Scientific misconduct

[orpiment99]

Okay, it was suggested that I bring this up here and thrash it out with the critical thinkers at LoR.

http://www.examiner.com/a-2066470~UI_prof_s_daughter__Sheep_research_not_suppressed.html

This woman in now being investigated by the University in question for scientific misconduct. Yay! However, in the backlash from this I was thinking about our dear friend from the discovery institute, Casey Luskin and the information about him provided by Thunderfoot and others. He wrote a paper, for a peer-reviewed journal, that discussed paleomagnetics and radiometric dating!

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003GC000661.shtml

"Paleomagnetic samples were measured from 26 sites, 23 of which (13 normal, 10 reverse) yielded site mean directions meeting our criteria for acceptable paleomagnetic data. Flow ages (on 21 sites) range from 5 ka to 5.6 Ma on the basis of 40Ar/39Ar dating methods. The age and polarity for the 21 dated sites are consistent with the Geomagnetic Reversal Time Scale except for a single reversely magnetized site dated at 0.39 Ma."

Should there be a "Universal Standard" for what constitutes scientific misconduct? What should that standard entail? Is misleading the public enough? Is inciting ignorance enough?

Anyway, thoughts?

 

[Ozymandyus]

Meh, I think the standard should be clear and harsh - if you knowingly mess with and ignore data in order to support your conclusions for any reason, you should not be allowed to work in the hard sciences. Sure, it's harsh. But that's science for you - it REQUIRES intellectual honesty and anyone who plays fast and loose with the rules is doing massive harm to scientific endeavors everywhere.

I'm pretty sure that is already the standard though. It doesn't matter if you are publishing data that has been tampered with to inform the public of already known facts, promote people being more charitable, or whatever. The problem is it is hard to prove unless something like this comes out where there was clear evidence available that was purposefully ignored.

 

[orpiment99]

There seems to be standards insofar as a specific institution or country requires. Only some types of misconduct are even punishable by law. I believe that the scientific community tends to punish these people, but very rarely is the truth of the matter public enough for the general populace to be aware of and these false findings, etc, can remain in the public discourse for decades and be considered true. After all, a recanting is hardly ever treated with the sensationalism that the initial falsehood engendered.

 

[monitoradiation]

Well, in the first bit, from my reading, it seems that the paper that her daughter's lab conducted was not officially published - and therefore it would be "somewhat" accurate to say that there is no evidence, at least in the published journals that transmission of disease occurred.

Her being aware of the evidence, outside of the arena of published journals, is only a personal issue, really. The problem is that some of the conclusions from research cannot/should not be discussed before publication because other scientists could rush in and steal your thunder - an unfortunate reality of the competitive nature of science. So she might've mispoke about there being NO evidence.

What she should've said is that there is no PUBLISHED evidence. Because as we know, peer-review ensures a higher degree of reliability on the conclusion of the publication. A research paper's conclusion cannot be said to be reliable without being published, so in my mind it is okay to say that there was no evidence. But she should've at least added that there is research currently in progress and that some evidence might emerge soon.

 

[orpiment99]

Part of the problem is she had a conflict of interest. I'm not sure if it is mentioned in the article I linked to, but here is one where it is:
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_6407/contentdetail.htm?sel=dockTopNews&contentguid=ESIHLYQv&src=cat&detailindex=2

She was a member (or still is) of the woolgrowers association. Still, perhaps it was a slip up. I can't say.