AAS and ethics statement

[bojan]

I am not sure if this is the right place for this thread..
Still it is very interesting reading.


http://aas.org/about/ethics_statement
http://www.icsu.org/2_resourcecentre/RESOURCE_list_base.php4?rub=7#scres standardsforethicsandresponsibility inscience

Those docs are recently discussed on AAVSO forums.

[Wavytone]

That they produced these suggests deliberate academic fraud is rampant in the US, though they stop short of mentioning it.

Something I've long suspected.

[rat156]

I don't think that "deliberate academic fraud" is "rampant" in the US, quite the opposite in fact. Can you quote me a reputable source where deliberate fraud has been perpetrated? This sort of rampant sensationalism is usually the realm of the conspiracy theorists or television writers. If you're going to make a statement like this back it up with some facts.

More likely that being an American Society, the rules have to be written down, or people will bend them. These statements are not new, every scientist worth their salt adheres to these principles. This is why I can trust scientific publications that have been through peer review.

Cheers
Stuart

[Wavytone]

Well yes, for starters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk

There are countless examples of bogus science too, mostly committed for personal profit, the motive is obvious. A harmless one is the astrology columns in every mainstream newspaper or magazine. Then there's every religious text starting with the bible, too.

The trouble is no-one will (or should) come straight out and say they're frauds until proven either by the relevant academic body and possibly a court. Otherwise you'll be charged with defamation.

[rat156]

Since when is South Korea in the US?????

I'm sure that they would like to know.

So you've found one series of papers that got through the process, do you know how many scientific publications that are published each year? The number that contain fraudulently erroneous data are very few. Now you said that this was widespread, so surely there are hundereds or even thousands of people "rorting" the system, where are they?

There has been no science, nor will their ever be in religion or Astrology, they don't publish peer reviewed articles (well maybe theology), so they are irrelevant (and somewhat insulting) to include.

The problem is that you have stated that there is widesperead anuse of science. Myself, as a scientist, take offence to that statement as it insults me and a lot of my friends, whom I know to be honest.

There is no widespread fraud in science, there are a few cowboys who are certainly driven by personal profit, but they are few and far between and they are generally found out quickly.

Again I say show me your evidence.

Cheers
Stuart

[Wavytone]

The common racket with PhD students is to copy a previous thesis from an earlier student doing something similar another institution and present it as your own. Your PhD review panel won't know the work isn't yours, because PhD theses on the whole are not published, they are filed in the library of the institution concerned.

As for the papers in peer-reveiewed journals, very few papers are really checked that well. The reviewers will look to see if the data is plausible, some will do basic statistical checks on raw data to see if the numbers have been fudged to fit the hypothesis, but there it stops. Any smart postgrad with a reasonable understanding of statistics knows how to fudge experimental results plausibly. Of the PhD students in the sciences I've known over the last 30 years almost all have done this to some extent.

The only issue is when does it cease to be dishonest, and is fraudulent: (a) when there is money involved, and (b) when the hypothesis is later shown to be false. Until then, no-one really cares.

Even Isaac Newton did it - a detailed analysis of Principia revealed "measurements" quoted by Newton that were impossible in that era.

[rat156]

Yet again a statement and no evidence, your very misguided opinion only. PhD theses are sent to relevant experts in the field, not some Joe Bloggs. They know the research that has been undertaken by most people in the field, even PhD students, as they know their supervisor and their work. So the PhD is not marked by the panel, it is marked by an acknowledged expert in the field. So your statement is total rubbish, as their is no evidence for it and it is not supported by commonly known facts.



Again, this is a statement, it reveals your opinion, and again is misguided. The review process is thorough and again they are sent to experts in the field that know the research that has been done. I don't know where you saw the PhD students fudging their experimental results, but if you are a member of staff at a University in Australia, then you should have reported it. If, as I suspect, that you aren't, then how do you know that they are fudging results, do you actually know what they are doing?



It's an issue either way, dishonesty has no place in science. A proposed hypothesis can be later shown to be false, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as the author did not deliberately manipulate the results to support one hypothesis over an alternative. This manipulation usually gets picked up at peer review, as many papers are sent back to the author with requests to do more research to definitely eliminate a hypothesis or to include it in the possibilities.



Yet another unsupported statement. Do you have a source for this?

Cheers
Stuart

[RobF]

Hmm Wavy - I think you've just been "peer reviewed". :D ;)

I'm no research scientist, but I have co-published the odd journal article and poster for conferences. It is actually quite difficult to satisfy even a few knowledgeable reviewers.

Science is all about facts and evidence in the end. Eventually people find out if you've got no clothes on - its just a matter of time.