Below, from the Washington Post:
"Survey suggests U.S. research misconduct is common
Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:04pm EDT
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Research misconduct at U.S. institutions
may be more common than previously suspected, with 9 percent of
scientists saying in a new survey that they personally had seen
forgery, falsification or plagiarism.
The mensuration of 2,212 mainly biomedical scientists at 605 universities
and other research institutions, published in the magazine Nature on
Wednesday, in like manner showed that researchers are very reluctant to
rumor bad conduct.
Thirty-seven percent of cases of suspected misconduct were never
reported to the institution involved for investigation, perhaps due to
fear of reprisals for turning in a colleague or a desire to shield
the flow of research money.
"There's more misconduct, or possible for misconduct, out there
than probably anyone has appreciated before. And a good part of
that goes unreported," James Wells, director of the Office of
Research Policy at the University of Wisconsin who helped
conduct the survey, said in a telephone interview.
"Usually what happens is that somebody very close to the research
has to observe this going on. And they get to step forward and
report it to their institution in rule for something to come to pass. And
they can very often be jeopardizing themselves," added Wells.
Wells did the survey with two experts from the U.S. Health and
Human Services Department's Office of Research Integrity.
The findings come at a time of concern among U.S. lawmakers and
others about research goodness in the United States and abroad,
financial conflicts of share by scientists who get paid by drug
companies, and study results being warped by the influence of
pharmaceutical industry research funding.
For example, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley accuses prominent
Harvard University psychiatrist Dr. Joseph Biederman and others
of failing to fully disclose payments from drug companies.
Wells said the new survey, conducted in 2006, did not look
specifically at such financial conflicts of interest.
Instead, it asked scientists to parade whether they had seen acts that
would meet the government's definition of examination misconduct
— fiction, falsification or plagiarism in conducting research,
reporting findings or seeking grants.
MISCONDUCT SEEN
In quite, 192 scientists — 8.7 percent — reported they observed or had
direct evidence of researchers in their own departments committing
suspected research ill conduct over the past three academic years.
They described 265 incidents of bad guidance.
Wells and colleagues then evaluated the allegations, and found
that some did not meet the threshold of the federal definition of
bad conduct, leaving 201 cases of manage ill stated by 164 scientists,
or 7.4 percent of the respondents.
The tools and materials indicate that more than 2,300 cases of misconduct may
be occurring each year at U.S. study sites.
Examples of misconduct reported by the survey respondents include
changing data to "improve" tools and materials, submitting false data to win
a grant and misrepresenting findings.
Wells and his colleagues wrote that the HHS research integrity
berth receives only about sum of two units dozen reports of research
misconduct a year, a mere "tip of the iceberg."
Merrill Goozner, who heads the Integrity in Science Project at the
activist cluster Center for Science in the Public Interest, said, "It's
really the universities' responsibility to police this. And as we've
seen in the (financial) conflict-of-interest field, they answer the purpose a same
poor job."
Wells celebrated that there have been no previous to be compared national
surveys into U.S. research integrity, meaning it is hard to say
whether the problem is getting worse, or whether it is any worse
in the United States than elsewhere.
One of the most embossed examples of research fraud in newly come
years involved South Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk, who
admitted in 2006 to fabricating stem cell data.
Nota Bene: "Science Fictions" by John Crewdson (Little, Brown & Co.)
is a must read. Mr. Crewdson is a senior writer for the Chicago Tribune.
~ Croft Woodruff PhD MH"
All drugs have side effects. It is always in our best interest if we
can maintain our health by simple means and in that place are a affix a number to
of options available to us today.
Scientific research into these non-intrusive methods is piling up
rapidly. The good news is all around us.
Energy modalities, taking control of our diets, and practicing
methods that shift our perception of reality in our daily lives
have proven themselves to be extremely effective in combating
the stress which affects thus various of the physical disorders we suffer
from–ranging from high blood straits to heart attacks, blood
sweeten levels and a vast assemblage of ailments in between.
Minimizing the chemicals we allow into our systems, getting away
from processed, chemcially-laden foods and other products and
the custom we view life and its' challenges all have tremendously
beneficial affects on the entire system.
See the options at:
http://www.macarthurparknaturalmedicine.com
and learn to take control of your health and your overall feelings
of well-being.
We can carry into practice this, and the choices we cause for our own personal
lives influence the entire world. We can make a massive misunderstanding
with just a few small changes.
May your take a tour be filled with light and joy.
Sandi
Мой блог находят по следующим фразам
- types of lupus erythematosus
- background screening mistakes
- selective estrogen receptor modulators list
- tricyclic how to work
- how to fool urine test
- toronto police roadside drug testing