.......the enormous task of keeping science honest is left to individual scientists in the hope that they will police themselves, and each other. “Not only is it not sustainable,” said Simonsohn, “it doesn’t even work. You only catch the most obvious fakers, and only a small share of them.” There is also the problem of relying on whistleblowers, who face the thankless and emotionally draining prospect of accusing their own colleagues of fraud. (“It’s like saying someone is a paedophile,” one of the students at Tilburg told me.) Neither Simonsohn nor any of the Tilburg whistleblowers I interviewed said they would come forward again. “There is no way we as a field can deal with fraud like this,” the student said. “There has to be a better way.”
Robots Hunt for Scientific Fraudsters
-
A good read at a great time. We don't have writing on this side of the pond since the Grey Lady well she sank. I wonder if they ran that program statcheck on either the Lugano report or T.C.'s rebuttal what would be found. The program would probably crash if it read the data that is up on the docket. While fact checking is good I am of mixed thoughts on the programmers "if you don't like it tough" argument, up on the web you go warts and all. Falsification of data is one thing but rounding errors are another. I have noticed on E-Catworld people are speaking more plainly, and it is not being moderated. Interesting.
-
Alan, You got a tough job, I could not do it. I kinda had hope for ECW if they opened up a bit. At least you allow some disagreement
And things are heating up.
