Harvard Researcher May Have Fabricated Data

Hahaha...catching someone in science using unscrupulous and fraudulent tactics to gain academic noteriety is evidence for the ethical, and scrupulous culture of science. Wahahaha.You guys are good.

Wahhahaha...you are a riot, A.

Surely you are not also going to claim that because a guy lie and cheated, and was caught by a major university, and they actually did something about it, that this is a great badge of honor for the scientific community are you?The Catholic church also punished a few priests you know?I wonder what you think would be evidence for some LACK of ethics in the scientific community-if they never caught anyone cheating? If they never had written a letter demanding action, and never reprimanded anyone, would that mean that cheating must be rampant?BTW, Freud was never rebuffed, or discredited. He is still widely regarded today by many in the scientific community. He is one of the most famous scientists ever. I guess no students ever wrote a letter demanding action about his fraudulent behavior.Funny though, Modelmiss.

Are you trying to tell me that you don't believe that scientists who are hired by large companies like pharmaceutical companies or oil and environment companies, don't withhold data they know is damaging to their company, or skew results that paint their companies interests in the best possible light?Just look at virtually ANY self-funded research into the ill effects of a companies product and try to tell me you honestly believe this. It is not even possible to be that naive.

Well, where to start?You completely missed the point about Freud. Freud falsified data. He completely made things up, and he created false patients. He was a fraud. The people who are discussing his ideas are not condemning him because of his falsified data, they are condemning his ideas-ideas which people are still aware of even to this day, 70 years after his life. Indeed you are aware of Freud because of his fame within the world of psychology, and are apparently are not even aware of his instances of falsified data. That right there shows that the "scientific community" is not vigorous in its self-policing because of some great ethical commitment. Is there a more famous psychologist ever? So you used all of that digital space talking about him which re-enforces my point, not contradicts it.Likewise, as archaeologist pointed out, it was not the great scientific community that uncovered his fraud, it was the students! How in the world can anyone try to use this as evidence of the great moral code of science? That's utterly ridiculous.Its also utterly ridiculous to even try to use any rationale to claim any type of ethical superiority from this instance-which was what the very first poster Jar attempted to do. "Oh, look at how great the scientific community is, someone cheated, and got caught! See how diligent, ethical, and honest the world of science is compared to the world of the mere debauched public."Come on, what level of stupidity do you think the readers of this site are apt to be fooled by?

Trade secret laws are the reasons industry sponsored scientific testing tends to produce results that favor those industries?I can't handle any more of the stupidity here, I have to sign out.