“The Economist” on fraud in science:
Moreover, when it came to airing suspicions about colleagues, the numbers went up. The meta-analysis suggested that 14% of researchers in the underlying studies had seen their colleagues fabricate, falsify, alter or modify data. If the question was posed in more general terms, such as running experiments with deficient methods, failing to report deficiencies or misrepresenting data, the straight average suggested that 46% of researchers had seen others get up to such shenanigans. In only half of the cases, though, had the respondent to a survey tried to do anything about the misconduct he said he had witnessed.
2 Comments
But yet, we somehow grow and develop in the field of science.
Sure! That’s because, for all its flaws, science is still the most robust way we know for modeling reality. In fact the methods of scientific research are great in principle with human factor responsible for most of their faults.
But, as the piece from The Economist shows, the price of obtaining knowledge is eternal vigilance
BTW, how do you like this theme? I still need to work on styles for comments though.