SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-ever-happened-to-honest-peer-review dept.
47.2% of a group of 284 researchers sanctioned by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity for misconduct (such as plagiarism or falsifying data) between 1992 and 2016 continued to be involved in research. 8% went on to receive National Institutes of Health funding:
Many believe that once a scientist is found guilty of research misconduct, his or her scientific career is over. But a new study suggests that, for many U.S. researchers judged to have misbehaved, there is such a thing as a second chance. Nearly one-half of 284 researchers who were sanctioned for research misconduct in the last 25 years by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the largest U.S. funder of biomedical research, ultimately continued to publish or work in research in some capacity, according to a new analysis. And a small number of those scientists—17, to be exact—went on to collectively win $101 million in new funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Those numbers "really surprised" Kyle Galbraith, research integrity officer at the University of Illinois in Urbana and author of the new study [DOI: 10.1177/1556264616682568] [DX], published earlier this month by the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. "I knew from my work and reading other studies that careers after misconduct were possible. But the volume kind of shocked me," he says.
Is it ethical to keep empirical research on human research ethics behind a paywall?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @02:32AM
s/t
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:19AM
"Is it ethical to keep empirical research on human research ethics behind a paywall?"
No.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @03:34AM
Almost all of those sanctioned were in climate change research. I don't need to get past the paywall to figure that out. The rest work for Monsanto.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday February 26 2017, @09:42AM
I don't need to get past the paywall to figure that out.
So you are pulling the statement out of your ass?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday February 27 2017, @01:08AM
Usually the title and abstract of a paywalled article are not paywalled.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 27 2017, @08:32AM
That gives an explanation to the outsider, why I asked AC instead of right away accusing him. But it does not answer the question, if he actually used those sources, or, as I suspect, just took his own guess as fact.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @06:14PM
don't forget about the future leaders of the cdc!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @08:46AM
Trumped up science, eh? It's hard to use the first number to say anything smart because we don't know how many of those people since 1992 for example retired or jumped into politics or whatever. We could at least use similar figure for those that didn't lie. The second figure is rather shocking. I wonder whether it is a crime to falsify scientific results, I certainly think it should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @10:30AM
Scientists should also have nothing to hide and should be subject to random inspections.
Scientists should file weekly reports demonstrating they have not broken ethics rules.
Scientists should make their results available on request to any member of the public any time.
Scientists must never make mistakes and should never be forgiven for making mistakes.
Scientists should be paid only when their results produce commercial success.
The problem is the little guys and the solution is to crush them. Any more problems you need me to solve?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday February 26 2017, @07:01PM
No, I don't think it should be a crime to falsify scientific reports...unless you take money to support your research. Or you or your supporters use it to justify government action. Or...
Basically, there's free speech, and there's fraud. Sometimes you get overlapping. And science reports which haven't been duplicated shouldn't be trusted. Until there's a second source you should just consider it evidence of a good place to look. Even with a second source you should be a bit dubious, particularly if you don't know who funded the studies.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Sunday February 26 2017, @09:53AM
So, half of all scientists guilty of misconduct were not only fined or punished or demoted, but also lost their career entirely. That does not provide any insight, how prevalent this misconduct was at all, nor does it provide any insight how severe the misconduct was, in which stage of their career, or if there is a good correlation between severity of the wrongdoing and severity of the consequences.
Scientific misconduct is a serious problem, but without the above questions answered, this article is not enough for me to get worked up about. Name one profession, where professionals are always consequently excluded for misconduct. Police violence? Hardly. Politicians for starting actual wars without good cause or other cases of treason? Judges? Secret services? Plumbers for doing a bad job? Sure, in all professions people can lose their job, but in most cases they wont.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26 2017, @10:35AM
Family values politicians/religious leaders who beat wives or get divorced or sleep with their junior associate or take gay prostitutes on trips?
Let me guess... thoughts and prayers for them.