get a dialogue going about scientific misconduct vs =3D > > "questionable research practices" and your opinions as scientists on = =3D > > these issues - and whistleblowing comes into this. In this era where = it =3D > > seems the government and policymakers routinely ignore science, how = does =3D > > one know what science to trust? If you're a whisteblower and you got = =3D > > fired from a private industry (where there is little protection) = about a =3D > > scientific integrity issue, email me offlist for an article I'm = working =3D > > on. > > > > Is there any kind of consensus in the general academic and = scientific =3D > > community about ethics in scientific research, such as official =3D > > statements by major science organizations like AAAS, AIBS, NAS, or = even =3D > > ESA. I've done some searching and what I've found is very = scattered.=3D20 > > > > If you're a professor - when you are hired do you ever get told or = =3D > > taught about the standards of ethics and integrity in research of = your =3D > > institution?=3D20 > > > > So the question becomes - if the organization the scientists work = for =3D > > turn the other cheek but there is public money involved, who holds = them =3D > > accountable? The media? Other scientists?=3D20 > > > > I have been doing some searching and there is apparently a = difference =3D > > between scientific misconduct/fraud and "questionable research =3D > > practices".=3D20 > > > > According to a 1992 letter by the National Academy of Sciences at = =3D > > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/POD500?OpenDocument = =3D > > misconduct includes "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in = =3D > > proposing, performing, or reporting research" while questionable =3D > > research practices are actions "that violate traditional values" of = =3D > > scientific research but fall short of misconduct. They may, for = example, =3D > > include failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable = =3D > > period; using inappropriate statistical methods of measurement; =3D > > presenting speculations as fact; or bypassing peer review before =3D > > presenting results, especially in public forums. > > > > I ask all of you as scientists out there - what do YOU consider =3D > > scientific misconduct and what do you consider "questionable"? If = you =3D > > know that (1) your being funded by public dollars and (2) your = results =3D > > have policy implications that will affect millions of people - and = yet =3D > > you still use weak statistical analysis that you were advised = against - =3D > > is this misconduct or would this be accepted by peers? =3D20 > > > > At one point do you go to the public? Does it affect a lawsuit if = you go =3D > > public?=3D20 > > > > I am interested in anyone and everyone's thoughts on these = issues.=3D20 > > > > This is for a couple of things - one an article I'm writing where a = =3D > > couple of "questionable research practices" have come up - further = =3D > > investigation may show them to be actual misconduct but the case for = the =3D > > practices being questionable research is strong.=3D20 > > > > Wendee > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. ~ LOGOS Communications=3D20 > > 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 >
