Science By The Numbers
by chunkdz89%: Percentage of cancer research "landmark papers" from "top journals" which could not be replicated (47 out of 53).1
417: Number of citations for the 47 unreproducible papers.1
36%: Percentage of scientists who admit engaging in questionable research practices or fraud.2
$216,884: Amount of an NSF grant to study "Why politicians make vague statements".3
75%: Percentage of retracted drug studies which were due to fraud.4
32%: Percentage of retracted papers that are never noted as being retracted.5
$500,000: Cost of investigating a single instance of scientific misconduct.6
>50% of claimed research findings are false.7
86%: Percentage of scientists who admit to witnessing their peers commit fraud or questionable research practices.2
$1,600,000,000: Taxpayer dollars spent on alternative medicine research such as the effect of magnets on arthritis and whether lavender and lemon scents promote healing.8
15%: Percentage of research trainees who said they'd be willing to omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper.9
47%: Percentage of addiction researchers who reported knowledge of research misconduct.10
$100,000,000: Direct cost of scientific misconduct in the U.S. per year.6
1) Begley & Ellis Nature 483, 531–533, 2012
2) Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738.
3) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-pgc-wastebook-2010-pg-064,0,445859.photo
4) Samp JC, Schumock GT, Pickard AS. Retracted publications in the drug literature. Pharmacotherapy. 2012 Jul;32(7):586-95
5) Steen, R.G., J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040923
6) Michalek AM, Hutson AD, Wicher CP, Trump DL (2010) The Costs and Underappreciated Consequences of Research Misconduct: A Case Study. PLoS Med 7(8): e1000318.
7) Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124.
8) http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/01/news/la-heb-alternative-medicine-nccam-paul-offit-20120501
9) Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ (1992): A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67: 769-775.
10) May C, Campbell S, Doyle H (1998) Research misconduct: A pilot study of British addiction researchers. Addiction Research 6: 371–373.
October 2nd, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Starting with low hanging fruit
$1,600,000,000: Taxpayer dollars spent on alternative medicine research such as the effect of magnets on arthritis and whether lavender and lemon scents promote healing.
Scientist objects to political mandated research which " lack biological underpinning" , studies have not shown significant difference between placebo effect and the therapy . Now Chinkdz, are you saying those studies were incorrect and lavender has medical value?
Comment by velikovskys — October 2, 2012 @ 8:35 pm
October 2nd, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Are you drunk?
Comment by chunkdz — October 2, 2012 @ 9:08 pm
October 2nd, 2012 at 10:01 pm
omg "chinkdz" racist typo hahahahahahahahhahahahahaaaa!!!
For 1/1000 of the cost of that alternative medicine study I could have told them what they were going to find. I could even have afforded to buy a rubber stamp with some ink to stamp the word SCIENCE! all over the documents produced.
I don't know about preprinted letterhead, though. That's a bit much.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 2, 2012 @ 10:01 pm
October 3rd, 2012 at 9:08 am
Blame the politicians ,unless you think the studies are fraudulent.
Comment by velikovskys — October 3, 2012 @ 9:08 am
October 3rd, 2012 at 9:10 am
AOFM,
The curse of fat fingers
Comment by velikovskys — October 3, 2012 @ 9:10 am
October 3rd, 2012 at 5:48 pm
It's alright, veli. It happens to the best of us.
While politicians definitely shoulder the vast majority of blame for misappropriation of tax money, these sorts of numbers reveal that we should treat scientists as we treat other piggies bellying-up to the taxpayer trough.
They are no better than any other moochers in this respect; in some ways they are much worse because of the reverence given to them by certain sectors of our society.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 3, 2012 @ 5:48 pm
October 4th, 2012 at 7:25 am
I will add one number to this lineup.
0: the contribution of Monday morning quarterbacks to the game.
Comment by olegt — October 4, 2012 @ 7:25 am
October 4th, 2012 at 8:46 am
AKA sausage fingers
Comment by Eugen — October 4, 2012 @ 8:46 am
October 4th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Olegt:
Actually, I thought science is supposed to be extremely proud of their Monday morning quarterbacks – otherwise known as replication studies. I've often heard from scientists how amazingly reliable science is because any Monday morning quarterback can check the work of any Sunday night quarterback.
Of course we now know that this is largely a farce. Usually no attempt is made at replication and when it is made it fails 90% of the time.
I think the reason you don't like Monday morning quarterbacks is because they tend to reveal the corruption of the scientific enterprise.
Comment by chunkdz — October 4, 2012 @ 11:24 am
October 4th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
It's funny that here is an online article exhorting how sloppy science is while at the same time slipping in 'replicated' where it should say 'reproduced' and further clarify that "The term ‘non-reproduced’ was assigned on the basis of findings not being sufficiently robust to drive a drug-development programme."
Awesome job, chunkdz. Apparently you would fit right in.
Comment by hrun0815 — October 4, 2012 @ 5:36 pm