Posted by
SteveTate on Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:15:15 PM
The corruption of science, as seen in the emails of some of the world's leading climate scientists (see
"Climategate--Nothing New", below,) leads to a broader question of how deep and how
far the problem goes. In a study by Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson, and Raymond de Vries published in June 2005 in Nature on the behaviors of U.S.
scientists, it was discovered that the problem may go deeper
than we had imagined.
We have generally assumed that most scientists are conscientious and principled, and that the few "bad apples" which we
occasionally hear about are the exception. We have heard about falsifying data, making up statistics,
stealing research, and the like, but surely those "scientists" are discovered and removed from their positions. The US Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism" (FFP). But it appears there is a large grey area of less serious misconduct which scientists are engaging in.
In the Nature study over 3000 scientists, both early-career
and mid-career, were surveyed anonymously concerning their
ethical behavior.
Sixteen criteria were studied, ranging from inadequate record
-keeping to changing results due to pressure from a funding
source. Survey questions were to be limited to the last three
years. Interesting results included:
- 12.5% of respondents admitted overlooking others' flawed data
or questionable interpretation of data.
- 6% failed to present data that contradicts one's own previous
research.
- 20.6% of mid-career scientists admitted to changing the design,
methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from
a funding source.
- 13.5% said they had used inadequate or inappropriate research
designs.
- A more serious question of falsifying or "cooking" research
data was admitted to by only 0.3% of respondents.
- 10% of respondents admitted to at least one of the top ten
categories during the previous three years.
It can be assumed that the respondents under-reported their
bad behavior, and the most egregious violators probably failed
to respond.
So what's the cause of this disrespect for scientific principles? Is it a reflection of a decreasing morality in society? Is it pressure to be recognized, pressure to produce, or financial pressures? Is it a type of political pressure? Whatever the cause, it is crucial to the future of our country that it be rectified.
We should begin in our educational institutions. Scientific ethics and responsibility should be emphasized. One of the chief scoundrels in Climategate is Michael Mann. In spite of questionable scientific practices early on in is career, he was lionized by the climate community and made director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Pennsylvania State. The first step in changing the system should be to remove this type of role model, and hire or promote only those who have demonstrated fealty to sound scientific principles and practices.