Evidence: Scientific Corruption

I’ve known for a long time that the scientific community is corrupt, and I have seen examples of fraud, dishonesty, subjective behavior, and bias in the scientific community.  Here is an article that continues to make the case.

‘Sting Operation’: The Stunning Percentage of Science Journals That Accepted a Completely Bogus Study

Read this article here.

Advertisements

About Daniel Silas

www.danielsilas.com
This entry was posted in Science and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Evidence: Scientific Corruption

  1. NeuroProf says:

    Well, you do realize that the sting operation was conducted by a scientist with the help of scientists and published in a leading journal of science, yes? A ‘community’ willing to investigate itself can hardly be called ‘corrupt’. And you do realize the sting was launched to protect the integrity of the scientific process? Or that the vast majority of journals found negligent are fly-by-night operations and not journals with a track record of integrity?

    • Daniel Silas says:

      Good evening NeuroProf,

      Thanks for the reply. Yes, I know the operation was conducted by a scientist with the help of scientists and published in a leading journal of science.

      “A community willing to investigate itself can hardly be called corrupt.”

      Oh? Every field or industry has people who are not corrupt, but that doesn’t mean the community as a whole is not corrupt. The government is corrupt, but there are good people in it trying to do the right thing. The Catholic Church is corrupt, but there are people in it who are trying to do the right thing.

      Take a glass of water and put a drop of sewage in it. Then drink it. Obviously you wouldn’t because the glass of water has been corrupted.

      Yes, I understand the sting was launched to protect the integrity of the scientific process.

      Sadly, the scientific community attempts to represent themselves as being above corruption like this. They claim to have the absolute truth and last word in everything. I watch arrogant, biased, so puffed up with their own glory scientists in documentaries and news shows proclaiming how the scientific community is so right in everything, and everyone else is wrong.

      This just goes to show the scientific community is just like any other human community… corrupt.

      • NeuroProf says:

        I see it exactly opposite. The sting shows that there are people in science who are corrupt, but the community as a whole has mechanisms for self-correction – for rooting out and overcoming human fallibility.

        Indeed, that is the chief strength of the scientific method. While scientists may be biased or incompetent, science as a community endeavor progresses over time. Given this I find it ironic that you see the efforts of a community to expose fraud in its midst as something worthy of ridicule rather than as something worthy of praise.

      • Daniel Silas says:

        You wrote, “Given this I find it ironic that you see the efforts of a community to expose fraud in its midst as something worthy of ridicule rather than as something worthy of praise.”

        Actually, I’m not ridiculing the efforts to expose fraud. I’m simply pointing out that the findings of the sting continue to add to the body of evidence that shows fraud and corruption in the scientific community. I actually applaud the efforts to expose this.

  2. Daniel Silas says:

    @Neuroprof

    That is humorous. You seem to think that because it was a scientist who exposed this, that somehow makes the scientific community have clean hands. Its just another example of the problems that exists and the arrogant, prejudiced attitude toward people who reject the stupidity of the entire establishment.

  3. LR says:

    Mr. Silas,

    I think you (like The Blaze) have missed a very crucial aspect of this story.

    The sting operation was only submitted to open-access journals, and overwhelmingly was not peer-reviewed…..you complain about that….BUT you miss the point that such journals use publishing studies as the MEANS of peer-review. I.e. they publish the studies and rely upon readers in the scientific community to conduct the peer-review pro bono. (This is why these journals are open-access and not subscription based.)

    Where subscription journals have the funds to peer-review THEN publish, open-access journals publish TO peer-review the study.

    If you’re convinced there’s a conspiracy, then you’ll find evidence under every stone you turn.

    It’s called confirmation bias.

  4. LR says:

    Just for clarification….I think your criticism of that “pro bono” method of peer-review is valid; however, it really doesn’t apply to most scientific publications. So, your blanket condemnation of the whole scientific community is quite unwarranted.

  5. Daniel Silas says:

    @LR

    Thank you for the comments. I’m not blanket condemning the whole scientific community. I’m pointing out that there is a growing body of evidence to show that corruption does exist. I do so because the scientific community in general presents itself as pristine and “right” in every thing they proclaim to the regular folks out here. They are all human with as many flaws as everyone else including the ability to make mistakes and fall prey to their own selfishness and arrogance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s