scientific fraud

My recent chat with John Batchelor broached the important subject of flawed, non-reproducible scientific studies that find their way into journals. It seems that replicating results is as rare as finding a unicorn at a science fair.
Scientific progress is built on experiments, data, research, and constant questioning. While fraud is not a new issue, big data and Artificial Intelligence present challenges that dramatically increase the risk of fraud. New tools need to be developed to identify and reduce scientific fraud. Without them, the foundation of the scientific process is at risk.
Far too many scientific papers are being retracted from prestigious scientific journals because scientists fabricated or falsified data. Although no one defends scientific fraud, few recognize its long-lasting impacts on governmental policy and society.
Let’s play Unintended consequences Reassessing the Luddites Aging and Martin Scorsese Lie, mistruth, or editing?
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 jaw-dropping study reveals that nearly 1 in 4 of them report being asked to remove or alter data to better support a hypothesis. That is called scientific fraud.
The glyphosate scandal involving the International Agency for Research on Cancer has severely – and perhaps irreparably – damaged the reputation of the World Health Organization. Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters refused to answer any questions about the glyphosate document. That's not how science operates; that's how Fight Club operates.
We ve written before on scientific fraud and the problem of how easy it is to get papers with fake or manipulated data published. These studies that somehow make it through the publishing process can range from relatively harmless, such as the deliberately faked chocolate is good for weight loss study,