Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

Data fabrication is unfortinately a big problem. Interesting.
 
Not surprising. Although, it seems like it would be fairly easy to spot faulty data - once another scientists goes to replicate it they'll obviously get a different outcome.
 
You don't really need to fabricate data, you can spin it however you'd like lol

That's also another issue. People wanna see a specific piece of evidence so bad that they relate everything to that piece. One of the class we take when we become researchers is how to be critical of our own results, and actually try to deconstruct your results to see if the evidence falls through under certain circumstances (especially with statistics). But every single scientist will have some sort of bias towards their own results, that's why everything has to be peer reviewed.

Not surprising. Although, it seems like it would be fairly easy to spot faulty data - once another scientists goes to replicate it they'll obviously get a different outcome.

You'd be surprised how often that happens. I work in molecule synthesis so basically all that matters to us is confirming that we obtain the product we want, and confirming the amount of it. Well sometimes an article will say you should get I dunno, 80% of product. And we get like 30%.
 
It's also a money thing in science. You have a lot of money put into testing or creating something and you only get that money back by successfully creating or solving something. So there is added pressure for scientists to have data show a certain thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom