Comments on: Scientists behaving badly

By: Homepage

Homepage — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 06:36:00 +0000

Click here….

Nice site. Check out this one sometime……

By: How to Get Six Pack Fast

How to Get Six Pack Fast — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:56:48 +0000

Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is more than I expected for when I found a link on Digg telling that the info here is awesome. Thanks.

By: kritika

kritika — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:53:38 +0000

hey,
Its hurting to see so many instances of bad behaviour. Especially when this behaviour comes from such educated people. I must say that I am also in a renouned institution, ICRI, and have never faced such humiliation from and of my scientist professors who have always been very supportive and helpful. Icri is a great institution for clinical research and any aspirants of research should take this institute seriously. to apply to the college just click on the url given.

By: Heraclides

Heraclides — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:56:55 +0000

“Believe it or not, anti-vaccinationists have already begun to grab onto these stories.”

“some members of the anti-vaccination crowd love to collect stories of research fraud (even if completely unrelated to vaccine research)”

I occasionally try correct the worst of the anti-vaccine “statements” on a local public chat forum and I’ve had these people point at various examples of misconduct over the years so this is one I’ve run into before, too. While there is a grain of truth in some of the things they claim, the incorrect scale they claim them makes their claims made entirely wrong.

They raise misconduct in scale from incidents to something the entire science “industry” does on a routine basis. Likewise the incidence of side-effects from vaccination. Likewise the extent to which (the relevant) science is funced by the biopharamaceuticalindustry. And so on. I guess that what happens if you try push their particular line: you “have” to make it affect a lot of the people concerned or your claim is easily written off–?

By: Oldfart

Oldfart — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:59:53 +0000

I highly recommend that they (whoever THEY are) have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of Zero Tolerance.
Zero Tolerance is a means by which Administrators can divest themselves of any responsibility for complex decision making and has little to do with stated goals.
see: http://www.zerointelligence.net/ for more horror stories.

By: D. C. Sessions

D. C. Sessions — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:10:54 +0000

Dang. The tags got lost.

By: D. C. Sessions

D. C. Sessions — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:55:14 +0000

2, In the United States there is an Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral research. ORI “monitors institutional investigations of research misconduct and facilitates the responsible conduct of research through educational, preventive, and regulatory activities.”

Ah, but as you know the very existence of an “Office of Research Integrity” proves that there is no such thing — it’s like a “Ministry of Truth.”

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:52 +0000

Epidemiology seems to be full of bending of the rules. Choice of model, covariates, subset or cutpoints will almost always get the result that is required for publication. There is a fantastic paper Royson, Altman and Sauerbrei showing how dichotomizing is stupid but almost everyone just ignores it. Same for stepwise regression. Given that most data is already compromised, usually by selection biases and it means there really is little to trust, although I do have some faith in the output of major universities if there is a decent statistician involved.

The journals should accept a lot of the blame. Recently I’ve seen a matched case-control (1:3) analysed with standard logistic regression, a retrospective cohort with the exposed group selected by advertising and then shown by at least one result was extremely biased and a study where the methodology supposedly used was obviously not. While none of these are fraudulent they show a lack of rigour in the review process. Probably there aren’t enough good statisticians to review everything the medical world produces even if they wanted.