Science Fraud Whistleblower Site Forced Close

[G8trGr8t]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrez...science-fraud/

Those of us concerned about the decaying credibility of Big Science were dismayed to learn that the whistleblower site Science Fraud has been shut down due to a barrage of legal threats against its operator. With billions of dollars in federal science funding hinging on the integrity of academic researchers, and billions more in health care dollars riding on the truthfulness of pharmaceutical research claims, the industry needs more websites like this, not fewer.

Regular readers of Retraction Watch, a watchdog site run by two medical reporters, got the news along with a story about the blog’s anonymous editor, who has since come forward and identified himself as Professor Paul Brookes, a researcher at the University of Rochester. Operated as a crowdsourced reference site much like Wikipedia, Science Fraud, in its six months of operation, documented egregiously suspicious research results published in over 300 peer reviewed publications. Many were subsequently retracted, including a paper by an author whose lawyer sent Science Fraud a cease and desist letter.

When I first began looking into the increasingly vexing problem of irreproducible scientific research I assumed that the bulk of the problem was caused by sloppy science. Not so, says a National Academy of Sciences study that attributes two thirds of the retractions in the biomedical and life-sciences to scientific misconduct. And remember, these are only the people that have gotten caught.

In fact, it’s amazing that anyone gets caught at all. While the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), part of the Department of Health and Human Services, is chartered with rooting out science fraud, investigators must rely on allegations submitted by scientists in the field. And yet consider the consequences to the career of any whistleblower. How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals? It isn’t hard to see how this can lead to a culture of omerta (though without worrying about a visit from Luca Brasi).

Conspiracy theory? I have personally spoken to young graduate students asked to review papers on behalf of their PIs who detected falsified data, usually by noticing identical noise floors in two different readings – a statistical impossibility. They were told to keep quiet about it. These fraudulent results are now part of the scientific literature. Every time I write a column like this I get email from more of them, none of whom will come forward for the reasons outlined above.

Peer review and publication doesn't mean squat these days as science isn't really science any more, it is just another for profit venture run by acadamia worldwide. It is like the rubber stamp board of directors that look the other way while CEO's steal money and run companies into the ground. See no evil, go along, get along, or report and perish and become a pariah. can you say climate change????

[philnotfil]

It's a shame that the miscreants were able to get the site shut down.

[gatorev12]

There's a Latin phrase that the old Roman judge Cassius made famous and is a legal maxim to this day: "cui bono?"--who benefits?

Falsifying research has been a growing problem in academic science and it's no surprise there's a growing mistrust of big science by the public today. Academics try and pass it off as the ignorant actions/beliefs of the uneducated--but hard to claim that moral highground after taking actions like this to actively suppress the truth.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrez...science-fraud/





Peer review and publication doesn't mean squat these days as science isn't really science any more, it is just another for profit venture run by acadamia worldwide. It is like the rubber stamp board of directors that look the other way while CEO's steal money and run companies into the ground. See no evil, go along, get along, or report and perish and become a pariah. can you say climate change????

Your summary is disproven by one of the links in the article:

"This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, Thomson Reuters' vast online database of scientific publications. Almost all of these papers will stay there forever, a fixed contribution to the research literature. But 200 or so will eventually be flagged with a note of alteration such as a correction. And a handful — maybe five or six — will one day receive science's ultimate post-publication punishment: retraction, the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature.

It is reassuring that retractions are so rare, for behind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 (see 'Rise of the retractions') — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade....

...In surveys, around 1–2% of scientists admit to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once (D. Fanelli PLoS ONE 4, e5738; 2009). But over the past decade, retraction notices for published papers have increased from 0.001% of the total to only about 0.02%. And, Ioannidis says, that subset of papers is "the tip of the iceberg" — too small and fragmentary for any useful conclusions to be drawn about the overall rates of sloppiness or misconduct.

Instead, it is more probable that the growth in retractions has come from an increased awareness of research misconduct, says Steneck. That's thanks in part to the setting up of regulatory bodies such as the US Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services. These ensure greater accountability for the research institutions, which, along with researchers, are responsible for detecting mistakes."

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/1110...l/478026a.html

In any case, .02% retraction hardly constitutes proof of the meaninglessness of peer review which you allege.

[GatorRade]

I think we need to be as accountable to the truth as we can be, and if this site helped us do that, it's a shame that had to lose it. That said, I become a bit skeptical when I see the term "big science" in the first sentence of an article. In fact, this is the first time I've seen this term used this way at all.

[Row6]

The event may or may not be newsworthy - we don't know the details of the blog or what law suits closed it and the columnist is too busy denouncing "Big Science" to report that information. The conclusion drawn by the original poster do not in anyway represent the data, but that is nothing new for those on the right who for whatever reason aim to dismantle the idea of objective science and truth. Their common cause with Deconstructionists - who are usually associated with the left - is noted.

[G8trGr8t]

ever consider that the retraction rate is low because the reviews are not thorough or accurate? go along, get along....it is ingrained in the system, just ask anybody that dared to question the models supporting global warming or read the e-mails of those that were plotting to villify and discredit them

In fact, it’s amazing that anyone gets caught at all. While the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), part of the Department of Health and Human Services, is chartered with rooting out science fraud, investigators must rely on allegations submitted by scientists in the field. And yet consider the consequences to the career of any whistleblower. How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals? It isn’t hard to see how this can lead to a culture of omerta (though without worrying about a visit from Luca Brasi).

Conspiracy theory? I have personally spoken to young graduate students asked to review papers on behalf of their PIs who detected falsified data, usually by noticing identical noise floors in two different readings – a statistical impossibility. They were told to keep quiet about it. These fraudulent results are now part of the scientific literature. Every time I write a column like this I get email from more of them, none of whom will come forward for the reasons outlined above.

do you think the number of people convicted for fraud or tax evasion constitues all those who actually commit it?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

ever consider that the retraction rate is low because the reviews are not thorough or accurate? go along, get along....it is ingrained in the system, just ask anybody that dared to question the models supporting global warming or read the e-mails of those that were plotting to villify and discredit them



do you think the number of people convicted for fraud or tax evasion constitues all those who actually commit it?

No, the rate is probably higher than the data, but doubling or tripling it wouldn't suggest that this somehow throws doubt on most research science, which is what you stated. There clearly could be collusion based on self interest between lead scientists and those below them, but because it must be replicable to be taken seriously, and data and methodology provided, there is the corrective of other scientists with their own schools who could make names for themselves by blowing up BS research. It is ultimately a competitive system but with the eyes and ears of hundreds - if not thousands - of trained scientists looking in on the results.

BTW, the supposed scandal around "climate-gate" has been reviewed by about 5 different respected institutions and found to be a tempest in teapot.

[bluelang]

No one can force a website to close. Not even going to bother to read the stupid article.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by bluelang

No one can force a website to close. Not even going to bother to read the stupid article.

Sure, if the people running the site have the time, money, and energy, they can always relocate. Not everyone has the time, money, and energy. Which would be why legal action to shut down sites can be very effective.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by bluelang

No one can force a website to close. Not even going to bother to read the stupid article.

They can get an injunction about content on the website though--and then tie the owners up in court in the meantime, litigating it to death.