Really...

Are scientists crooked?

That time of day.

Your opinion, please.

Thanks.

Really...

Are scientists crooked?

That time of day.

Your opinion, please.

Thanks.

Some are, some aren't. You can't really make a broad generalization on the subject.

But I have found that the more 'political' they are, the more likely they are to be... to use your term, 'crooked'.


This, in my opinion, holds especially true if the scientist in question holds elected or appointed government office. There is both quite the temptation to distort things for political purposes AND the temptation to get 'on the take'.

Are ALL scientists 'crooked'? NO.
Are SOME scientists 'crooked'? YES.

And, at times it can be VERY hard for non-scientists to tell if a scientist is 'crooked' or not. One kind of needs to know quite a bit about the scientist's field of study to make a decision on the case.

Scientists are a subset of human beings.

Are human being crooked, yes, some are.

As far as can be told a selection on the criteria of science does not in any way affect the random chance of a selection on crooked. Ergo yes, some are crooked.

Your question is about like asking if a scientist who gets funding for his pet idea working is any more crooked than a wall street banker who gets paid based on how much he brings in for the company.

---

I think you have to define "crooked".

Do some cheat on tax returns, undoubtably as they are a representative group just as any other profession is and will have those who stick to the rules regardless and those who will bend them..and a small number who will deliberatly break them.

Do some steal...same answer as above.

Do some commit murder? Rarely thankfully, but there are a few notable cases of respected researchers who have crossed this line..they are human afterall.

More importantly for me...do Scientists cheat on their research..??

This is where the waters get murky and there is sometimes no dividing line as quite often the research conclusions may be a matter of how the evidence is interpreted.

Yes there has been examples of researchers who have deliberatly mislead and usually this if for financial gain, but there is a few who have done it for professional cudos. This I find sad because if the research is correct then the cudos comes naturally for the most part.

There are examples of researchers accused of cheating, but often when you look carefully you will see that quite often they have been their own victim of self delusion. This is where they were convinced of something before the research and thus they make the results fit the answer rather than provide the answer..and often pride or professional fear of ridicule and funding loss stops these from putting their hands up and admitting their error..and prime example is Ponds and Fleischmann, two highly respected researchers who convinced themselves of a result before it came in, then made the mistake of making the research results fit what they expected to see, they compounded this by allowing the result to be made public before it could be verified..sadly it took a long time for them to accept their mistake and it caused serious professional damage.

---

they compounded this by allowing the result to be made public before it could be verified...

Case in point

Pretenders need not apply, and will not survive.

That doesn't mean that some pretenders still apply and can get away with it for some time before they are found out. Scientists commit fraud from time to time. But we are talking about individuals here. On the whole the body of knowledge that science has been created is accurate.

Oh, sorry about that.

Anyway it is apparently 05:17 AM in the morning this Monday.

Starting up my day.

I believe a person in most any line of work can be a crook. Scientists are no exception. But I also believe that due to peer review a scientist trying to falsify data to achieve a goal is much less likely to succeed than crooks in other lines of beneficial work.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

It's far far more likely that policemen, politicians, and lawyers are crooked
than scientists. Policemen have a "code of silence" that keeps things out of
the light of day, whereas scientist thrive on proving other scientists wrong.

That is a little naive. While ideally scientists thrive on proving each other wrong, that ideal is not what happens in real life. Every scientist has their favorite theories and even when they are proven utterly wrong a lot of scientists will have trouble adjusting or even accepting that as a fact. Furthermore, scientists often tweak the data of their experiments a little so to make outcomes more significant.

And thats just the academic side of science. It gets worse once you go to the corporate side of science, where money does play a major role and where scientific outcomes can be outright bought by corporations. The climate skeptics would be a perfect example of scientists, all on the payroll of large corporations with a vested interest in preventing tighter environmental regulations, employing a number of scientists who get paid to say that global warming isn't a thing, and even if its a thing, its probably a good thing, and dont impose tighter regulations because that would instantly sink the economy.

It's far far more likely that policemen, politicians, and lawyers are crooked
than scientists. Policemen have a "code of silence" that keeps things out of
the light of day, whereas scientist thrive on proving other scientists wrong.

That is a little naive. While ideally scientists thrive on proving each other wrong, that ideal is not what happens in real life. Every scientist has their favorite theories and even when they are proven utterly wrong a lot of scientists will have trouble adjusting or even accepting that as a fact. Furthermore, scientists often tweak the data of their experiments a little so to make outcomes more significant.

And thats just the academic side of science. It gets worse once you go to the corporate side of science, where money does play a major role and where scientific outcomes can be outright bought by corporations. The climate skeptics would be a perfect example of scientists, all on the payroll of large corporations with a vested interest in preventing tighter environmental regulations, employing a number of scientists who get paid to say that global warming isn't a thing, and even if its a thing, its probably a good thing, and dont impose tighter regulations because that would instantly sink the economy.

That is slanderous and impuning the reputation of the overwhelming majority of scientists who strive and work hard to advance science in their field. Yes they have pet ideas, and Yes they do not like to be shown wrong, but the overwhelming majority accept they are wrong if those proving them wrong can justify it, move the science forward and not make it personal, as a small number seem to do occasionally.

I know a large number of scientists in both the academic and business fields and none fit the description you have given.

---

While i wouldn't use such strong words as Jim, i must also disagree with our Dutch friend.

Scientists who stick to their pet theories after they've been proven wrong tend to lose credibility quite quickly, and with that credibility goes their likelihood of having their papers published, and without that one is no longer really a scientist.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

You possibly thought I was thinking about the old story about the mad scientist.

Certainly there are these kinds of people also, but with what I am having here, I also could make a check on things and see if they really are what they should be.

Apparently I stumbled across a possible result error today in another project which is also dealing with numbers.

I have mentioned this possible error at the web-page for that project and now am waiting for a follow-up response.

Also, what is at our disposal and the expectation we may have contributes to resesearch in a field.

Especially when it comes to the field of radio astronomy.

We should never forget the visual splendor of the heavens. For now it is a completely dead place, but all the material which are the essential part of creating biological life is present in the universe, including complex molecules in interstellar clouds and gaseous nebulae.

Material being ejected from dead or dying stars becomes material for new generations of stars to form.

Some stars die young and hard. Others gets almost as old as the universe itself. One such example is Wolf 359.

It took me some 10-12 minutes to find this object. I was able to remember most of it using my head only and next looked it up in the Wikipedia. Found it there on the third attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_359

Definitely this is not a star containing any life, but rather is a very faint red dwarf which is one of our closest neighbors in space.

That is slanderous and impuning the reputation of the overwhelming majority of scientists who strive and work hard to advance science in their field. Yes they have pet ideas, and Yes they do not like to be shown wrong, but the overwhelming majority accept they are wrong if those proving them wrong can justify it, move the science forward and not make it personal, as a small number seem to do occasionally.

I know a large number of scientists in both the academic and business fields and none fit the description you have given.

Yes well, sadly its true.

Read the story

The study mentioned in the article

2% readily admit outright fraud, 33% admit professional misconduct, and it become 14% and 72% when they are talking about their colleagues. And these are conservative estimations given the fact that this data was obtained through questionnaires.

Now lets look at some real world examples. In the Netherlands there have been two well published cases of top scientists committing fraud. One was outright making up data as he went and it took them years to catch him, and the other was only polishing up numbers to make the contrast and significance bigger. In the UK there was that doctor who did the scientific research into the link between autism and vaccines. Which turned out to be one big massive case of fraud and corruption of the sort that we usually assign to politicians. In South Korea there was that guy with the stem cell research that was supposedly so promising, but in reality turned out to be nothing but fraud. And as I stated before, the whole anti climate change 'science' is bovine excrement paid for by powerful companies. Oh and before we forget, the medical industry, who happily make results showing their new medicine is unsafe disappear.

Look for the most part, all of this fraud isn't that important, because science as an institution will eventually catch on to fraud and falsehoods and corrects itself. But just don't pretend science is immune to fraud.

Scientists who are 100% devoted to their work can't be crooked. Of course, they're not all like that as Major Kong stated a few posts ago...

Are ALL scientists 'crooked'? NO.
Are SOME scientists 'crooked'? YES.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Here is another thing I experienced the other day.

You know, the Wikipedia has become a quite important source or reference when it comes to information. Supposedly the information being contained there should be assumed to be accurate.

They had a request earlier for either donations or possibly more manpower in order to develop things further.

Having a larger staff becomes more people being paid a salary.

But there has been quite a jump in the amount of information now being available in many of the reference articles there. A wealth of detail not being present a little earlier on is now more generally available.

So I took the opportunity of creating an account there.

As you certainly know, the Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia.

I changed a letter in a name. Also filled in the complete 23 digits in a number which started with 8 digits, next had three dots (...) and ended up in yet more 8 digits.

They accepted the name correction, but the next day the number was once again back to its original format.

What a mediocre thing!

BTW: I previously said "dead place". Rather it should have been said lifeless place or spot, or maybe desolate (at least when it comes to the possibility of life).

That would probably have been better wording.

Trust the author behind a given article.

That is slanderous and impuning the reputation of the overwhelming majority of scientists who strive and work hard to advance science in their field. Yes they have pet ideas, and Yes they do not like to be shown wrong, but the overwhelming majority accept they are wrong if those proving them wrong can justify it, move the science forward and not make it personal, as a small number seem to do occasionally.

I know a large number of scientists in both the academic and business fields and none fit the description you have given.

Yes well, sadly its true.

Read the story

The study mentioned in the article

2% readily admit outright fraud, 33% admit professional misconduct, and it become 14% and 72% when they are talking about their colleagues. And these are conservative estimations given the fact that this data was obtained through questionnaires.

Now lets look at some real world examples. In the Netherlands there have been two well published cases of top scientists committing fraud. One was outright making up data as he went and it took them years to catch him, and the other was only polishing up numbers to make the contrast and significance bigger. In the UK there was that doctor who did the scientific research into the link between autism and vaccines. Which turned out to be one big massive case of fraud and corruption of the sort that we usually assign to politicians. In South Korea there was that guy with the stem cell research that was supposedly so promising, but in reality turned out to be nothing but fraud. And as I stated before, the whole anti climate change 'science' is bovine excrement paid for by powerful companies. Oh and before we forget, the medical industry, who happily make results showing their new medicine is unsafe disappear.

Look for the most part, all of this fraud isn't that important, because science as an institution will eventually catch on to fraud and falsehoods and corrects itself. But just don't pretend science is immune to fraud.

Very interesting. Since 97% of scientists claim AGW, and 72% claim professional misconduct, well you do the math.

---

That is slanderous and impuning the reputation of the overwhelming majority of scientists who strive and work hard to advance science in their field. Yes they have pet ideas, and Yes they do not like to be shown wrong, but the overwhelming majority accept they are wrong if those proving them wrong can justify it, move the science forward and not make it personal, as a small number seem to do occasionally.

I know a large number of scientists in both the academic and business fields and none fit the description you have given.

Yes well, sadly its true.

Read the story

The study mentioned in the article

2% readily admit outright fraud, 33% admit professional misconduct, and it become 14% and 72% when they are talking about their colleagues. And these are conservative estimations given the fact that this data was obtained through questionnaires.

Now lets look at some real world examples. In the Netherlands there have been two well published cases of top scientists committing fraud. One was outright making up data as he went and it took them years to catch him, and the other was only polishing up numbers to make the contrast and significance bigger. In the UK there was that doctor who did the scientific research into the link between autism and vaccines. Which turned out to be one big massive case of fraud and corruption of the sort that we usually assign to politicians. In South Korea there was that guy with the stem cell research that was supposedly so promising, but in reality turned out to be nothing but fraud. And as I stated before, the whole anti climate change 'science' is bovine excrement paid for by powerful companies. Oh and before we forget, the medical industry, who happily make results showing their new medicine is unsafe disappear.

Look for the most part, all of this fraud isn't that important, because science as an institution will eventually catch on to fraud and falsehoods and corrects itself. But just don't pretend science is immune to fraud.

Bow locks. That is TWO papers out of thousands submitted and it is dealing with airy fairy science at best.

I cannot comment on your second limk as it does not work.

I think before you comment further you should actually understand how science is done, how it gets it's funding, how Universities work and how some of the so called professionals behave to elevate their careers.

Lets not forget such cases as Alan Turin, career destroyed and literally driven to suicide by the Establishment, J. Robert Oppenheimer who was largely ostrasised after the war, and largely unsupported by by the scientific community as a result of anti-communist hysteria.

These cases are examples of not what scientists said or did, it's that they felt afraid to speak out against those who paid their salaries and for their research. The same is true today. You only need one bad egg at the top of the pile or advising the pile and the majority suffer as a result.

With regards professional misconduct..please define that term and then, in relation to the study, comment..because professional misconduct could be having an affair with a student (not professional but does not negate the science). Perhaps they used work started by others to complete their work and failed to credit the other party (accidentaly or otherwise that would be seen as professional misconduct).

You see, ready snoozepapers gives a distorted view of the reality, I find it quite alarming and somewhat niaive that you feel your newspapers and Journalists are any more honest that those of another nation. As a group, I find Jounalists to be the most dishonest and hypocritical group out there after Organised Crime (Banks) and I should know, I have personal experience on them on many levels and having worked for a Newspaper group (not as a journalist I hasten to add) and I know they are all lieing bar tenders.

---

Bow locks. That is TWO papers out of thousands submitted and it is dealing with airy fairy science at best.

Ahh, so it doesn't count when it happens in a field you don't consider to be science in the first place. And of course, I should take your opinion on what fields are and aren't science seriously.

But like I said, remember that South Korean guy that claimed he could cure all kinds of stuff with stem cells and which turned out to be nonsense? Or that guy that claimed there was a link between autism and vaccinations and who turned out to be a filthy liar who used unnecessary invasive procedures on children? See, it happens outside the social sciences as well.

I cannot comment on your second limk as it does not work.

Google it, the study is referred to in the first link.

I think before you comment further you should actually understand how science is done, how it gets it's funding, how Universities work and how some of the so called professionals behave to elevate their careers.

I'm well aware of how it works.

With regards professional misconduct..please define that term and then, in relation to the study, comment..because professional misconduct could be having an affair with a student (not professional but does not negate the science). Perhaps they used work started by others to complete their work and failed to credit the other party (accidentaly or otherwise that would be seen as professional misconduct).

It gets defined for you in the study I quoted and linked.

You see, ready snoozepapers gives a distorted view of the reality, I find it quite alarming and somewhat niaive that you feel your newspapers and Journalists are any more honest that those of another nation. As a group, I find Jounalists to be the most dishonest and hypocritical group out there after Organised Crime (Banks) and I should know, I have personal experience on them on many levels and having worked for a Newspaper group (not as a journalist I hasten to add) and I know they are all lieing bar tenders.

You wouldn't be if you compared the average Dutch newspaper with the average British news paper. Ours contain actual news which for the most part is presented in a fairly neutral manner, while most British news papers are just tabloids disguised as newspapers, and they are incredibly biased as well and don't even pretend to hide their bias.

And sure, I should totally take your word on how bad journalists are, especially after you made such generalizing remarks.

People need to realise that there are far too many pseudo scientific blogs around written and published by second rate hacks, scrounging a living. Many final year PhD students need to be seen to be publishing a paper of some sort to get their Doctorate, these sites are useful for them. They will publish anything that looks controversial and will generate headlines.

Of course professional, established, mainstream scientists are not crooked, their work is always peer reviewed to achieve respectability. BUT even those guys have to be seen to be publishing regular papers to maintain their status within the scientific community. Sometimes these can be at the outer limits of scientific knowledge.

Ehm, no. You will not get your PhD if you just publish something on a blog. The whole point of it is that you publish something in a respected, peer reviewed journal.

Secondly, all the examples Ive given were of scientists that were well beyond the PhD stage and who were publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals. You have to realize that a peer reviewed journal has its limits and is no guarantee to weed out the frauds or the people who just did some shoddy research.

Actually my neck is kinda crooked eventho a not so crooked professor tried to straighten it up... Poor guy had to work 8 hours on it and it's still crooked:( Back on the real topic now...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures