Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Why do scientists sometimes lie about their discoveries?

Q: Why do scientists sometimes lie about their discoveries?

Krishna: The Majority of scientists don't do this. Because there are strict quality control measures in science that ensure genuine science.

However, a small part of scientists do indulge in misconduct.

The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy. Many surveys have asked scientists directly whether they have committed or know of a colleague who committed research misconduct, but their results appeared difficult to compare and synthesize. This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

To standardize outcomes, the number of respondents who recalled at least one incident of misconduct was calculated for each question, and the analysis was limited to behaviours that distort scientific knowledge: fabrication, falsification, “cooking” of data, etc… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct (1)

Why do scientists falsify data?

It is commonly hypothesized that scientists are more likely to engage in data falsification and fabrication when they are subject to pressures to publish, when they are not restrained by forms of social control, when they work in countries lacking policies to tackle scientific misconduct, and when they are male (2).

These things have been found during various surveys:

Pressures to publish it is commonly suggested that scientists might engage in misconduct to keep up with high expectations of productivity and/or impact. This concern has already motivated numerous policies and initiatives aimed at discouraging scientists from publishing too much and/or from placing too high a value on journal impact factors.

Social control sociological and psychological theories suggest that individuals are less likely to engage in misconduct when scrutiny of their work is ensured by peers, mentors or society. An elaborate socio-economic analysis argued that the risk of scientific misconduct would be highest within “liberal research regimes adopted by developmental states and marked by freedom from government oversight, and illiberal laboratory cultures

Misconduct policies a growing number of countries and/or institutions are establishing official policies that regulate how suspected cases of misconduct can be identified, investigated and punished, following the rationale that clear rules and sanctions will have a deterrent effect. Countries differ widely in how they define and enforce misconduct policies, and it is commonly suggested that the greatest deterrent effect would be obtained by misconduct policies that are legally enforceable.

Gender males are more prone to taking risks and are more status-oriented than females, and might therefore be more likely to engage in scientific misconduct

However, progress in assessing the validity of these hypotheses in explaining the prevalence of misconduct has been hampered by difficulties in obtaining reliable data. Survey results are very sensitive to methodological choices and, by definition, report what a sample of voluntary respondents think and are willing to declare in surveys—i.e. not necessarily what the average scientist actually thinks and does

One more thing that is relevant to this part of the world. People here love their culture and traditions. To authenticate their beliefs, some people are trying to use science. They're taking the help of science - science-sounding words to be more specific - and cook up false evidence to promote their beliefs. They're taking the help of reviewers who think like them, founding their own journals ( bogus ones) and publishing it as real science. This is actually pseudo-science.

How can you identify such false stories?

Read this article that tells you how:

https://kkartlab.in/forum/topics/how-to-trust-science-stories-a-gui...

Despite this you should trust science because …..

Standing Up For Science : Showing Reasons Why Science Should Be Tru...

Footnotes:

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/

2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-018-0023-7

0 members like this