Science fraud.

[RickN]

WOW!! You need to read this. And this from scientist.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

 

[furlong222]

wish I was surprised....

 

[okie98]

Trust no one!

 

[120 Acres]

Anyone can be bought.

 

[dennishoddy]

Anyone can be bought.

That's not true.

 

[dennishoddy]

WOW!! You need to read this. And this from scientist.



http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

IMHO, the part that meant the most to me about this article.

Part of the
problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right.
Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive
and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science
help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research redtape.
Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could
remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability
statements in grant applications and research papers.
Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist
on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and
post publication peer review.

 

[120 Acres]

That's not true.

Prove me wrong. Give me money.

 

[dennishoddy]

Prove me wrong. Give me money.

LOL!
Checks in the mail.

 

[CHenry]

Prove me wrong. Give me money.

Well we've established what you are, now just negotiating price...lol

 

[120 Acres]

Well we've established what you are, now just negotiating price...lol

Surprisingly cheap.