(NaturalNews) One in seven scientists report that they have known colleagues to falsify or slant the findings of their research, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and published in the journal PLoS One.
A number of scientific data falsification scandals have emerged in recent years, such as the case of a South Korean researcher who invented data on stem cell research. At the same time, increasing controversy over close industry ties to medical research has called into question whether researchers who take money from drug companies might be induced to falsify
their data.
"Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered," said researcher Daniele Fanelli.
2 comments:
Quote from:
*Across the Pond, Part One*
by Hillary Johnson
It's hard to imagine a general patient population
that has suffered more horribly than the English,
given the remarkable sway of a handful of British
psychiatrists, such as Simon Wessely, who dominate
and even define the field there.
This cabal continues to propose ever more
preposterous explanations for the emergence of this
disease in England, their influence leading directly to
the incarceration of patients in psych wards, the
arrest of parents of patients, one might even claim
the death of patients, and certainly all manner of
abuse in the realm of treatments and therapy.
Their influence over the fate of the disease "M.E."
in the upcomming 2012 American-issued DSM, the
equivalent of the Physician's Desk Reference for
psychiatrists, is a deadly serious matter.
All this bad karma has gone in two directions. Just
as CDC definitions have poisoned the discovery
process abroad, the British shrinks have been warmly
welcomed and courted by various personnel at the
Centers for Disease Control ever since Simon
Wessely wrote an overture letter to the agency in
1988 hailing the new name and definition.
If CDC employees were confused and didn't know
what to think of this new outbreak in the 1980s, the
British psychiatrists were happy to give them a leg
up on the psychoneurotic theory of the disease that
is today the agency's bedrock position.
See the first part of the series about the *Invest in
ME* International ME/CFS Conference 2009 -London,
by Hillary Johnson, at:
http://www.oslersweb.com/blog.htm?post=623914
well if those in the U.S.A. are welcoming the ideas of the likes of Prof Wessely and those who share his convoluted confabulations with regards to M.E. - then they are fools indeed. God help the patients in America.
Prof. Wessely's definitions and descriptions of what M.E. is about, and the so called management strategies - are so far removed from the reality and truth of this illness as to be laughable, if the consequences of such for those with m.e. weren't so serious.
His views on M.E.have no basis in scientific fact, and hold no credence with the medical professionals, researchers and patients who actually have had and do have experience and knowledge of the reality of this illness.
Post a Comment