What Is The Psychology Behind Bad Science and False Research?

BAD-SCIENCE THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND EXAGGERATED & FALSE RESEARCH We often think that scientists are the most honest people around, and assume that scientific findings are reliable and true. But several new studies have revealed that an enormous number of researchers cut corners, cook data, and lie about results when conducting experiments. This is the world of bad science. SHADY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IS RAMPANT 1 IN 3 SCIENTISTS admit's to using questionable research practices. Two common examples: - Dropping data points based on a gut feeling. -Changing the design or results of a study due to pressure from a funding source. 1 IN 50 SCIENTISTS admit's to falsifying or fabricating data outright 3 CATEGORIES OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Fabrication Falsification Questionable Making up data. Distorting data. Research Practices: Cooking data, mining data, concealing con- flicts of interest. REPORTS OF COLLEAGUE MISCONDUCT ARE EVEN MORE COMMON: 71% of scientists report 14% claim that colleagues that colleagues have used questionable methods: have falsified data: 71% 14% MISCONDUCT RATES AMONG CLINICAL, MEDICAL, AND PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCHERS ARE THE HIGHEST OF ANY FIELD. It's likely that misconduct is much more rampant than researchers will admit. Among biomedical research trainees at the University of California San Diego: 81% admitted to 5% said they would modify or fabricate modifying results results to win a grant or publish a paper. Clinical psychology is especially rife with misconduct: ONE-THIRD DATA 4 DUMMIES claim a finding was expected when it actually wasn't. of psychologists admit to cutting 70% corners when reporting data. In a study of 281 psychology papers: 1 IN 2 was found to contain a statistical error. of papers have an 15% error that would n change the conclu- sion of the paper. 3 WAYS TO MAKE RESEARCH MORE HONEST O 1 Make all raw data available to other scientists. Only 44% of high-profile journals require sharing of specific raw data as a condition of publication. Hold journalists accountable. It's easy to point fingers at bad scien- tists, but journalists often simply repack- age press releases without digging into the findings or seeking out opposing views. Introduce anonymous publication. Scientists often make unpopular discoveries that they don't want attached to their name. Anonymous publishing puts the focus on new findings rather than curation of a career. CREATED BY: CLINICALPSYCHOLOGY.NET References: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted- dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738 http://techyum.com/2011/03/omg-aliensl-or-is-it-just-more-fake-science-news/ http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/i-foresee-that-nobody-will- do-anything-about-this-problem/#more-2024 http://www.citypages.com/2011-03-23/news/women-s-funding- network-sex-trafficking-study-is-junk-science/ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/naturally- selected/201109/what-do-about-scientific-fraud-in-psychology http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id%3researchers-failing-to-make-data-public http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/aug/22/riot-control-newspapers-distorting-science http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html DY NO ND. This work is under a Creative Commons License.