What would we do without peer review? Massive Fraud Uncovered in Work by Social Psychologist
… Stapel and a colleague or student came up with a hypothesis, and then designed an experiment to test it. Stapel took responsibility for collecting data through what he said was a network of contacts at other institutions, and several weeks later produced a fictitious data file for his colleague to write up into a paper. On other occasions, Stapel received co-authorship after producing data he claimed to have collected previously that exactly matched the needs of a colleague working on a particular study.
The data were also suspicious, the report says: effects were large; missing data and outliers were rare; and hypotheses were rarely refuted. Journals publishing Stapel’s papers did not question the omission of details about where the data came from. “We see that the scientific checks and balances process has failed at several levels,” Levelt says.
Quick, someone call the IPCC and snap this crook up before he gets a call from Berkley or the Democratic Party Research Center.
He is perfectly qualified to be at least a Lead Author.
Look, we know the guy made a mistake. But the results are what we are looking for. Give him a break. Maybe he was put on solid food too early as a child, or weaned from breast feeding too soon. Or too late. Or not at all.
What is that, three credible peer refutations of AGW this week? I stopped counting.
I don’t get it, should we stop funding science? What exactly is the suggestion here?
Anyone else remember “cold fusion”? Anyone remember the French “scientist” who “proved” that homeopathy was real, and had his grad students fudge all their experimental data to help him prove it?
I have entire books about Bad Science. they make very interesting and revealing reading. I think the point, allan, was obvious: scientists lie in order to be published and maintain career relevance, they do it all the time and always have. It’s called a cautionary tale. And sure: plenty of scientists are undeserving of funding; root them out and kick them off the taxpayer tit, pardon my terminology.
Michael, a further point is that sooner or later they always get caught. This stuff gets established in science, and sooner or later someone notices that it doesn’t fit with anything else in the literature. It may have taken decades, but even the Piltdown Man fraud was caught eventually.
Look up Elias Alsabti if you really want to see science fraud in action. And in that particular case, the science that was being defrauded was all valid research.
I don’t get it, should we stop funding science?
~allan
I’d settle for serious personal repercussions; fraud charges, jail time, crippling lawsuits, that sort of thing.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman.
Scientists have made a big mistake by involving itself in fraud like this..for whatever reason. Typically it is political or simply ideological. But they taint themselves and more importantly, they taint science generally.
Once again demonstrating that Dad was right when he said:
“First you have to have honest people.”
Congrats, Kate – you’ve discovered the exact reason why scientific theories are constantly tested and retested, and why the best way to evaluate a given conclusions is through that eeeevil “C” word – Consensus. Good job! If this keeps up, you might even start to understand why we don’t pay attention to the cranks whom you love so much.
OISE will come running with a job offer.
I don’t get it, should we stop funding science?
Yes.
I love it when one or two pathetic Gen-Y trolls like Alex claim to speak for anyone but themselves. 😀
I wonder if it would be possible to launch a class action law suit against fraudsters like this. University undergrads and grad students, and professors, are basing their own research, and careers, on a person’s fraudulent research. How much wasted time, money, caffeine, ambition, etc. is completely wasted because of misdirected research? How many actual vaild ideas are discredited because Prof. Dumbass was lazy?
“I have made mistakes, but I was and am honestly concerned with the field of social psychology.”
One would be surprised how often this kind of sentiment is used as some kind of excuse or justification for rotten behaviour. He FEELS bad but FEELS concerned so the feelings cancel each other out and he should be let off the hook.
Unbelievable.
Abstraction increases hypocrisy
by Joris Lammers, Diederik A Stapel
http://www.mendeley.com/research/abstraction-increases-hypocrisy/
Behavioural economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
Of course this entire field that this crook works in reads like Orwellian Leftist social engineering.
Russel Sage Foundation :
“1945 – 1980
Since World War II, the Foundation has devoted its efforts to strengthening the social sciences as a means of achieving more informed and rational social policy”
1980s – present
“The Foundation was an early force in the development of behavioral economics,[13] launching the Behavioral Economics program in 1986 with the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.[14] A number of seminal books on behavioral economics published by Russell Sage remain key texts in the field today, including Quasi Rational Economics (1991)[15] and Advances in Behavioral Finance (1993).[16]
In 1993, the Foundation also established the Behavioral Economics Roundtable,[14] a group of leading behavioral economists elected by grantees in the program and charged to design initiatives to advance the field. Three charter members of the Roundtable subsequently received the Noble Prize in economics: George Akerloff, Daniel Kahneman, and Thomas Schelling.”
Harvard U. : “Today, behavioral economics is a young, robust, burgeoning sector in mainstream economics, and can claim a Nobel Prize, a critical mass of empirical research, and a history of upending the neoclassical theories that dominated the discipline for so long.
Although behavioral economists teach at Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, Princeton, MIT, and elsewhere, the subfield’s greatest concentration of scholars is at Harvard. “Harvard’s approach to economics has traditionally been somewhat more worldly and empirical than that of other universities,” says President Lawrence H. Summers, who earned his own economics doctorate at Harvard and identifies himself as a behavioral economist. “And if you are worldly and empirical, you are drawn to behavioral approaches.”
“Behavioral approaches were anathema in the 1980s, became popular in the 1990s, and now we’re a fad, with lots of grad students coming on board. It’s no longer an isolated band of beleaguered researchers fighting against the mainstream.”
“After Wanner became president of Russell Sage in 1986, the two institutions (Harvard and Sage) worked jointly to foster the new subfield. In the last 20 years, Sage has made well over 100 grants to behavioral economists; it also organizes a biennial summer institute that has drawn younger scholars like Laibson and professor of economics Sendhil Mullainathan. Princeton University Press and Russell Sage also co-publish a series of books in the field.
Behavioral economics, then, is the hybrid offspring of economics and psychology. ”
Pier wrevyewwed simply means” suitable for wiping ones sphincter.
We can further clairify which sphincter if required.
WHAT anti-science right? :p
Can we please, please, please stop referring to the field of psychology as science? It is no more a science than anthropology, sociology or any other of the so-called social sciences.
“What would we do without peer review? Massive Fraud Uncovered in Work by Social Psychologist…”
A fraud that was uncovered through further peer review.
Alex, try leaving the bong alone for a few hours before posting. You might be able to put a coherent thought together long enough to get it typed.
Stop trolling, mikey.