1 in 4 Statisticians Asked to Commit Scientific Fraud
As the saying goes, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." We know that's true because statisticians themselves just said so.
A stunning report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concludes that researchers often ask statisticians to make "inappropriate requests." And by "inappropriate," the authors aren't referring to accidental requests for incorrect statistical analyses; instead, they're referring to requests for unscrupulous data manipulation or even fraud.
The authors surveyed 522 consulting biostatisticians and received sufficient responses from 390. Then, they constructed a table (shown below) that ranks requests by level of inappropriateness. For instance, at the very top is "falsify the statistical significance to support a desired result," which is outright fraud. At the bottom is "do not show plot because it did not show as strong an effect as you had hoped," which is only slightly naughty.
The absolute worst offense (i.e., being asked to fake statistical significance) occurred to 3% of the survey respondents. Another 7% reported being asked to change data, and a whopping 24% -- nearly 1 in 4 -- said they were asked to remove or alter data. Unequivocally, that is a request to commit scientific fraud.
Of the less serious offenses, 55% of biostatisticians said that they received requests to underreport non-significant results.
It's quite remarkable that a scientist would have the audacity to ask another professional to fudge data. While there is simply no excuse for the egregious offenses (e.g., falsifying statistical significance), some of the other lesser offenses may not reflect maleficence but ignorance. Scientists often aren't very good at statistics, and they may make inappropriate requests simply because they don't know any better. The study didn't tease that out.
Still, this study should serve as a reminder that the ongoing reproducibility crisis may have, at least in part, a more sinister explanation.
This article has been republished from materials provided by the American Council on Science and Health. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.
Min Qi Wang, Alice F. Yan, Ralph V. Katz. "Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians." Ann Intern Med 169(8): 554-558. Published: 16-Oct-2018. DOI: 10.7326/M18-1230.
As genome editing technologies advance toward clinical therapies, they are raising hopes of a completely new way to treat disease. However, challenges need to be addressed before potential treatments can be widely used in patients. To tackle these challenges, the National Institutes of Health has launched the Somatic Cell Genome Editing program, which has awarded multiple grants including more than $3.6 million to assess the safety of genome editing in human cells and tissues.
Like what you just read? You can find similar content on the communities below.Applied Sciences Biopharma Cancer Research Cell Science Diagnostics Drug Discovery Genomics Research Informatics Proteomics & Metabolomics Neuroscience Immunology & Microbiology
To personalize the content you see on Technology Networks homepage, Log In or Subscribe for FreeLOGIN SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE