False idols
The Chronicle of Higher Education blog reports that James David Lieber has been barred from work on federally funded research for a period of three years due to falsifying data in a study of gender differences in opiate users at UCLA. A notice in the Federal Register (7/23/07) confirms that Lieber was found to have falsified interviews, urine samples, and stolen US$5,180 in incentive payments and travel expenses intended for study subjects. Jia-Rui Chong writing for the L.A. Times reports that UCLA learned of the data tampering (which took place over 6 months in 2005) in early 2006, and removed the compromised data from the study, as well as convening an investigation and discharging Lieber. It does not appear from the lead researcher's webpage (Christine Grella) that the findings from this study have yet been published.
In December, we looked at gender patterns in suspected and actual student cheating ( "Academic Cheating" (12/19/06), but not at academic misconduct on the research or faculty level. Korenman et al's (1998) survey did not find that sex or age had any influence on attitudes about research ethics among either researchers or members of Internal Review boards at research institutions. Martinson et al (2006) report that a feeling of unfair treatment predicts academic "misbehavior." In another field, Ismael Akaah (1989) reported stricter research ethics among female than male marketing executives.
I occasionally use non-scientific sources, such as yesterday's post (based on news items) or the time I cited Joyce Brothers (and was rightly called out on it by njyoder). However, the vast majority of my sources for this blog are scientific studies, and so charges of research misconduct tend to get my attention. A friend of mine pointed out that "mistakes are printed on page one; retractions are printed on page 14." There's only a certain degree to which you can put the cat back in the bag with reported research, especially on subjects like gender differences, when people are so invested in their beliefs. After all, J. Michael Bailey can still get cited as an "expert", regardless of investigations into his research methods.
In December, we looked at gender patterns in suspected and actual student cheating ( "Academic Cheating" (12/19/06), but not at academic misconduct on the research or faculty level. Korenman et al's (1998) survey did not find that sex or age had any influence on attitudes about research ethics among either researchers or members of Internal Review boards at research institutions. Martinson et al (2006) report that a feeling of unfair treatment predicts academic "misbehavior." In another field, Ismael Akaah (1989) reported stricter research ethics among female than male marketing executives.
I occasionally use non-scientific sources, such as yesterday's post (based on news items) or the time I cited Joyce Brothers (and was rightly called out on it by njyoder). However, the vast majority of my sources for this blog are scientific studies, and so charges of research misconduct tend to get my attention. A friend of mine pointed out that "mistakes are printed on page one; retractions are printed on page 14." There's only a certain degree to which you can put the cat back in the bag with reported research, especially on subjects like gender differences, when people are so invested in their beliefs. After all, J. Michael Bailey can still get cited as an "expert", regardless of investigations into his research methods.