How many times have you heard the media claim that they are following the science on a particular issue?
How many times do they begin their reports with the sentence ‘Scientists say ….’ as though the very mention of authority tries to make the rest of us acquiesce blindly with what is being said ?
True science involves, testing, re-testing and and the constant examination of hypotheses and sources of data. True science involves the continuous need to verify results and duplicate experimental methods in ensure validity.
Instead the media peddle ‘general agreement’ rather than delve into the data and debate those who disagree. After all, it’s easy that way.
Yet a report exposing certain fraudulent practises of ‘scientists’ back in June 2005 reveals why we should always question the prevailing narrative cooked up by the media and so called scientists.
The report gathered data from over 3,200 scientists across their entire career span ( early to late ) and found alarming Behaviours that jeopardise the integrity of science ( See Table 1 below ).
Astonishing as this is, what I found particular alarming was the high percentage of scientists who admitted to changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source. If ever you need evidence implicating the involvement of a funding source in an attempt to manipulate research results then here you are.
The results of this study makes grim reading. It’s no wonder that, earlier in 2002, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology and the Association of American Medical Colleges objected to a proposal by the US Office of Research Integrity ( ORI ) to conduct a survey collecting empirical evidence of behaviours that undermine research integrity (p.737).
In conclusion, the authors state that their findings suggest US scientists engage in a range of behaviours extending far beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. For six of the behaviours, reported frequencies were under 2%. Remaining Behaviours Reported Frequencies of 5%, but the authors note that most behaviours exceeded 10%.
Overall 33% of the respondents said they had engaged in at least one of the top ten behaviours during the last three years. Among mid-career respondents, this rose to 38% with a 28% response rate for those in the early-career group.
The authors note that this figure is conservative since the scientists were self-reporting and hence dishonest.
The argument from authority fails and should never be used as a valid method for justifying the results of a study. The media and all social media platforms who peddle one-sided information, while deliberately shutting down and censoring dissenting views needs to be reformed now more than ever if we truly value our democratic freedoms.
