Can we have confidence in bankers? Can we have confidence in politicians? We have a wee phrase in Scots “A hae ma doots” (“I have my doubts”). Well in the middle of this breakdown of trust and confidence in our economic and political institutions, along comes a piece of research from Edinburgh University which has performed a meta-analysis of surveys and studies into fraud and malpractice by scientific researchers. Here’s the conclusion –
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had “fabricated” (made up), “falsified” or “altered” data to “improve the outcome” at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including “failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research” and “dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate.” In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.
As the author points out, everything we know about scientific fraud tells us that it is grossly under-reported. These figures are pretty certain to be underestimates. To what extent, we don’t know. But even as they are, they are worrying. Scientists make great claims for themselves as the discoverers of “The Truth”. I’m always wary of people who claim only what they know or believe is true. However, let’s accept the hypothesis that the scientific method is THE best method for uncovering the truth about reality. The trouble is, there’s no such thing as “the scientific method”, there’s only what “scientists” do, and scientists, surprise, surprise, turn out to be as human as the rest of us. This study is of deliberate, conscious, admitted knowledge of fraudulent or questionable practice. The rates found, even if accepted as accurate (which would be foolish), are worrying. Add to that all the actions which are unintentional, unconscious and/or kept secret and what does that make you think? Can we trust scientists to be the beacons who show us the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth?
One particular phrase certain struck me – “In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers.” – is that because these particular researchers are more honest than others, admitting their behaviour more? Or is it because such practice is more frequently found in medical and pharmacological research than it is in other areas?
“Evidence Based Medicine” (EBM), is undermined by the “evidence” produced by these researchers.
Heroes Not Zombies 
Once again, I nearly agree. Although I’ve never seen anything as horrid as a data fraud, I have seem some less-then-rigid practices happening on labs. The cause for it, in my opinion, is less in the science itself and more in the economic background of where science is produced. The pressure for scientists to publish more and more papers (with less regards to the quality of such papers) is astonishing! The research institutes are, of course, much more worried about the financial incomes generated by establishing themselves as scientifically prolific than with anything else. Universities are measured by the amount of papers published from their scientists and many industries rely on the scientific status to sell their products (pharmaceuticals are certainly in that category).
Thus, I still believe in the scientific method and the evidence-based practices. If evidences are being forged and the method is being given a secondary role, I blame capitalism for it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the study. It is very important that we can estimate how much those malpractices are happening and the numbers are certainly a good cause for worry. Great thing to keep in mind while reading scientific articles anyway 🙂