ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

I had similar thoughts.  Apparently, it's the human predicament.
C
On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Eric Siegel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
> *****************************************************************************
> 
> yeah, but you gotta love a profession that does a scientific study on how frequently scientific studies are tainted by dishonesty.  It begs the question: was this an honest study or is there some deception going on here?  I think they better do a study of how frequently studies that document deception in studies are deceptive.  
> 
> Big fleas have little fleas,
> Upon their backs to bite 'em,
> And little fleas have lesser fleas,
> and so, ad infinitum.
> 
> Eric
> 
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Charlie Carlson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
>> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
>> *****************************************************************************
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Not to belabor a point, but I'm reading Dan Ariely's book, the Honest Truth about Dishonesty and this recent paper about fraud in scientific papers serves as a remarkable case of confirmatory evidence.  Furthermore, it turns out that creativity and dishonesty tend to hang together, and here is a classic example.
>> 
>> This is not to bemoan or berate a field or person, but more to call attention to the fact that we all tend towards dishonesty, it's a ubiquitous and likely intrinsic part of our nature.  Admittedly, the number of retracted papers is very small, but the amount of deception is huge.
>> 
>> It's a fascinating area of scientific investigation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I found the following story on the NPR iPad App:
>> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/01/162100029/misdeeds-not-mistakes-behind-most-scientific-retractions?sc=ipad&f=1001
>> 
>> Misdeeds, Not Mistakes, Behind Most Scientific Retractions
>> by David Schultz
>> NPR - October 1, 2012
>> 
>> When there's something really wrong with a published study, the journal can retract it, much like a carmaker recalling a flawed automobile.
>> 
>> But are the errors that lead to retractions honest mistakes or something more problematic?
>> 
>> A newly published analysis finds that more than two-thirds of biomedical papers retracted over the past four decades were the result of misconduct, not error. That's much higher than previous studies of retractions had found.
>> 
>> "We found something that is very disturbing," Dr. Arturo Casadevall, the co-author of a paper looking into this phenomenon that was published Monday by Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, tells Shots. "This kind of stuff has the potential to do damage to science. But we need to expose it to clean our own house."
>> 
>> Casadevall, a microbiologist and immunologist, and his partners looked at the more than 2,000 retracted biomedical research papers since 1977. They found that more than 67 percent had to be retracted because of fraud, suspected fraud, duplicate publication or plagiarism. Only 21 percent of the retractions they looked at were the result of error.
>> 
>> Casadevall says the reason his team's findings differ so much from previous retraction studies is that his team independently verified why each paper had been retracted.
>> 
>> He says the previous research had relied on retraction notices — explanations published in journals about why studies are being retracted. But, Casadevall says, "when you retract a paper, most journals allow the authors to write the notice." That gives the authors the chance to spin the message.
>> 
>> For example, the authors of a 1993 study published in Science were found to have falsified and fabricated their data. Their retraction notice makes no mention of this, only stating that "some experiments have not been reproducible."
>> 
>> That might technically be true, but it leaves out the fact that the authors' original findings may not have even been producible in the first place.
>> 
>> Casadevall's team didn't take the authors' words for it. They brought in information from the federal Office of Research Integrity, as well as from independent media reports. Not only did they find that two-thirds of retracted articles involved misconduct, they found that the more highly influential a journal is the more of its retracted articles involved fraud or suspected fraud.
>> 
>> Casadevall's team verified some of their retraction notices with help from the blog Retraction Watch, created two years ago by health journalists Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky.
>> 
>> While the economic pressures of conducting biomedical research will always lead some scientists to cut corners, Oransky says journals need to force those scientists to own up to their mistakes. "These unclear, opaque notices really distort the scientific literature," he says. "They don't allow for a full picture of what's happening in science."
>> 
>> The bloggers behind Retraction Watch have seen, perhaps as well as anyone, how scientists can get things wrong. But Oransky says he's optimistic that Casadevall's study will bring about change.
>> 
>> "It's one thing for bloggers to bang on about something and make the same conclusion every week," he says. "But it's another for the peer-reviewed literature with a carefully done, well-constructed study to do the same thing. It's harder to ignore." [Copyright 2012 National Public Radio]
>> 
>> To learn more about the NPR iPad app, go to http://ipad.npr.org/recommendnprforipad
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Charlie's iPad
>> 

The opinions and thoughts expressed here are my own and should in no way be construed or attributed to the Exploratorium or related organization, and do not represent an institutional position.
Charles Carlson
Senior Scientist
exploratorium
3601 Lyon St.
San Francisco, CA 94123
[log in to unmask]
Tel:   415-528-4319
Fax:  415-885-6011
http://blogs.exploratorium.edu/whyintercept/












***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]