<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_30_147221</id>
	<title>How Common Is Scientific Misconduct?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243697280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud. Recent scandals like <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78745.php">Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines</a> or <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/hendrikshontrans.shtml">Jan Hendrik Sch&#246;n's duplicated graphs</a>  showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals.  Daniele Fanelli has an interesting paper on PLoS ONE where she performs a meta-analysis synthesizing previous surveys to determine <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pone.0005738">the frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data</a>, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct. A pooled, weighted average of 1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once &mdash; a serious form of misconduct by any standard &mdash; and up to 33.7\% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12\% for falsification, and up to 72\% for other questionable research practices. Misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. 'Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct,' writes Fanelli. 'It is likely that, if on average 2\% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34\% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud .
Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk 's fake stem-cell lines or Jan Hendrik Sch   n 's duplicated graphs showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals .
Daniele Fanelli has an interesting paper on PLoS ONE where she performs a meta-analysis synthesizing previous surveys to determine the frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data , or commit other forms of scientific misconduct .
A pooled , weighted average of 1.97 \ % of scientists admitted to having fabricated , falsified or modified data or results at least once    a serious form of misconduct by any standard    and up to 33.7 \ % admitted other questionable research practices .
In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues , admission rates were 14.12 \ % for falsification , and up to 72 \ % for other questionable research practices .
Misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others .
'Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations , it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct, ' writes Fanelli .
'It is likely that , if on average 2 \ % of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34 \ % admit other questionable research practices , the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The image of scientists as objective seekers of truth is periodically jeopardized by the discovery of a major scientific fraud.
Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jan Hendrik Schön's duplicated graphs  showed how easy it can be for a scientist to publish fabricated data in the most prestigious journals.
Daniele Fanelli has an interesting paper on PLoS ONE where she performs a meta-analysis synthesizing previous surveys to determine the frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct.
A pooled, weighted average of 1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once — a serious form of misconduct by any standard — and up to 33.7\% admitted other questionable research practices.
In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12\% for falsification, and up to 72\% for other questionable research practices.
Misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
'Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct,' writes Fanelli.
'It is likely that, if on average 2\% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34\% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149931</id>
	<title>Who could possibly be surprised by this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at anthropology and the educational system with respect to "Lucy".  She was finally admitted to be completely fraudulent because the group needed results.  However, instead of these results being thrown out by both the scientific and educational system "Lucy" is being used to teach evolution.  "Lucy" was still being taught as truth at the college level as she was included in text books on anthropology after she was admitted to be fraudulent.</p><p>So, scientists being corrupt/dishonest?  Why not?  It's well with the possibilities of human nature to be corrupt.  In fact it's probably more likely than not that in today's society that any person chosen at random is corrupt/dishonest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at anthropology and the educational system with respect to " Lucy " .
She was finally admitted to be completely fraudulent because the group needed results .
However , instead of these results being thrown out by both the scientific and educational system " Lucy " is being used to teach evolution .
" Lucy " was still being taught as truth at the college level as she was included in text books on anthropology after she was admitted to be fraudulent.So , scientists being corrupt/dishonest ?
Why not ?
It 's well with the possibilities of human nature to be corrupt .
In fact it 's probably more likely than not that in today 's society that any person chosen at random is corrupt/dishonest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at anthropology and the educational system with respect to "Lucy".
She was finally admitted to be completely fraudulent because the group needed results.
However, instead of these results being thrown out by both the scientific and educational system "Lucy" is being used to teach evolution.
"Lucy" was still being taught as truth at the college level as she was included in text books on anthropology after she was admitted to be fraudulent.So, scientists being corrupt/dishonest?
Why not?
It's well with the possibilities of human nature to be corrupt.
In fact it's probably more likely than not that in today's society that any person chosen at random is corrupt/dishonest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150423</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who was in control of Congress the last two years of Bush's presidency, when things got REALLY fucked up?  That's right, the Democrats.  Clearly you don't understand the American political system, my European friend, so let me lay out a few basics: Congress controls the purse strings.  The President can do nothing without their approval.  I didn't see any Democrats in Congress growing a pair and voting to cut off Iraq war funding.  Even now, with the most rabidly liberal ideologue this country has seen since FDR sitting in the White House, they refuse to end funding for this war.  The more things "change," the more they stay the same.  The only thing that did change was that now we have a Chicago political machine thug as a president instead of a country club good old boy.  And P.S. - this Chicago thug seems to have a special hatred in his heart for the British, as evidenced by his shitting all over the Queen, the Prime Minister, and most recently the British press.  So I hope you're not British, for your sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who was in control of Congress the last two years of Bush 's presidency , when things got REALLY fucked up ?
That 's right , the Democrats .
Clearly you do n't understand the American political system , my European friend , so let me lay out a few basics : Congress controls the purse strings .
The President can do nothing without their approval .
I did n't see any Democrats in Congress growing a pair and voting to cut off Iraq war funding .
Even now , with the most rabidly liberal ideologue this country has seen since FDR sitting in the White House , they refuse to end funding for this war .
The more things " change , " the more they stay the same .
The only thing that did change was that now we have a Chicago political machine thug as a president instead of a country club good old boy .
And P.S .
- this Chicago thug seems to have a special hatred in his heart for the British , as evidenced by his shitting all over the Queen , the Prime Minister , and most recently the British press .
So I hope you 're not British , for your sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who was in control of Congress the last two years of Bush's presidency, when things got REALLY fucked up?
That's right, the Democrats.
Clearly you don't understand the American political system, my European friend, so let me lay out a few basics: Congress controls the purse strings.
The President can do nothing without their approval.
I didn't see any Democrats in Congress growing a pair and voting to cut off Iraq war funding.
Even now, with the most rabidly liberal ideologue this country has seen since FDR sitting in the White House, they refuse to end funding for this war.
The more things "change," the more they stay the same.
The only thing that did change was that now we have a Chicago political machine thug as a president instead of a country club good old boy.
And P.S.
- this Chicago thug seems to have a special hatred in his heart for the British, as evidenced by his shitting all over the Queen, the Prime Minister, and most recently the British press.
So I hope you're not British, for your sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151563</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1243716180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.</p></div><p>There is checks and balances.  The first is that you don't get into research if you want to cheat your way to the top, you get into law school or politics if you want to do that.  The second is repeatability.  The third is peer review.  What other checks and balances are there?  I can't think of any that would actually do anything besides slow down research.</p><p>Outdated?  I don't see anything to replace it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances .
Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.There is checks and balances .
The first is that you do n't get into research if you want to cheat your way to the top , you get into law school or politics if you want to do that .
The second is repeatability .
The third is peer review .
What other checks and balances are there ?
I ca n't think of any that would actually do anything besides slow down research.Outdated ?
I do n't see anything to replace it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances.
Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.There is checks and balances.
The first is that you don't get into research if you want to cheat your way to the top, you get into law school or politics if you want to do that.
The second is repeatability.
The third is peer review.
What other checks and balances are there?
I can't think of any that would actually do anything besides slow down research.Outdated?
I don't see anything to replace it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157071</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>Meneguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1243770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might sound like a pun, since I am posting a link to an article that needs a subscription to be read, but it's not it is in the Communications of the ACM, talking about the problems with peer-review committees in the Systems area: <a href="http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/5/24644-program-committee-overload-in-systems/fulltext" title="acm.org">Program Committee Overload in Systems</a> [acm.org] (this should be accessible to anyone in a computer science department network. But the moral of the paper is that because of the increasing number of people in the field versus the number of people willing to do peer-review in conferences and journals, less relevant science gets published. They put very good arguments criticizing a lot the way in which science tends to get published nowadays. If you can access it, I think it's a good read about this particular subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might sound like a pun , since I am posting a link to an article that needs a subscription to be read , but it 's not it is in the Communications of the ACM , talking about the problems with peer-review committees in the Systems area : Program Committee Overload in Systems [ acm.org ] ( this should be accessible to anyone in a computer science department network .
But the moral of the paper is that because of the increasing number of people in the field versus the number of people willing to do peer-review in conferences and journals , less relevant science gets published .
They put very good arguments criticizing a lot the way in which science tends to get published nowadays .
If you can access it , I think it 's a good read about this particular subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might sound like a pun, since I am posting a link to an article that needs a subscription to be read, but it's not it is in the Communications of the ACM, talking about the problems with peer-review committees in the Systems area: Program Committee Overload in Systems [acm.org] (this should be accessible to anyone in a computer science department network.
But the moral of the paper is that because of the increasing number of people in the field versus the number of people willing to do peer-review in conferences and journals, less relevant science gets published.
They put very good arguments criticizing a lot the way in which science tends to get published nowadays.
If you can access it, I think it's a good read about this particular subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28165761</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>alexj33</author>
	<datestamp>1243855380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A pooled, weighted average of 1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data</p></div></blockquote><p>
Or was that 19.7\%??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pooled , weighted average of 1.97 \ % of scientists admitted to having fabricated , falsified or modified data Or was that 19.7 \ % ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pooled, weighted average of 1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data
Or was that 19.7\%?
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150825</id>
	<title>Re:reproducible</title>
	<author>Thad Zurich</author>
	<datestamp>1243710720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science precedes engineering, which is the attempt to apply the science. Attempts to reproduce fake science either won't work at all, will accomplish the reality of the faked discovery (which might or might not be exposed), or find out something completely new as a result of the fakery. So the good science happens in spite of the bad science, because the truth doesn't care if anyone believes it or not. Faking science for any reason other than personal survival is simply foolish, because you'll probably be found out in the end, your career obliterated, and any valid work discredited (which would be particularly harmful because of the required duplication of effort).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science precedes engineering , which is the attempt to apply the science .
Attempts to reproduce fake science either wo n't work at all , will accomplish the reality of the faked discovery ( which might or might not be exposed ) , or find out something completely new as a result of the fakery .
So the good science happens in spite of the bad science , because the truth does n't care if anyone believes it or not .
Faking science for any reason other than personal survival is simply foolish , because you 'll probably be found out in the end , your career obliterated , and any valid work discredited ( which would be particularly harmful because of the required duplication of effort ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science precedes engineering, which is the attempt to apply the science.
Attempts to reproduce fake science either won't work at all, will accomplish the reality of the faked discovery (which might or might not be exposed), or find out something completely new as a result of the fakery.
So the good science happens in spite of the bad science, because the truth doesn't care if anyone believes it or not.
Faking science for any reason other than personal survival is simply foolish, because you'll probably be found out in the end, your career obliterated, and any valid work discredited (which would be particularly harmful because of the required duplication of effort).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152333</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1243677840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was born in American and lived there for the first 24 years of my life so I am aware of how the system works and in fact I'm still part of the system since I have to file US taxes and, in fact, received a economic stimulus check to spend on the UK economy courtesy of Bush.
<br> <br>
I'm fully aware of when the democrats had taken control. I do agree that congress has to take responsibility too. So it's a bit unfortunately that people forget either blame the democrats for the supposed woes of the Reagan era or give the democrats praise they deserve for whatever it is they like about the Reagan era.
<br> <br>
The economic problems started under Clinton with the dot com bust and Bush did inherit an economy that wasn't in the greatest shape. His priority should have only been to fix the economy. Up until 11/9/01 when his focus should have been the economy and going after Bin Laden.
<br> <br>
Instead he blew a big wad of money on just about everything except Bin Laden. While at the same time the housing market was going shit.
<br> <br>
The democrats could have done more but the damage was done long before. You can't just undo a sham of a housing market by electing democrats.
<br> <br>
I didn't vote for Obama but I also didn't vote for McCain. Neither was a good choice though ultimately better than the likes of Hillary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was born in American and lived there for the first 24 years of my life so I am aware of how the system works and in fact I 'm still part of the system since I have to file US taxes and , in fact , received a economic stimulus check to spend on the UK economy courtesy of Bush .
I 'm fully aware of when the democrats had taken control .
I do agree that congress has to take responsibility too .
So it 's a bit unfortunately that people forget either blame the democrats for the supposed woes of the Reagan era or give the democrats praise they deserve for whatever it is they like about the Reagan era .
The economic problems started under Clinton with the dot com bust and Bush did inherit an economy that was n't in the greatest shape .
His priority should have only been to fix the economy .
Up until 11/9/01 when his focus should have been the economy and going after Bin Laden .
Instead he blew a big wad of money on just about everything except Bin Laden .
While at the same time the housing market was going shit .
The democrats could have done more but the damage was done long before .
You ca n't just undo a sham of a housing market by electing democrats .
I did n't vote for Obama but I also did n't vote for McCain .
Neither was a good choice though ultimately better than the likes of Hillary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was born in American and lived there for the first 24 years of my life so I am aware of how the system works and in fact I'm still part of the system since I have to file US taxes and, in fact, received a economic stimulus check to spend on the UK economy courtesy of Bush.
I'm fully aware of when the democrats had taken control.
I do agree that congress has to take responsibility too.
So it's a bit unfortunately that people forget either blame the democrats for the supposed woes of the Reagan era or give the democrats praise they deserve for whatever it is they like about the Reagan era.
The economic problems started under Clinton with the dot com bust and Bush did inherit an economy that wasn't in the greatest shape.
His priority should have only been to fix the economy.
Up until 11/9/01 when his focus should have been the economy and going after Bin Laden.
Instead he blew a big wad of money on just about everything except Bin Laden.
While at the same time the housing market was going shit.
The democrats could have done more but the damage was done long before.
You can't just undo a sham of a housing market by electing democrats.
I didn't vote for Obama but I also didn't vote for McCain.
Neither was a good choice though ultimately better than the likes of Hillary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135</id>
	<title>Vice Provost of Caltech from 1994 said it best</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1243705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch\_art.html" title="caltech.edu">http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch\_art.html</a> [caltech.edu]<br>"""<br>The crises that face science are not limited to jobs and research funds. Those are bad enough, but they are just the beginning. Under stress from those problems, other parts of the scientific enterprise have started showing signs of distress. One of the most essential is the matter of honesty and ethical behavior among scientists.</p><p>The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists. There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary. As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.</p><p>Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger. Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support. Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals. Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.</p><p>Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.</p><p>We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all. The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny. Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint. Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants. In fact, as we have seen, it already is. Ignoring the pain for the moment, however, I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past.<br>"""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From :     http : //www.its.caltech.edu/ ~ dg/crunch \ _art.html [ caltech.edu ] " " " The crises that face science are not limited to jobs and research funds .
Those are bad enough , but they are just the beginning .
Under stress from those problems , other parts of the scientific enterprise have started showing signs of distress .
One of the most essential is the matter of honesty and ethical behavior among scientists.The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists .
There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources , even by cheating if necessary .
As the pressure increases , this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common .
For example , peer review , one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice , is in critical danger .
Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish , and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support .
Journals in most cases , and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question , and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals .
Obviously , good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science .
Of course , a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea , but by and large , peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake .
However , it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals .
There are many reasons for this , not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest , since they are themselves competitors for the same resources .
This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies , obvious to any outside observer , but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole .
It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests , but as time goes on , more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors .
Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion , but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch .
That is not meant to be an exhortation .
It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty , if science is to survive at all .
The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design , because , for one thing , neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be , and for another , even if we did know where we are going to end up , we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny .
Only this much is sure : the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint .
Because it will be unplanned , the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants .
In fact , as we have seen , it already is .
Ignoring the pain for the moment , however , I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past .
" " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From:
    http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch\_art.html [caltech.edu]"""The crises that face science are not limited to jobs and research funds.
Those are bad enough, but they are just the beginning.
Under stress from those problems, other parts of the scientific enterprise have started showing signs of distress.
One of the most essential is the matter of honesty and ethical behavior among scientists.The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists.
There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary.
As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common.
For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger.
Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support.
Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals.
Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science.
Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake.
However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals.
There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources.
This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole.
It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors.
Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch.
That is not meant to be an exhortation.
It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all.
The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny.
Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint.
Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants.
In fact, as we have seen, it already is.
Ignoring the pain for the moment, however, I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past.
"""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28159339</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>wintermind</author>
	<datestamp>1243794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least two of the journals in which my work has been published, Journal of Animal Science (jas.fass.org) and Journal of Dairy Science (jds.fass.org) require that the authors include 100-word interpretative summaries that are peer reviewed. Those summaries are supposed to be written so that they can be read and understood by the proverbial main in the street. The value of the summaries may be related to the fact that they are published in journals dedicated to agricultural science, and that USDA and other agencies that fund much of this research are very interested in technology transfer from labs to the field. Such motivations may not exist or be as strong in, say, a more abstract mathematical discipline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least two of the journals in which my work has been published , Journal of Animal Science ( jas.fass.org ) and Journal of Dairy Science ( jds.fass.org ) require that the authors include 100-word interpretative summaries that are peer reviewed .
Those summaries are supposed to be written so that they can be read and understood by the proverbial main in the street .
The value of the summaries may be related to the fact that they are published in journals dedicated to agricultural science , and that USDA and other agencies that fund much of this research are very interested in technology transfer from labs to the field .
Such motivations may not exist or be as strong in , say , a more abstract mathematical discipline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least two of the journals in which my work has been published, Journal of Animal Science (jas.fass.org) and Journal of Dairy Science (jds.fass.org) require that the authors include 100-word interpretative summaries that are peer reviewed.
Those summaries are supposed to be written so that they can be read and understood by the proverbial main in the street.
The value of the summaries may be related to the fact that they are published in journals dedicated to agricultural science, and that USDA and other agencies that fund much of this research are very interested in technology transfer from labs to the field.
Such motivations may not exist or be as strong in, say, a more abstract mathematical discipline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150485</id>
	<title>Re:Research and Development driven by commerce</title>
	<author>MMC Monster</author>
	<datestamp>1243707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.</p></div><p>The rest of them are liars.</p><p>We had a high school advanced placement math class (Calculus-2).  The teacher was the school's principal.  After a student teacher conference, he mentioned that one mother defended her son by saying that he never cheated in school.  The teacher then did an anonymous poll to find out how many students in the class had cheated in the past year.  It was 100\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1.97 \ % of scientists admitted to having fabricated , falsified or modified data or results at least once.The rest of them are liars.We had a high school advanced placement math class ( Calculus-2 ) .
The teacher was the school 's principal .
After a student teacher conference , he mentioned that one mother defended her son by saying that he never cheated in school .
The teacher then did an anonymous poll to find out how many students in the class had cheated in the past year .
It was 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.The rest of them are liars.We had a high school advanced placement math class (Calculus-2).
The teacher was the school's principal.
After a student teacher conference, he mentioned that one mother defended her son by saying that he never cheated in school.
The teacher then did an anonymous poll to find out how many students in the class had cheated in the past year.
It was 100\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155469</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1243703580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What do you suggest? For the most part they seem to be working, to me. How would you change them?</i></p><p>Sure, if by working you mean dysfunctional mess.</p><p>- Our institutions should be teaching scientists to use the SIMPLEST language possible to describe what they are doing. If technical terms are required fair enough. Large obscure words to express simple ideas should be much more heavily discouraged than they are. A layman's summary should appear in every paper, not far beneath the abstract.</p><p>- A complete description of everything that was done should be either included or trivially available so that the work can be repeated. There should be no secret methods in a published paper.</p><p>- The institutions themselves need to change so that they are no so focused on prestige and politics. There needs to be greater separation between politics and science. It's time to end funding that is tied directly to political agendas where the people's money is spent to warp the science they're funding.</p><p>- There should be stiff penalties for fabricating or manipulating data to meet a commercial end, and most importantly they should be enforced.</p><p>Fifthl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you suggest ?
For the most part they seem to be working , to me .
How would you change them ? Sure , if by working you mean dysfunctional mess.- Our institutions should be teaching scientists to use the SIMPLEST language possible to describe what they are doing .
If technical terms are required fair enough .
Large obscure words to express simple ideas should be much more heavily discouraged than they are .
A layman 's summary should appear in every paper , not far beneath the abstract.- A complete description of everything that was done should be either included or trivially available so that the work can be repeated .
There should be no secret methods in a published paper.- The institutions themselves need to change so that they are no so focused on prestige and politics .
There needs to be greater separation between politics and science .
It 's time to end funding that is tied directly to political agendas where the people 's money is spent to warp the science they 're funding.- There should be stiff penalties for fabricating or manipulating data to meet a commercial end , and most importantly they should be enforced.Fifthl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you suggest?
For the most part they seem to be working, to me.
How would you change them?Sure, if by working you mean dysfunctional mess.- Our institutions should be teaching scientists to use the SIMPLEST language possible to describe what they are doing.
If technical terms are required fair enough.
Large obscure words to express simple ideas should be much more heavily discouraged than they are.
A layman's summary should appear in every paper, not far beneath the abstract.- A complete description of everything that was done should be either included or trivially available so that the work can be repeated.
There should be no secret methods in a published paper.- The institutions themselves need to change so that they are no so focused on prestige and politics.
There needs to be greater separation between politics and science.
It's time to end funding that is tied directly to political agendas where the people's money is spent to warp the science they're funding.- There should be stiff penalties for fabricating or manipulating data to meet a commercial end, and most importantly they should be enforced.Fifthl</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150111</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Epistax</author>
	<datestamp>1243704840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check your math. I got 83\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check your math .
I got 83 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check your math.
I got 83\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150633</id>
	<title>Temptation</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1243709220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an experimental physicist in solid state physics. I think this subject in low to medium-prone to misconduct. Lets analyze the different aspects of it:</p><p>a) Motivation: getting your thesis/paper finished quicker/better, getting research money</p><p>b) Control Is there a control actually considering scientific behavior to be a fundamental good or is it just important that nothing is uncovered?</p><p>c) Ways of misbehaviour (i only write down what happened in the range of what i have seen/recognized(e.g. in other groups papers) or friends told me what they saw. I exclude friends of friends stories): Unclear formulation of experimental hypotheses *before* the experiment ("fishing in the dark"), not noting all people involved as authors, mentioning people not involved as authors, post-selection of experimental data supporting a hypothesis. incorrect labeling of data (e.g. different sample of same type etc), sabotage of co-workers experiments, beautification of data (the line between nonlinear filtering and faking is a thin one).</p><p>d) Ways of reporting without shooting yourself in your foot: ????? None?</p><p>e) Education towards it: negative (if you report results in lab courses which dont match the supervisors expectation, you get in trouble instead of turning the device on an measuring again. This educates people to copy last years results.</p><p>So let me summarize: the subtleness of some ways of manipulation coming together with a lack of control, education, and ways of reporting without getting damaged while seeing a good expected reward for bending the rules of science a little has turned many good people bad. Imagine a Bank where the money in the evening is not counted, the people are eductaed to just take a little bit, nobody is interested if some money is missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an experimental physicist in solid state physics .
I think this subject in low to medium-prone to misconduct .
Lets analyze the different aspects of it : a ) Motivation : getting your thesis/paper finished quicker/better , getting research moneyb ) Control Is there a control actually considering scientific behavior to be a fundamental good or is it just important that nothing is uncovered ? c ) Ways of misbehaviour ( i only write down what happened in the range of what i have seen/recognized ( e.g .
in other groups papers ) or friends told me what they saw .
I exclude friends of friends stories ) : Unclear formulation of experimental hypotheses * before * the experiment ( " fishing in the dark " ) , not noting all people involved as authors , mentioning people not involved as authors , post-selection of experimental data supporting a hypothesis .
incorrect labeling of data ( e.g .
different sample of same type etc ) , sabotage of co-workers experiments , beautification of data ( the line between nonlinear filtering and faking is a thin one ) .d ) Ways of reporting without shooting yourself in your foot : ? ? ? ? ?
None ? e ) Education towards it : negative ( if you report results in lab courses which dont match the supervisors expectation , you get in trouble instead of turning the device on an measuring again .
This educates people to copy last years results.So let me summarize : the subtleness of some ways of manipulation coming together with a lack of control , education , and ways of reporting without getting damaged while seeing a good expected reward for bending the rules of science a little has turned many good people bad .
Imagine a Bank where the money in the evening is not counted , the people are eductaed to just take a little bit , nobody is interested if some money is missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an experimental physicist in solid state physics.
I think this subject in low to medium-prone to misconduct.
Lets analyze the different aspects of it:a) Motivation: getting your thesis/paper finished quicker/better, getting research moneyb) Control Is there a control actually considering scientific behavior to be a fundamental good or is it just important that nothing is uncovered?c) Ways of misbehaviour (i only write down what happened in the range of what i have seen/recognized(e.g.
in other groups papers) or friends told me what they saw.
I exclude friends of friends stories): Unclear formulation of experimental hypotheses *before* the experiment ("fishing in the dark"), not noting all people involved as authors, mentioning people not involved as authors, post-selection of experimental data supporting a hypothesis.
incorrect labeling of data (e.g.
different sample of same type etc), sabotage of co-workers experiments, beautification of data (the line between nonlinear filtering and faking is a thin one).d) Ways of reporting without shooting yourself in your foot: ?????
None?e) Education towards it: negative (if you report results in lab courses which dont match the supervisors expectation, you get in trouble instead of turning the device on an measuring again.
This educates people to copy last years results.So let me summarize: the subtleness of some ways of manipulation coming together with a lack of control, education, and ways of reporting without getting damaged while seeing a good expected reward for bending the rules of science a little has turned many good people bad.
Imagine a Bank where the money in the evening is not counted, the people are eductaed to just take a little bit, nobody is interested if some money is missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149683</id>
	<title>Relative to what?</title>
	<author>Subm</author>
	<datestamp>1243701480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we accept that scientists are human like anyone else, we accept that scientists, like others, will make mistakes that get bigger and go more wrong than they anticipated. Some may intentionally commit fraud.</p><p>How common is scientific misconduct <i>relative to other types of misconduct</i> seems a more relevant question.</p><p>Also: What can we do to decrease it and how can we lessen its impact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we accept that scientists are human like anyone else , we accept that scientists , like others , will make mistakes that get bigger and go more wrong than they anticipated .
Some may intentionally commit fraud.How common is scientific misconduct relative to other types of misconduct seems a more relevant question.Also : What can we do to decrease it and how can we lessen its impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we accept that scientists are human like anyone else, we accept that scientists, like others, will make mistakes that get bigger and go more wrong than they anticipated.
Some may intentionally commit fraud.How common is scientific misconduct relative to other types of misconduct seems a more relevant question.Also: What can we do to decrease it and how can we lessen its impact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150265</id>
	<title>Re:Research and Development driven by commerce</title>
	<author>Foggiano</author>
	<datestamp>1243706040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't quite see how you came to this conclusion, especially given the text of this article.  The authors were specifically looking at misconduct in research <b>published</b> in peer-reviewed journals.  The vast majority of material published in these journals originates from universities, not industrial research and development.
</p><p>
I would suggest, in fact, that misconduct is probably at least as common if not more so in a university environment than in an industrial one.  Tenure-track professors are under enormous pressure to publish and their research projects are operated in an essentially unsupervised environment.  The graduate students and post-doctoral researchers who actually do the lab work are generally in no position to correct or even be aware of misconduct by a professor, and are also under the same kinds of pressure to produce results in order to succeed.  Couple this with the fact that much research is esoteric and funding, time, and interest to reproduce others' results is nearly non-existent and you have an environment ripe for scientific misconduct.
</p><p>
In the very least, in industry, you're constrained by reality.  If you say you can make a product and you can't, there is an economic penalty (and potential loss of employment) which encourages conservatism and honesty in research.  In academics, a paper containing falsified data published in an obscure journal which no one reads is still a publication that you can add to your c.v. and really, who will ever notice?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't quite see how you came to this conclusion , especially given the text of this article .
The authors were specifically looking at misconduct in research published in peer-reviewed journals .
The vast majority of material published in these journals originates from universities , not industrial research and development .
I would suggest , in fact , that misconduct is probably at least as common if not more so in a university environment than in an industrial one .
Tenure-track professors are under enormous pressure to publish and their research projects are operated in an essentially unsupervised environment .
The graduate students and post-doctoral researchers who actually do the lab work are generally in no position to correct or even be aware of misconduct by a professor , and are also under the same kinds of pressure to produce results in order to succeed .
Couple this with the fact that much research is esoteric and funding , time , and interest to reproduce others ' results is nearly non-existent and you have an environment ripe for scientific misconduct .
In the very least , in industry , you 're constrained by reality .
If you say you can make a product and you ca n't , there is an economic penalty ( and potential loss of employment ) which encourages conservatism and honesty in research .
In academics , a paper containing falsified data published in an obscure journal which no one reads is still a publication that you can add to your c.v. and really , who will ever notice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't quite see how you came to this conclusion, especially given the text of this article.
The authors were specifically looking at misconduct in research published in peer-reviewed journals.
The vast majority of material published in these journals originates from universities, not industrial research and development.
I would suggest, in fact, that misconduct is probably at least as common if not more so in a university environment than in an industrial one.
Tenure-track professors are under enormous pressure to publish and their research projects are operated in an essentially unsupervised environment.
The graduate students and post-doctoral researchers who actually do the lab work are generally in no position to correct or even be aware of misconduct by a professor, and are also under the same kinds of pressure to produce results in order to succeed.
Couple this with the fact that much research is esoteric and funding, time, and interest to reproduce others' results is nearly non-existent and you have an environment ripe for scientific misconduct.
In the very least, in industry, you're constrained by reality.
If you say you can make a product and you can't, there is an economic penalty (and potential loss of employment) which encourages conservatism and honesty in research.
In academics, a paper containing falsified data published in an obscure journal which no one reads is still a publication that you can add to your c.v. and really, who will ever notice?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673</id>
	<title>Research and Development driven by commerce</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1243701360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is often cited that crappy, broken or incomplete code is often shoved out the door by business in order to meet deadlines.  Quality or even truth are sacrificed for business reasons.</p><p>Why would R&amp;D be any different?  Big business often exhibit quota and other incentives for patent filing and the like.  Outside funding sources pressure even pure research activities so that they can get their hands on new technology or even for silly things like a name being recorded as "first to" do something.</p><p>I am actually a bit surprised that the numbers aren't a bit higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is often cited that crappy , broken or incomplete code is often shoved out the door by business in order to meet deadlines .
Quality or even truth are sacrificed for business reasons.Why would R&amp;D be any different ?
Big business often exhibit quota and other incentives for patent filing and the like .
Outside funding sources pressure even pure research activities so that they can get their hands on new technology or even for silly things like a name being recorded as " first to " do something.I am actually a bit surprised that the numbers are n't a bit higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is often cited that crappy, broken or incomplete code is often shoved out the door by business in order to meet deadlines.
Quality or even truth are sacrificed for business reasons.Why would R&amp;D be any different?
Big business often exhibit quota and other incentives for patent filing and the like.
Outside funding sources pressure even pure research activities so that they can get their hands on new technology or even for silly things like a name being recorded as "first to" do something.I am actually a bit surprised that the numbers aren't a bit higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149971</id>
	<title>It is demonstrably MORE common when...</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1243703760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The funding for the "research" is provided by an entity with an agenda other than pure research, e.g. having a vested interest in a particular outcome or finding. Nowhere is this more common that in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, where entire ersatz journals have been published to provide the appearance of well-documented and peer-reviewed research.<br>
Beyond jailing those involved in such grand misconduct, I don't know where to draw the line, but I believe that separating profit from research, as far as possible, is a good first step. And yes, I am indeed advocating that medical research be "socialized". I have nothing against corporate profits, but when truth, not to mention the public good, takes a back seat to profits, the system is broken when viewed from any impartial perspective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funding for the " research " is provided by an entity with an agenda other than pure research , e.g .
having a vested interest in a particular outcome or finding .
Nowhere is this more common that in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry , where entire ersatz journals have been published to provide the appearance of well-documented and peer-reviewed research .
Beyond jailing those involved in such grand misconduct , I do n't know where to draw the line , but I believe that separating profit from research , as far as possible , is a good first step .
And yes , I am indeed advocating that medical research be " socialized " .
I have nothing against corporate profits , but when truth , not to mention the public good , takes a back seat to profits , the system is broken when viewed from any impartial perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funding for the "research" is provided by an entity with an agenda other than pure research, e.g.
having a vested interest in a particular outcome or finding.
Nowhere is this more common that in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, where entire ersatz journals have been published to provide the appearance of well-documented and peer-reviewed research.
Beyond jailing those involved in such grand misconduct, I don't know where to draw the line, but I believe that separating profit from research, as far as possible, is a good first step.
And yes, I am indeed advocating that medical research be "socialized".
I have nothing against corporate profits, but when truth, not to mention the public good, takes a back seat to profits, the system is broken when viewed from any impartial perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151117</id>
	<title>He not she</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hugh Pickens unfortunately did not know that Daniele is not a girl's name.</p><p>http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk/people/person/126</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens unfortunately did not know that Daniele is not a girl 's name.http : //www.issti.ed.ac.uk/people/person/126</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens unfortunately did not know that Daniele is not a girl's name.http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk/people/person/126</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155769</id>
	<title>ichoosefreedom</title>
	<author>ichoosefreedom</author>
	<datestamp>1243707420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems scientific misconduct is perfectly acceptable, in fact, condoned, when it comes to tobacco control. In PLoS Medicine, I attempted to get Stanton Glantz to declare his competing interests. He has received 1.5 million dollars in grants and UCSF has received 36 million dollars from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. There aren't many who don't know who the RJWF is but for those who do not, they were created by the founder of Johnson &amp; Johnson. RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&amp;J stock. Who sells the NRT products? J&amp;J. In fact, RWJF paid, just through 2005, 446 million dollars in tobacco control grants. Some grants to ACS had Medicare pay for NRT. An RWJF national program director was involved in writing the federal guidelines that tells doctors they have to push the drugs, that the patient should NOT try to quit cold turkey. NRT has a 98.4\% failure rate for quitting 1 year or longer.  The former CEO of RWJF heads a 10 million dollar grant at UCSF, Center for Smoking Cessation Leadership Center (compliments of RWJF). Glantz and UCSF stand to gain a ton more grant money from RWJF and should have to declare competing interests.  <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/getCommentary.action?target=info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pmed.0050178" title="plosmedicine.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/getCommentary.action?target=info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pmed.0050178</a> [plosmedicine.org]

Then you have the University of Minnesota and Elizabeth Klein from Ohio State University passing a recent tobacco control study off.  The abstract states that exemptions from smoking bans for standalone bars have been considered to ease the economic burden for bars...so she collects employment data for bars...AND RESTAURANTS. She figures nothing in for lack of compliance to the law (in Ohio, year 2 after the ban there were over 7,000 complaints and investigations-HIGH compliance?). She does not say how many businesses were bars. In Minnesota, bars are outnumbered by restaurants 3 to 1. ClearWay Minnesota paid for this study and in the grant prosal it states "We believe that this research will provide public health officials and tobacco control advocates with information that can help shape adoption and implementation of CIA policies, and prevent their repeal." and "The proposed study &#226;&#166; will contribute to MPAAT's (now ClearWay) overall mission by providing information that enables adoption and successful implementation of policies to protect employees and the general public from secondhand smoke exposure." Think this study has no bias or stated outcomes desired? IT'S IN THE GRANT PROPOSAL!! And her article proclaiming no harm to bars and restaurants has been published everywhere with TV and the radio picking it up. This study has so many holes in it that if it were the Titanic, it wouldn't have made it out of the harbor. So...we issued a press release. <a href="http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/05-29-2009/0005034690&amp;EDATE" title="prnewswire.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/05-29-2009/0005034690&amp;EDATE</a> [prnewswire.com]

The problem is when "science" is bastardized to fit a social engineering scheme, science will never be trusted when it will need to be trusted. I'm disgusted with dung being passed off as valid.  It has to stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems scientific misconduct is perfectly acceptable , in fact , condoned , when it comes to tobacco control .
In PLoS Medicine , I attempted to get Stanton Glantz to declare his competing interests .
He has received 1.5 million dollars in grants and UCSF has received 36 million dollars from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation .
There are n't many who do n't know who the RJWF is but for those who do not , they were created by the founder of Johnson &amp; Johnson .
RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&amp;J stock .
Who sells the NRT products ?
J&amp;J. In fact , RWJF paid , just through 2005 , 446 million dollars in tobacco control grants .
Some grants to ACS had Medicare pay for NRT .
An RWJF national program director was involved in writing the federal guidelines that tells doctors they have to push the drugs , that the patient should NOT try to quit cold turkey .
NRT has a 98.4 \ % failure rate for quitting 1 year or longer .
The former CEO of RWJF heads a 10 million dollar grant at UCSF , Center for Smoking Cessation Leadership Center ( compliments of RWJF ) .
Glantz and UCSF stand to gain a ton more grant money from RWJF and should have to declare competing interests .
http : //www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/getCommentary.action ? target = info \ % 3Adoi \ % 2F10.1371 \ % 2Fjournal.pmed.0050178 [ plosmedicine.org ] Then you have the University of Minnesota and Elizabeth Klein from Ohio State University passing a recent tobacco control study off .
The abstract states that exemptions from smoking bans for standalone bars have been considered to ease the economic burden for bars...so she collects employment data for bars...AND RESTAURANTS .
She figures nothing in for lack of compliance to the law ( in Ohio , year 2 after the ban there were over 7,000 complaints and investigations-HIGH compliance ? ) .
She does not say how many businesses were bars .
In Minnesota , bars are outnumbered by restaurants 3 to 1 .
ClearWay Minnesota paid for this study and in the grant prosal it states " We believe that this research will provide public health officials and tobacco control advocates with information that can help shape adoption and implementation of CIA policies , and prevent their repeal .
" and " The proposed study     will contribute to MPAAT 's ( now ClearWay ) overall mission by providing information that enables adoption and successful implementation of policies to protect employees and the general public from secondhand smoke exposure .
" Think this study has no bias or stated outcomes desired ?
IT 'S IN THE GRANT PROPOSAL ! !
And her article proclaiming no harm to bars and restaurants has been published everywhere with TV and the radio picking it up .
This study has so many holes in it that if it were the Titanic , it would n't have made it out of the harbor .
So...we issued a press release .
http : //news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx ? ACCT = 104&amp;STORY = /www/story/05-29-2009/0005034690&amp;EDATE [ prnewswire.com ] The problem is when " science " is bastardized to fit a social engineering scheme , science will never be trusted when it will need to be trusted .
I 'm disgusted with dung being passed off as valid .
It has to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems scientific misconduct is perfectly acceptable, in fact, condoned, when it comes to tobacco control.
In PLoS Medicine, I attempted to get Stanton Glantz to declare his competing interests.
He has received 1.5 million dollars in grants and UCSF has received 36 million dollars from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
There aren't many who don't know who the RJWF is but for those who do not, they were created by the founder of Johnson &amp; Johnson.
RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&amp;J stock.
Who sells the NRT products?
J&amp;J. In fact, RWJF paid, just through 2005, 446 million dollars in tobacco control grants.
Some grants to ACS had Medicare pay for NRT.
An RWJF national program director was involved in writing the federal guidelines that tells doctors they have to push the drugs, that the patient should NOT try to quit cold turkey.
NRT has a 98.4\% failure rate for quitting 1 year or longer.
The former CEO of RWJF heads a 10 million dollar grant at UCSF, Center for Smoking Cessation Leadership Center (compliments of RWJF).
Glantz and UCSF stand to gain a ton more grant money from RWJF and should have to declare competing interests.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/annotation/getCommentary.action?target=info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pmed.0050178 [plosmedicine.org]

Then you have the University of Minnesota and Elizabeth Klein from Ohio State University passing a recent tobacco control study off.
The abstract states that exemptions from smoking bans for standalone bars have been considered to ease the economic burden for bars...so she collects employment data for bars...AND RESTAURANTS.
She figures nothing in for lack of compliance to the law (in Ohio, year 2 after the ban there were over 7,000 complaints and investigations-HIGH compliance?).
She does not say how many businesses were bars.
In Minnesota, bars are outnumbered by restaurants 3 to 1.
ClearWay Minnesota paid for this study and in the grant prosal it states "We believe that this research will provide public health officials and tobacco control advocates with information that can help shape adoption and implementation of CIA policies, and prevent their repeal.
" and "The proposed study â¦ will contribute to MPAAT's (now ClearWay) overall mission by providing information that enables adoption and successful implementation of policies to protect employees and the general public from secondhand smoke exposure.
" Think this study has no bias or stated outcomes desired?
IT'S IN THE GRANT PROPOSAL!!
And her article proclaiming no harm to bars and restaurants has been published everywhere with TV and the radio picking it up.
This study has so many holes in it that if it were the Titanic, it wouldn't have made it out of the harbor.
So...we issued a press release.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/05-29-2009/0005034690&amp;EDATE [prnewswire.com]

The problem is when "science" is bastardized to fit a social engineering scheme, science will never be trusted when it will need to be trusted.
I'm disgusted with dung being passed off as valid.
It has to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149985</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've posted this a few times and on the off chance you  actually believe this then you're a tit.
<br> <br>
There are racist people of all colours but black people primarily vote democrat in every election and there's a good chance Obama would have lost as a Republican. Especially when the last government was Republican and complete cocked up the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've posted this a few times and on the off chance you actually believe this then you 're a tit .
There are racist people of all colours but black people primarily vote democrat in every election and there 's a good chance Obama would have lost as a Republican .
Especially when the last government was Republican and complete cocked up the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've posted this a few times and on the off chance you  actually believe this then you're a tit.
There are racist people of all colours but black people primarily vote democrat in every election and there's a good chance Obama would have lost as a Republican.
Especially when the last government was Republican and complete cocked up the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150931</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1243711800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see about half a dozen comments along those lines, but giving up and saying "c'est la vie" isn't constructive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We can do better!</p></div><p>You mean, you don't want us to objectively seek the truth?</p><p>Sorry, couldn't resist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see about half a dozen comments along those lines , but giving up and saying " c'est la vie " is n't constructive .
... We can do better ! You mean , you do n't want us to objectively seek the truth ? Sorry , could n't resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see about half a dozen comments along those lines, but giving up and saying "c'est la vie" isn't constructive.
... We can do better!You mean, you don't want us to objectively seek the truth?Sorry, couldn't resist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152879</id>
	<title>cheating undergraduates become honest scientists?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1243681200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the cheating level of undergraduates rumored to be around half, I wonder have this declines to only two percent by the time you got your PhD? Two answers: (1) Science cheating is under-reported, or (2) scientists check each other results especially if they are important. I'm in computational physics where its fairly straight-forward to replicate another's results.  Cheaters are discovered quickly.  Other lab-based fields may not be as easy to get caught.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the cheating level of undergraduates rumored to be around half , I wonder have this declines to only two percent by the time you got your PhD ?
Two answers : ( 1 ) Science cheating is under-reported , or ( 2 ) scientists check each other results especially if they are important .
I 'm in computational physics where its fairly straight-forward to replicate another 's results .
Cheaters are discovered quickly .
Other lab-based fields may not be as easy to get caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the cheating level of undergraduates rumored to be around half, I wonder have this declines to only two percent by the time you got your PhD?
Two answers: (1) Science cheating is under-reported, or (2) scientists check each other results especially if they are important.
I'm in computational physics where its fairly straight-forward to replicate another's results.
Cheaters are discovered quickly.
Other lab-based fields may not be as easy to get caught.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149821</id>
	<title>editors and publishers need to be held accountable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every profession has its share of people who cheat.  When you raise the stakes, and when their is a perception that many of the top competitors are cheating (as in professional and top amateur sports, for example), then even some of the "honest" people might start cheating.</p><p>Someone has to provide the adult supervision, particularly in research areas that attract sensational publicity, such as animal cloning.  That responsibility starts with the editors of the journals.  They need to ask more questions, demand more documentation, and keep records of their dialogs with authors. They are the counterparts of the commissioners of pro sports leagues and officials of the Olympics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every profession has its share of people who cheat .
When you raise the stakes , and when their is a perception that many of the top competitors are cheating ( as in professional and top amateur sports , for example ) , then even some of the " honest " people might start cheating.Someone has to provide the adult supervision , particularly in research areas that attract sensational publicity , such as animal cloning .
That responsibility starts with the editors of the journals .
They need to ask more questions , demand more documentation , and keep records of their dialogs with authors .
They are the counterparts of the commissioners of pro sports leagues and officials of the Olympics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every profession has its share of people who cheat.
When you raise the stakes, and when their is a perception that many of the top competitors are cheating (as in professional and top amateur sports, for example), then even some of the "honest" people might start cheating.Someone has to provide the adult supervision, particularly in research areas that attract sensational publicity, such as animal cloning.
That responsibility starts with the editors of the journals.
They need to ask more questions, demand more documentation, and keep records of their dialogs with authors.
They are the counterparts of the commissioners of pro sports leagues and officials of the Olympics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150353</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you suggest?  For the most part they seem to be working, to me.  How would you change them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you suggest ?
For the most part they seem to be working , to me .
How would you change them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you suggest?
For the most part they seem to be working, to me.
How would you change them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150689</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1243709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your list applies to the academia as a whole, and actually a lot more to non-science disciplines.  Not that it contradicts your points, however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your list applies to the academia as a whole , and actually a lot more to non-science disciplines .
Not that it contradicts your points , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your list applies to the academia as a whole, and actually a lot more to non-science disciplines.
Not that it contradicts your points, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149807</id>
	<title>Faking the data.</title>
	<author>wfstanle</author>
	<datestamp>1243702440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely they sometimes fudge their data so that it will support their theories.  Scientists are human and not perfect, it's part of human nature.  That is where peer review comes in.  A true scientist s work has to stand up to peer review and this is where the fudging of data is often uncovered.  The problem is that much of the research going on is cloaked in secrecy by governments and corporations and proper peer review doesn't happen.</p><p>This brings to mind an incident in history where the scientist was right but his data was just too good.  I'm talking about Gregor Mendel and his work on genetics.   Later statistical analysis of his data indicates that it was very unlikely that he got that data.  He probably got very close to the experiment result that he predicted but it was not good enough so he fudged his results.  It wasn't until long after that this inconsistency in the data was uncovered.  Was he right?  Absolutely he was but his data is suspect nonetheless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely they sometimes fudge their data so that it will support their theories .
Scientists are human and not perfect , it 's part of human nature .
That is where peer review comes in .
A true scientist s work has to stand up to peer review and this is where the fudging of data is often uncovered .
The problem is that much of the research going on is cloaked in secrecy by governments and corporations and proper peer review does n't happen.This brings to mind an incident in history where the scientist was right but his data was just too good .
I 'm talking about Gregor Mendel and his work on genetics .
Later statistical analysis of his data indicates that it was very unlikely that he got that data .
He probably got very close to the experiment result that he predicted but it was not good enough so he fudged his results .
It was n't until long after that this inconsistency in the data was uncovered .
Was he right ?
Absolutely he was but his data is suspect nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely they sometimes fudge their data so that it will support their theories.
Scientists are human and not perfect, it's part of human nature.
That is where peer review comes in.
A true scientist s work has to stand up to peer review and this is where the fudging of data is often uncovered.
The problem is that much of the research going on is cloaked in secrecy by governments and corporations and proper peer review doesn't happen.This brings to mind an incident in history where the scientist was right but his data was just too good.
I'm talking about Gregor Mendel and his work on genetics.
Later statistical analysis of his data indicates that it was very unlikely that he got that data.
He probably got very close to the experiment result that he predicted but it was not good enough so he fudged his results.
It wasn't until long after that this inconsistency in the data was uncovered.
Was he right?
Absolutely he was but his data is suspect nonetheless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149989</id>
	<title>More common than it should be.</title>
	<author>drdaz</author>
	<datestamp>1243703880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154431</id>
	<title>Global Warming Research</title>
	<author>doodaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1243692300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  No reference to global warming research here?  Is this thing on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No reference to global warming research here ?
Is this thing on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No reference to global warming research here?
Is this thing on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154407</id>
	<title>Corporate Influence and MONEY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243692120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you get when scientific research is tied to money?  Science that is slanted to make it look more like what the people who are paying you want it to.  While no one ever asks a scientist to cook the results the corporation can just never use that scientist again if they don't give the results they want.  When the scientist knows this they tend to slant the research so they can get paid.</p><p>Business is about money and Science is about truth.  Business people are willing to do unethical things to get what they want.  When this spills over into the Science community truth goes out the window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you get when scientific research is tied to money ?
Science that is slanted to make it look more like what the people who are paying you want it to .
While no one ever asks a scientist to cook the results the corporation can just never use that scientist again if they do n't give the results they want .
When the scientist knows this they tend to slant the research so they can get paid.Business is about money and Science is about truth .
Business people are willing to do unethical things to get what they want .
When this spills over into the Science community truth goes out the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you get when scientific research is tied to money?
Science that is slanted to make it look more like what the people who are paying you want it to.
While no one ever asks a scientist to cook the results the corporation can just never use that scientist again if they don't give the results they want.
When the scientist knows this they tend to slant the research so they can get paid.Business is about money and Science is about truth.
Business people are willing to do unethical things to get what they want.
When this spills over into the Science community truth goes out the window.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154881</id>
	<title>RE: NSIDC's High Priest's Guilt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243697700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wben it comes to "fudging" data, the Hight Priest of the National Snow and Ice Data Center is Par Excellance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wben it comes to " fudging " data , the Hight Priest of the National Snow and Ice Data Center is Par Excellance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wben it comes to "fudging" data, the Hight Priest of the National Snow and Ice Data Center is Par Excellance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150701</id>
	<title>Re:Vice Provost of Caltech from 1994 said it best</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1243709760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, thank you for linking that.</p><p>That was written 15 years ago, and not much has changed.  On the other hand, the more people in physics who think like this, the higher the chance we can start making changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , thank you for linking that.That was written 15 years ago , and not much has changed .
On the other hand , the more people in physics who think like this , the higher the chance we can start making changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, thank you for linking that.That was written 15 years ago, and not much has changed.
On the other hand, the more people in physics who think like this, the higher the chance we can start making changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151691</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243716960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>you rarely become a professor at a major university or some other distinguished position only on the basis of being talented</p></div></blockquote><p>I assume you mean "book-smart at science," in which case, you're right.</p><blockquote><div><p>it is much more important that you are skilled at writing</p></div></blockquote><p>Being able to effectively communicate your results is critical for scientists. That isn't a bad thing. There's no point in doing science if you don't or can't tell anybody what you did and why it matters.</p><blockquote><div><p> and inter-personal politics, manipulative both in terms of being able to sell your research and in terms of luring grad students, junior researchers and funding agencies to work for you or to pay you.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're putting a bad spin on this with "manipulative." Most science nowadays involves teams and collaborations; very few discoveries are made by the lone guy in his garage with a bunch of test tubes. If you are working in any area where you cannot go it completely alone, you need to be something that's an even dirtier word on Slashdot than "manipulative." On top of knowing your science, you need to be an effective... wait for it... manager (gasp!).
</p><p>As for the funding... most funding is peer reviewed. What is wrong with telling scientists that they cannot have scarce resources unless they can convince experts in their field that the research is worth funding? Can you think of a better way to fund science?</p><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, the same manipulative skills you need to acquire to become successful make you potentially more capable of cheating.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you have any evidence to back this up? Good people skills and Machiavellian manipulation are not the same thing.
</p><p>It seems more plausible to me that if you're a scientist who works in a highly collaborative team environment and regularly gets funding from the bigs (NSF, NIH, etc.), it would be harder to last as a successful cheat. Somebody who works mostly solo or with just a couple of grad students can send off their results to a journal, and they just have to look plausible to the editor and journal referees. The socially skilled scientist who has a big team has to slip their cheating past the grad students who did the hands-on work. If they're attracting lots of funding, they are going to get close scrutiny, and it's going to be hard to keep getting grants if nobody can replicate their work. And if they are well networked and therefore well known, there are going to be lots of people trying to replicate the results so they can build on them.</p><blockquote><div><p>I have witnessed it on multiple occasions, when a famous professor would write a pile of an outright bullshit in a paper; not intentionally, but because his bullshitting skills and confidence were orders of magnitude above his raw technical competence.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know about your field, but in my experience these are the people with enormous targets on their backs. Good scientists are smart enough to recognize bullshit, or at least suspect it. And the young upstarts, who haven't been around long enough to be impressed by Professor X's reputation, see an opportunity to make their bones by taking down a famous blowhard. The system ends up self-correcting pretty well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you rarely become a professor at a major university or some other distinguished position only on the basis of being talentedI assume you mean " book-smart at science , " in which case , you 're right.it is much more important that you are skilled at writingBeing able to effectively communicate your results is critical for scientists .
That is n't a bad thing .
There 's no point in doing science if you do n't or ca n't tell anybody what you did and why it matters .
and inter-personal politics , manipulative both in terms of being able to sell your research and in terms of luring grad students , junior researchers and funding agencies to work for you or to pay you.You 're putting a bad spin on this with " manipulative .
" Most science nowadays involves teams and collaborations ; very few discoveries are made by the lone guy in his garage with a bunch of test tubes .
If you are working in any area where you can not go it completely alone , you need to be something that 's an even dirtier word on Slashdot than " manipulative .
" On top of knowing your science , you need to be an effective... wait for it... manager ( gasp ! ) .
As for the funding... most funding is peer reviewed .
What is wrong with telling scientists that they can not have scarce resources unless they can convince experts in their field that the research is worth funding ?
Can you think of a better way to fund science ? Unfortunately , the same manipulative skills you need to acquire to become successful make you potentially more capable of cheating.Do you have any evidence to back this up ?
Good people skills and Machiavellian manipulation are not the same thing .
It seems more plausible to me that if you 're a scientist who works in a highly collaborative team environment and regularly gets funding from the bigs ( NSF , NIH , etc .
) , it would be harder to last as a successful cheat .
Somebody who works mostly solo or with just a couple of grad students can send off their results to a journal , and they just have to look plausible to the editor and journal referees .
The socially skilled scientist who has a big team has to slip their cheating past the grad students who did the hands-on work .
If they 're attracting lots of funding , they are going to get close scrutiny , and it 's going to be hard to keep getting grants if nobody can replicate their work .
And if they are well networked and therefore well known , there are going to be lots of people trying to replicate the results so they can build on them.I have witnessed it on multiple occasions , when a famous professor would write a pile of an outright bullshit in a paper ; not intentionally , but because his bullshitting skills and confidence were orders of magnitude above his raw technical competence.I do n't know about your field , but in my experience these are the people with enormous targets on their backs .
Good scientists are smart enough to recognize bullshit , or at least suspect it .
And the young upstarts , who have n't been around long enough to be impressed by Professor X 's reputation , see an opportunity to make their bones by taking down a famous blowhard .
The system ends up self-correcting pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you rarely become a professor at a major university or some other distinguished position only on the basis of being talentedI assume you mean "book-smart at science," in which case, you're right.it is much more important that you are skilled at writingBeing able to effectively communicate your results is critical for scientists.
That isn't a bad thing.
There's no point in doing science if you don't or can't tell anybody what you did and why it matters.
and inter-personal politics, manipulative both in terms of being able to sell your research and in terms of luring grad students, junior researchers and funding agencies to work for you or to pay you.You're putting a bad spin on this with "manipulative.
" Most science nowadays involves teams and collaborations; very few discoveries are made by the lone guy in his garage with a bunch of test tubes.
If you are working in any area where you cannot go it completely alone, you need to be something that's an even dirtier word on Slashdot than "manipulative.
" On top of knowing your science, you need to be an effective... wait for it... manager (gasp!).
As for the funding... most funding is peer reviewed.
What is wrong with telling scientists that they cannot have scarce resources unless they can convince experts in their field that the research is worth funding?
Can you think of a better way to fund science?Unfortunately, the same manipulative skills you need to acquire to become successful make you potentially more capable of cheating.Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Good people skills and Machiavellian manipulation are not the same thing.
It seems more plausible to me that if you're a scientist who works in a highly collaborative team environment and regularly gets funding from the bigs (NSF, NIH, etc.
), it would be harder to last as a successful cheat.
Somebody who works mostly solo or with just a couple of grad students can send off their results to a journal, and they just have to look plausible to the editor and journal referees.
The socially skilled scientist who has a big team has to slip their cheating past the grad students who did the hands-on work.
If they're attracting lots of funding, they are going to get close scrutiny, and it's going to be hard to keep getting grants if nobody can replicate their work.
And if they are well networked and therefore well known, there are going to be lots of people trying to replicate the results so they can build on them.I have witnessed it on multiple occasions, when a famous professor would write a pile of an outright bullshit in a paper; not intentionally, but because his bullshitting skills and confidence were orders of magnitude above his raw technical competence.I don't know about your field, but in my experience these are the people with enormous targets on their backs.
Good scientists are smart enough to recognize bullshit, or at least suspect it.
And the young upstarts, who haven't been around long enough to be impressed by Professor X's reputation, see an opportunity to make their bones by taking down a famous blowhard.
The system ends up self-correcting pretty well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765</id>
	<title>not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I'm a scientist.</p><p>Scientist will behave much better as soon as society (or perhaps the government at least) understands that if you want reliable information, you actually have to treat your scientist well.</p><p>Now, do not got me wrong, some countries, especially the US, invest quite a lot in science. But the problem is that the whole system is rotten to the core. It makes almost no sense at all for a young graduate to stay in a University/Institute. Pay will be low, and you have (in most countries) no job security. In Europe you either get a nice job at a company, or you go around taking post-docs for 5-10 years, hoping to get lucky. Working crazy hours with no holidays. For most, in the end, they go to a company anyway (having lost quite a lot of money in the process).</p><p>Often you are expected to go abroad, and unless you are lucky this leaves you with no good way to take care of your pension. Then if you want to return, somebody else took your place at university.</p><p>There is 2 ways to stay in the system: either you are lucky or you lie like hell.</p><p>Now, people may say that if your good you do not need luck. But remember that for high impact publications you need a lot more then good ideas and good skills. In research it is perfectly normal to conclude after 2 years that your hypothesis is false. This is great science, it also is hardly publishable in a good journal. People like positive results, and the reviewer system actually encourages you to confirm generally accepted ideas, not to falsify them.</p><p>Well, I could go on but I am sure others will.</p><p>To be honest, I do not even get angry anymore when I suspect someone may have done something "questionable". It's just sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm a scientist.Scientist will behave much better as soon as society ( or perhaps the government at least ) understands that if you want reliable information , you actually have to treat your scientist well.Now , do not got me wrong , some countries , especially the US , invest quite a lot in science .
But the problem is that the whole system is rotten to the core .
It makes almost no sense at all for a young graduate to stay in a University/Institute .
Pay will be low , and you have ( in most countries ) no job security .
In Europe you either get a nice job at a company , or you go around taking post-docs for 5-10 years , hoping to get lucky .
Working crazy hours with no holidays .
For most , in the end , they go to a company anyway ( having lost quite a lot of money in the process ) .Often you are expected to go abroad , and unless you are lucky this leaves you with no good way to take care of your pension .
Then if you want to return , somebody else took your place at university.There is 2 ways to stay in the system : either you are lucky or you lie like hell.Now , people may say that if your good you do not need luck .
But remember that for high impact publications you need a lot more then good ideas and good skills .
In research it is perfectly normal to conclude after 2 years that your hypothesis is false .
This is great science , it also is hardly publishable in a good journal .
People like positive results , and the reviewer system actually encourages you to confirm generally accepted ideas , not to falsify them.Well , I could go on but I am sure others will.To be honest , I do not even get angry anymore when I suspect someone may have done something " questionable " .
It 's just sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm a scientist.Scientist will behave much better as soon as society (or perhaps the government at least) understands that if you want reliable information, you actually have to treat your scientist well.Now, do not got me wrong, some countries, especially the US, invest quite a lot in science.
But the problem is that the whole system is rotten to the core.
It makes almost no sense at all for a young graduate to stay in a University/Institute.
Pay will be low, and you have (in most countries) no job security.
In Europe you either get a nice job at a company, or you go around taking post-docs for 5-10 years, hoping to get lucky.
Working crazy hours with no holidays.
For most, in the end, they go to a company anyway (having lost quite a lot of money in the process).Often you are expected to go abroad, and unless you are lucky this leaves you with no good way to take care of your pension.
Then if you want to return, somebody else took your place at university.There is 2 ways to stay in the system: either you are lucky or you lie like hell.Now, people may say that if your good you do not need luck.
But remember that for high impact publications you need a lot more then good ideas and good skills.
In research it is perfectly normal to conclude after 2 years that your hypothesis is false.
This is great science, it also is hardly publishable in a good journal.
People like positive results, and the reviewer system actually encourages you to confirm generally accepted ideas, not to falsify them.Well, I could go on but I am sure others will.To be honest, I do not even get angry anymore when I suspect someone may have done something "questionable".
It's just sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150301</id>
	<title>Ah yes, but indubitably the science is all...</title>
	<author>Milkweed73</author>
	<datestamp>1243706400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in agreement on Global Warming being caused by humans.

Gee for a topic that actually isn't agreed on by all scientists, and that apparently could be riddled with faked or misinterpreted data we get told all day long that we are heathens if we don't believe the empirical scientific evidence.  In fact if we don't tow the scientific line we must be dolts and shoved to the side as nutcases.

Matter of fact we are about to make trillion dollar "Green" Cap and Trade laws all based on this Scientific Evidence, the heck with the evidence to the contrary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>in agreement on Global Warming being caused by humans .
Gee for a topic that actually is n't agreed on by all scientists , and that apparently could be riddled with faked or misinterpreted data we get told all day long that we are heathens if we do n't believe the empirical scientific evidence .
In fact if we do n't tow the scientific line we must be dolts and shoved to the side as nutcases .
Matter of fact we are about to make trillion dollar " Green " Cap and Trade laws all based on this Scientific Evidence , the heck with the evidence to the contrary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in agreement on Global Warming being caused by humans.
Gee for a topic that actually isn't agreed on by all scientists, and that apparently could be riddled with faked or misinterpreted data we get told all day long that we are heathens if we don't believe the empirical scientific evidence.
In fact if we don't tow the scientific line we must be dolts and shoved to the side as nutcases.
Matter of fact we are about to make trillion dollar "Green" Cap and Trade laws all based on this Scientific Evidence, the heck with the evidence to the contrary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150473</id>
	<title>Re:Research and Development driven by commerce</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1243707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is often cited that crappy, broken or incomplete code is often shoved out the door by business in order to meet deadlines.  Quality or even truth are sacrificed for business reasons.</p><p>Why would R&amp;D be any different?</p></div><p>In a sense R&amp;D is worse, in that its farther removed from corrective mechanisms.  If you sell consumer tech that doesn't work, chances are fairly good that it will harm your business.  Depending somwhat on your field, if you publish research that is arguably correct but meaningless or highly misleading, nobody will care.  Your funding source doesn't even care, as long as it looks enough like real science that they can get away with continuing to support it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is often cited that crappy , broken or incomplete code is often shoved out the door by business in order to meet deadlines .
Quality or even truth are sacrificed for business reasons.Why would R&amp;D be any different ? In a sense R&amp;D is worse , in that its farther removed from corrective mechanisms .
If you sell consumer tech that does n't work , chances are fairly good that it will harm your business .
Depending somwhat on your field , if you publish research that is arguably correct but meaningless or highly misleading , nobody will care .
Your funding source does n't even care , as long as it looks enough like real science that they can get away with continuing to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is often cited that crappy, broken or incomplete code is often shoved out the door by business in order to meet deadlines.
Quality or even truth are sacrificed for business reasons.Why would R&amp;D be any different?In a sense R&amp;D is worse, in that its farther removed from corrective mechanisms.
If you sell consumer tech that doesn't work, chances are fairly good that it will harm your business.
Depending somwhat on your field, if you publish research that is arguably correct but meaningless or highly misleading, nobody will care.
Your funding source doesn't even care, as long as it looks enough like real science that they can get away with continuing to support it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155177</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243700940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's something, the Lancet offers two levels of peer review, normal and expedited. There is no warning about expedited peer review papers (I've got a marketing email from the Lancet on how much faster they are willing to push through papers through review than any other journal out there) so far as I can tell. So when you read the Lancet, you don't know if you're reading something that went through traditional peer review or this expedited peer review light.</p><p>I would think that this should be a terrible reputational hit for the Lancet. So far as I can tell, it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something , the Lancet offers two levels of peer review , normal and expedited .
There is no warning about expedited peer review papers ( I 've got a marketing email from the Lancet on how much faster they are willing to push through papers through review than any other journal out there ) so far as I can tell .
So when you read the Lancet , you do n't know if you 're reading something that went through traditional peer review or this expedited peer review light.I would think that this should be a terrible reputational hit for the Lancet .
So far as I can tell , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something, the Lancet offers two levels of peer review, normal and expedited.
There is no warning about expedited peer review papers (I've got a marketing email from the Lancet on how much faster they are willing to push through papers through review than any other journal out there) so far as I can tell.
So when you read the Lancet, you don't know if you're reading something that went through traditional peer review or this expedited peer review light.I would think that this should be a terrible reputational hit for the Lancet.
So far as I can tell, it's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149993</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>rzekson</author>
	<datestamp>1243703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moreover, you rarely become a professor at a major university or some other distinguished position only on the basis of being talented; it is much more important that you are skilled at writing and inter-personal politics, manipulative both in terms of being able to sell your research and in terms of luring grad students, junior researchers and funding agencies to work for you or to pay you. Unfortunately, the same manipulative skills you need to acquire to become successful make you potentially more capable of cheating. I don't mean to insult anyone here by implying that it will actually make you more likely to cheat; only that it's easier for you to cheat because you are skilled at manipulating others (this being said, arguably the line between skilled manipulation and outright cheating is not as crisp and well-defined as one might hope). Indeed, sometimes cheating happens unwillingly; I have witnessed it on multiple occasions, when a famous professor would write a pile of an outright bullshit in a paper; not intentionally, but because his bullshitting skills and confidence were orders of magnitude above his raw technical competence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , you rarely become a professor at a major university or some other distinguished position only on the basis of being talented ; it is much more important that you are skilled at writing and inter-personal politics , manipulative both in terms of being able to sell your research and in terms of luring grad students , junior researchers and funding agencies to work for you or to pay you .
Unfortunately , the same manipulative skills you need to acquire to become successful make you potentially more capable of cheating .
I do n't mean to insult anyone here by implying that it will actually make you more likely to cheat ; only that it 's easier for you to cheat because you are skilled at manipulating others ( this being said , arguably the line between skilled manipulation and outright cheating is not as crisp and well-defined as one might hope ) .
Indeed , sometimes cheating happens unwillingly ; I have witnessed it on multiple occasions , when a famous professor would write a pile of an outright bullshit in a paper ; not intentionally , but because his bullshitting skills and confidence were orders of magnitude above his raw technical competence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, you rarely become a professor at a major university or some other distinguished position only on the basis of being talented; it is much more important that you are skilled at writing and inter-personal politics, manipulative both in terms of being able to sell your research and in terms of luring grad students, junior researchers and funding agencies to work for you or to pay you.
Unfortunately, the same manipulative skills you need to acquire to become successful make you potentially more capable of cheating.
I don't mean to insult anyone here by implying that it will actually make you more likely to cheat; only that it's easier for you to cheat because you are skilled at manipulating others (this being said, arguably the line between skilled manipulation and outright cheating is not as crisp and well-defined as one might hope).
Indeed, sometimes cheating happens unwillingly; I have witnessed it on multiple occasions, when a famous professor would write a pile of an outright bullshit in a paper; not intentionally, but because his bullshitting skills and confidence were orders of magnitude above his raw technical competence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151383</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1243715160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But scientists like doctors are supposed to be trustworthy. They are experts who's opinions seem to have more weight than the average person. Now what mechanism is in place to check up and verify everything they do? Were is the regulation/punishment for breaking regulations?<br>
Take construction for example. If I build a house there are electrical, plumbing, foundation, insulation and final inspections. Why? Because people cheat and someone has to ensure no one is cheating. If the rules are not followed someone could get hurt (electrical fire), someone could get sick (mold), someone could get screwed out of a lot of money (shady contractor). This is why construction is regulated. Who is regulating scientists?<br>
Scientist can hurt a lot more people than a shady contractor. They play around with deadly diseases, nuclear reactors, decisions that affect the planet. Accidents happen, but what happens when scientists intentionally do something wrong or take money for doing a job they don't do? Who is looking over their shoulder watching what they do? Self regulation doesn't happen which is why most industries are regulated/monitored with penalties for now following the rules. What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they don't have to accountable like everyone else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But scientists like doctors are supposed to be trustworthy .
They are experts who 's opinions seem to have more weight than the average person .
Now what mechanism is in place to check up and verify everything they do ?
Were is the regulation/punishment for breaking regulations ?
Take construction for example .
If I build a house there are electrical , plumbing , foundation , insulation and final inspections .
Why ? Because people cheat and someone has to ensure no one is cheating .
If the rules are not followed someone could get hurt ( electrical fire ) , someone could get sick ( mold ) , someone could get screwed out of a lot of money ( shady contractor ) .
This is why construction is regulated .
Who is regulating scientists ?
Scientist can hurt a lot more people than a shady contractor .
They play around with deadly diseases , nuclear reactors , decisions that affect the planet .
Accidents happen , but what happens when scientists intentionally do something wrong or take money for doing a job they do n't do ?
Who is looking over their shoulder watching what they do ?
Self regulation does n't happen which is why most industries are regulated/monitored with penalties for now following the rules .
What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they do n't have to accountable like everyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But scientists like doctors are supposed to be trustworthy.
They are experts who's opinions seem to have more weight than the average person.
Now what mechanism is in place to check up and verify everything they do?
Were is the regulation/punishment for breaking regulations?
Take construction for example.
If I build a house there are electrical, plumbing, foundation, insulation and final inspections.
Why? Because people cheat and someone has to ensure no one is cheating.
If the rules are not followed someone could get hurt (electrical fire), someone could get sick (mold), someone could get screwed out of a lot of money (shady contractor).
This is why construction is regulated.
Who is regulating scientists?
Scientist can hurt a lot more people than a shady contractor.
They play around with deadly diseases, nuclear reactors, decisions that affect the planet.
Accidents happen, but what happens when scientists intentionally do something wrong or take money for doing a job they don't do?
Who is looking over their shoulder watching what they do?
Self regulation doesn't happen which is why most industries are regulated/monitored with penalties for now following the rules.
What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they don't have to accountable like everyone else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150375</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Scientists are humans too and a job won't change *most* humans from being cheats.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists are humans too and a job wo n't change * most * humans from being cheats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists are humans too and a job won't change *most* humans from being cheats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150053</id>
	<title>gray area</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1243704360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a big gray area. For instance, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millikan\_oil\_drop" title="wikipedia.org">Millikan oil drop experiment</a> [wikipedia.org], which established quantization of charge, was arguably fraudulent. Millikan threw out all the data he didn't like, and then stated in his paper that he had never thrown out any data. His result was correct, but the way he went about proving it was ethically suspect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a big gray area .
For instance , the Millikan oil drop experiment [ wikipedia.org ] , which established quantization of charge , was arguably fraudulent .
Millikan threw out all the data he did n't like , and then stated in his paper that he had never thrown out any data .
His result was correct , but the way he went about proving it was ethically suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a big gray area.
For instance, the Millikan oil drop experiment [wikipedia.org], which established quantization of charge, was arguably fraudulent.
Millikan threw out all the data he didn't like, and then stated in his paper that he had never thrown out any data.
His result was correct, but the way he went about proving it was ethically suspect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150389</id>
	<title>Re:Relative to what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243707060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we accept that scientists are human like anyone else</p></div><p>Why is there even an "if" there? I work with people who have job titles like "chief scientist" and these are some very sharp folks... in their field. But when you ask some about some current event or topic, you want to run out of the room. To be honest, they seem even *more* susceptible to political ideologies, bizarre ethics and just flat out weirdness because some start to think their expertise in one area makes them infallible and unquestionable in every other area of human existence.</p><p>One common fallacy I see is they tend to expect human beings to act like little robots. Humans *will* exhibit response X to stimulus Y, dammit! IMHO, this is where we get the class of "policy wonks" that make up the staff of politicians. They were not smart enough to do a real science, so we get these miserable people who try to program the world through policy and cannot understand why it never works. We get politicians who try to nation build with war or others that spend trillions of dollars that don't exist in their first 100 days. Read some of their papers some time. They use the lexicon of science, but it's all just rubbish.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What can we do to decrease it</p> </div><p>CIA mind control chips.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Other than that... sorry. Humans will be humans no matter how many lectures on string theory or biochemistry they sat through or how many fossil digs or accelerated particles they witnessed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we accept that scientists are human like anyone elseWhy is there even an " if " there ?
I work with people who have job titles like " chief scientist " and these are some very sharp folks... in their field .
But when you ask some about some current event or topic , you want to run out of the room .
To be honest , they seem even * more * susceptible to political ideologies , bizarre ethics and just flat out weirdness because some start to think their expertise in one area makes them infallible and unquestionable in every other area of human existence.One common fallacy I see is they tend to expect human beings to act like little robots .
Humans * will * exhibit response X to stimulus Y , dammit !
IMHO , this is where we get the class of " policy wonks " that make up the staff of politicians .
They were not smart enough to do a real science , so we get these miserable people who try to program the world through policy and can not understand why it never works .
We get politicians who try to nation build with war or others that spend trillions of dollars that do n't exist in their first 100 days .
Read some of their papers some time .
They use the lexicon of science , but it 's all just rubbish.What can we do to decrease it CIA mind control chips .
: - ) Other than that... sorry. Humans will be humans no matter how many lectures on string theory or biochemistry they sat through or how many fossil digs or accelerated particles they witnessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we accept that scientists are human like anyone elseWhy is there even an "if" there?
I work with people who have job titles like "chief scientist" and these are some very sharp folks... in their field.
But when you ask some about some current event or topic, you want to run out of the room.
To be honest, they seem even *more* susceptible to political ideologies, bizarre ethics and just flat out weirdness because some start to think their expertise in one area makes them infallible and unquestionable in every other area of human existence.One common fallacy I see is they tend to expect human beings to act like little robots.
Humans *will* exhibit response X to stimulus Y, dammit!
IMHO, this is where we get the class of "policy wonks" that make up the staff of politicians.
They were not smart enough to do a real science, so we get these miserable people who try to program the world through policy and cannot understand why it never works.
We get politicians who try to nation build with war or others that spend trillions of dollars that don't exist in their first 100 days.
Read some of their papers some time.
They use the lexicon of science, but it's all just rubbish.What can we do to decrease it CIA mind control chips.
:-) Other than that... sorry. Humans will be humans no matter how many lectures on string theory or biochemistry they sat through or how many fossil digs or accelerated particles they witnessed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151005</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1243712580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution is to give up on science  and rely on religion, Ray Comfort is a geniusa and Kevin Hovind was right all along! &lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is to give up on science and rely on religion , Ray Comfort is a geniusa and Kevin Hovind was right all along !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is to give up on science  and rely on religion, Ray Comfort is a geniusa and Kevin Hovind was right all along! </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151629</id>
	<title>meta meta</title>
	<author>solweil</author>
	<datestamp>1243716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to do a meta-meta-analysis to see how common meta-analyses are fraudulently conducted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah ?
Well , I 'm going to do a meta-meta-analysis to see how common meta-analyses are fraudulently conducted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah?
Well, I'm going to do a meta-meta-analysis to see how common meta-analyses are fraudulently conducted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151103</id>
	<title>I blae this on the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243713360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo Game Shark.  If your taught to cheat and bypass games (a tool for developing ethics) you will cheat in life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo Game Shark .
If your taught to cheat and bypass games ( a tool for developing ethics ) you will cheat in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo Game Shark.
If your taught to cheat and bypass games (a tool for developing ethics) you will cheat in life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150341</id>
	<title>"How Common Is Scientific Misconduct?"</title>
	<author>mathcam</author>
	<datestamp>1243706700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to a rigorous scientific study I just conducted, 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a rigorous scientific study I just conducted , 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a rigorous scientific study I just conducted, 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150159</id>
	<title>Re:Research and Development driven by commerce</title>
	<author>Xaoswolf</author>
	<datestamp>1243705200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, in R&amp;D, you have to produce a product.  If you don't produce something, they the cancel it and move on.  If you are just doing research at a university, you can possibly drag it out a bit longer.  The business is about results, and if the ROI doesn't look good, your project gets canned.  A university or thinktank is still interested in the ROI, but not as much, if you can show some merit, and still get funding from investors or grants, then you will probably be able to continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in R&amp;D , you have to produce a product .
If you do n't produce something , they the cancel it and move on .
If you are just doing research at a university , you can possibly drag it out a bit longer .
The business is about results , and if the ROI does n't look good , your project gets canned .
A university or thinktank is still interested in the ROI , but not as much , if you can show some merit , and still get funding from investors or grants , then you will probably be able to continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in R&amp;D, you have to produce a product.
If you don't produce something, they the cancel it and move on.
If you are just doing research at a university, you can possibly drag it out a bit longer.
The business is about results, and if the ROI doesn't look good, your project gets canned.
A university or thinktank is still interested in the ROI, but not as much, if you can show some merit, and still get funding from investors or grants, then you will probably be able to continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155587</id>
	<title>Want to talk about flawed data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243704960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every bit of the data regarding second hand smoke has been contrived.  The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid just through 2005 over 446 MILLION DOLLARS for tobacco control. 99 million to the ACS, ALA, AHA for bans. 84 million to create/fund Tobacco-Free Kids. RWJF was created by the founder of Johnson &amp; Johnson. RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&amp;J stock. J&amp;J sells Nicotine Replacement Therapy products (CESSATION).  With that kind of money any real data proving second hand smoke as a non-issue was hidden away!  Only false "science" is used for this kind of social engineering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every bit of the data regarding second hand smoke has been contrived .
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid just through 2005 over 446 MILLION DOLLARS for tobacco control .
99 million to the ACS , ALA , AHA for bans .
84 million to create/fund Tobacco-Free Kids .
RWJF was created by the founder of Johnson &amp; Johnson .
RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&amp;J stock .
J&amp;J sells Nicotine Replacement Therapy products ( CESSATION ) .
With that kind of money any real data proving second hand smoke as a non-issue was hidden away !
Only false " science " is used for this kind of social engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every bit of the data regarding second hand smoke has been contrived.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paid just through 2005 over 446 MILLION DOLLARS for tobacco control.
99 million to the ACS, ALA, AHA for bans.
84 million to create/fund Tobacco-Free Kids.
RWJF was created by the founder of Johnson &amp; Johnson.
RWJF owns tens of millions of shares of J&amp;J stock.
J&amp;J sells Nicotine Replacement Therapy products (CESSATION).
With that kind of money any real data proving second hand smoke as a non-issue was hidden away!
Only false "science" is used for this kind of social engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149899</id>
	<title>reproducible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see plenty of comments here of folk expecting some scientists will do bad things for gain/fame/award. However, science demands reproducible results and peer review.   That's a safety net that catches a lot of bad science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see plenty of comments here of folk expecting some scientists will do bad things for gain/fame/award .
However , science demands reproducible results and peer review .
That 's a safety net that catches a lot of bad science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see plenty of comments here of folk expecting some scientists will do bad things for gain/fame/award.
However, science demands reproducible results and peer review.
That's a safety net that catches a lot of bad science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149707</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Jeff Carr</author>
	<datestamp>1243701720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how exactly are we supposed to believe her study?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how exactly are we supposed to believe her study ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how exactly are we supposed to believe her study?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149937</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243703340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.</p></div><p>Yes, and if "white people" were not racists, then at most 35\% of them would have supported McCain. Without any supremacists (and apologists) Obama would still have won with about 65\% of the votes according to the statistics you present.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race.Yes , and if " white people " were not racists , then at most 35 \ % of them would have supported McCain .
Without any supremacists ( and apologists ) Obama would still have won with about 65 \ % of the votes according to the statistics you present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.Yes, and if "white people" were not racists, then at most 35\% of them would have supported McCain.
Without any supremacists (and apologists) Obama would still have won with about 65\% of the votes according to the statistics you present.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152785</id>
	<title>checks and balances</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1243680480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard."</i>
<br> <br>
checks = <b>independent</b> repeatability
<br>
balance = <b>independent</b> peer review
<br> <br>
<i>"We can do better!"</i>
<br> <br>
If any anyone has a more robust system with a better track record than science, I'm all ears.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances .
Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard .
" checks = independent repeatability balance = independent peer review " We can do better !
" If any anyone has a more robust system with a better track record than science , I 'm all ears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances.
Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.
"
 
checks = independent repeatability

balance = independent peer review
 
"We can do better!
"
 
If any anyone has a more robust system with a better track record than science, I'm all ears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150537</id>
	<title>Time to man up dude!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243708500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>you actually have to treat your scientist well.</i></p><p>Dude, you have are crazy.  You have no idea how cushy you have it and your whining is an insult to everyone else that pays taxes to support you guys - on everything from student loan guarantees, federal grants, and more.  How much does NSF get a year?  Plus the right to patent the stuff the gov't pays you to research.</p><p>If you think being a scientist sucks, try working on a factory floor.  Everyone works crazy hours with no holidays, scientist or no.    You talk about having a pension problem with the university?  Man, people get no pensions at all.   We got worthless 401ks and bogus T-Bills on our end!  You talk about working two years on an experiment to find out your hypothesis is wrong?  Cry me a river.  There's tons of people that work for two years, five years, ten years, pitching in to build up a business, and then they'll get bumped out on the street because some jackass guy in bufukistan can do it cheaper.</p><p><i>To be honest, I do not even get angry anymore when I suspect someone may have done something "questionable". It's just sad</i></p><p>Then you are part of the problem.  If you get angry at why the public has lost its faith in science, there's your answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you actually have to treat your scientist well.Dude , you have are crazy .
You have no idea how cushy you have it and your whining is an insult to everyone else that pays taxes to support you guys - on everything from student loan guarantees , federal grants , and more .
How much does NSF get a year ?
Plus the right to patent the stuff the gov't pays you to research.If you think being a scientist sucks , try working on a factory floor .
Everyone works crazy hours with no holidays , scientist or no .
You talk about having a pension problem with the university ?
Man , people get no pensions at all .
We got worthless 401ks and bogus T-Bills on our end !
You talk about working two years on an experiment to find out your hypothesis is wrong ?
Cry me a river .
There 's tons of people that work for two years , five years , ten years , pitching in to build up a business , and then they 'll get bumped out on the street because some jackass guy in bufukistan can do it cheaper.To be honest , I do not even get angry anymore when I suspect someone may have done something " questionable " .
It 's just sadThen you are part of the problem .
If you get angry at why the public has lost its faith in science , there 's your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you actually have to treat your scientist well.Dude, you have are crazy.
You have no idea how cushy you have it and your whining is an insult to everyone else that pays taxes to support you guys - on everything from student loan guarantees, federal grants, and more.
How much does NSF get a year?
Plus the right to patent the stuff the gov't pays you to research.If you think being a scientist sucks, try working on a factory floor.
Everyone works crazy hours with no holidays, scientist or no.
You talk about having a pension problem with the university?
Man, people get no pensions at all.
We got worthless 401ks and bogus T-Bills on our end!
You talk about working two years on an experiment to find out your hypothesis is wrong?
Cry me a river.
There's tons of people that work for two years, five years, ten years, pitching in to build up a business, and then they'll get bumped out on the street because some jackass guy in bufukistan can do it cheaper.To be honest, I do not even get angry anymore when I suspect someone may have done something "questionable".
It's just sadThen you are part of the problem.
If you get angry at why the public has lost its faith in science, there's your answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150315</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I remember getting my ass seriously chewed up for minor lab infraction.  This was long ago in my undergrad years.  Ground the lesson into my stubborn head.
</p><p>
Science can and must do better - we ain't talking about political "science" or art history here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember getting my ass seriously chewed up for minor lab infraction .
This was long ago in my undergrad years .
Ground the lesson into my stubborn head .
Science can and must do better - we ai n't talking about political " science " or art history here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I remember getting my ass seriously chewed up for minor lab infraction.
This was long ago in my undergrad years.
Ground the lesson into my stubborn head.
Science can and must do better - we ain't talking about political "science" or art history here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152999</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1243681800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they don't have to accountable like everyone else?"</i>
<br> <br>
Not accountable? The fake stem cell guy has lost his carreer and will never get another research job.
<br> <br>
<i>"Who is regulating scientists?"</i>
<br> <br>
When talking about known hazzards it's usually other scientists working for government regulators (eg:FDA,EPA,etc). What standards do you suggest for monitoring/regulating the unknown? Besides TFA is talking about fraud, there is no central authority to monitor fraud in science because adding one will break it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they do n't have to accountable like everyone else ?
" Not accountable ?
The fake stem cell guy has lost his carreer and will never get another research job .
" Who is regulating scientists ?
" When talking about known hazzards it 's usually other scientists working for government regulators ( eg : FDA,EPA,etc ) .
What standards do you suggest for monitoring/regulating the unknown ?
Besides TFA is talking about fraud , there is no central authority to monitor fraud in science because adding one will break it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What makes scientists so much better than the average person that they don't have to accountable like everyone else?
"
 
Not accountable?
The fake stem cell guy has lost his carreer and will never get another research job.
"Who is regulating scientists?
"
 
When talking about known hazzards it's usually other scientists working for government regulators (eg:FDA,EPA,etc).
What standards do you suggest for monitoring/regulating the unknown?
Besides TFA is talking about fraud, there is no central authority to monitor fraud in science because adding one will break it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149773</id>
	<title>It would be interesting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To compare to similar statistics for bankers, realtors, politicians, and car salesmen.</p><p>Yes, scientists are human and there's always room for improvement of their conduct.  That's what the honest scientists are for -- to check the results from their other colleagues.</p><p>More news at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To compare to similar statistics for bankers , realtors , politicians , and car salesmen.Yes , scientists are human and there 's always room for improvement of their conduct .
That 's what the honest scientists are for -- to check the results from their other colleagues.More news at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To compare to similar statistics for bankers, realtors, politicians, and car salesmen.Yes, scientists are human and there's always room for improvement of their conduct.
That's what the honest scientists are for -- to check the results from their other colleagues.More news at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150513</id>
	<title>Re:reproducible</title>
	<author>dwguenther</author>
	<datestamp>1243708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  Peer review may not catch all errors or outright fabrications, but reproducibility usually does. That's how those famous examples cited in the posting, and many others, were eventually caught and corrected. Scientists may be only human, but the repeatability and testability of the scientific method works and is one of the few cornerstones we have available for public debate on many issues like health and environment. There is relatively little bad science; there is a whole lot of bad political science (no offense, PS majors...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peer review may not catch all errors or outright fabrications , but reproducibility usually does .
That 's how those famous examples cited in the posting , and many others , were eventually caught and corrected .
Scientists may be only human , but the repeatability and testability of the scientific method works and is one of the few cornerstones we have available for public debate on many issues like health and environment .
There is relatively little bad science ; there is a whole lot of bad political science ( no offense , PS majors... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Peer review may not catch all errors or outright fabrications, but reproducibility usually does.
That's how those famous examples cited in the posting, and many others, were eventually caught and corrected.
Scientists may be only human, but the repeatability and testability of the scientific method works and is one of the few cornerstones we have available for public debate on many issues like health and environment.
There is relatively little bad science; there is a whole lot of bad political science (no offense, PS majors...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149855</id>
	<title>One in 50 sounds reasonable</title>
	<author>JanneM</author>
	<datestamp>1243702800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2\% - one in 50 - committing fraud to get ahead (or simply to keep their job) in a very competitive, volatile career environment. Sounds like it's in the right ballpark, and probably comparable to other professions. Some people are so career and status driven, and so unconcerned with the effects of their actions on other people, that they will break rules and cut corners no matter what the field.</p><p>I do question the other figures though, simply because "questionable research conduct" is such a very nebulous kind of categorization. You can delimit it in very different ways, all perfectly reasonable. You could even effectively decide which number you want then define the term in such a way that you reach it (a practice that would most likely be included in the term). Notably, the author excludes plagiarism, even though that is a serious offense in research for good reason, and one that I'd expect most surveys to include, not drop.</p><p>Also, the numbers for incidents by colleagues is rather pointless, since there is no indication of how many those colleagues are. If each participant has had a minimum total of eight colleagues altogether in their career up until this point, then the 14\% rate fits very well with the self-reported 2\% above. But of course, the participants do not know how many incidents they missed, and the number of times the mistakenly thought fraud was taking place is unknown. I would be very hesitant in trying to read anything at all into the numbers about witnessed incidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 \ % - one in 50 - committing fraud to get ahead ( or simply to keep their job ) in a very competitive , volatile career environment .
Sounds like it 's in the right ballpark , and probably comparable to other professions .
Some people are so career and status driven , and so unconcerned with the effects of their actions on other people , that they will break rules and cut corners no matter what the field.I do question the other figures though , simply because " questionable research conduct " is such a very nebulous kind of categorization .
You can delimit it in very different ways , all perfectly reasonable .
You could even effectively decide which number you want then define the term in such a way that you reach it ( a practice that would most likely be included in the term ) .
Notably , the author excludes plagiarism , even though that is a serious offense in research for good reason , and one that I 'd expect most surveys to include , not drop.Also , the numbers for incidents by colleagues is rather pointless , since there is no indication of how many those colleagues are .
If each participant has had a minimum total of eight colleagues altogether in their career up until this point , then the 14 \ % rate fits very well with the self-reported 2 \ % above .
But of course , the participants do not know how many incidents they missed , and the number of times the mistakenly thought fraud was taking place is unknown .
I would be very hesitant in trying to read anything at all into the numbers about witnessed incidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2\% - one in 50 - committing fraud to get ahead (or simply to keep their job) in a very competitive, volatile career environment.
Sounds like it's in the right ballpark, and probably comparable to other professions.
Some people are so career and status driven, and so unconcerned with the effects of their actions on other people, that they will break rules and cut corners no matter what the field.I do question the other figures though, simply because "questionable research conduct" is such a very nebulous kind of categorization.
You can delimit it in very different ways, all perfectly reasonable.
You could even effectively decide which number you want then define the term in such a way that you reach it (a practice that would most likely be included in the term).
Notably, the author excludes plagiarism, even though that is a serious offense in research for good reason, and one that I'd expect most surveys to include, not drop.Also, the numbers for incidents by colleagues is rather pointless, since there is no indication of how many those colleagues are.
If each participant has had a minimum total of eight colleagues altogether in their career up until this point, then the 14\% rate fits very well with the self-reported 2\% above.
But of course, the participants do not know how many incidents they missed, and the number of times the mistakenly thought fraud was taking place is unknown.
I would be very hesitant in trying to read anything at all into the numbers about witnessed incidents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152629</id>
	<title>Re:Vice Provost of Caltech from 1994 said it best</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1243679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists.</i></p><p>This was published at more-or-less the mid-point of the most active part of my scientific career, counting from the end of my M.Sc. to the end of my last post-doc.  In that relatively short span of years I encountered at least two cases of outright scientific fraud:  pure fabrication of data, either from experiments that were never done, or from data that had peaks put into it by hand during the analysis stage.  Based on that experience I would have to say that scientific fraud is far more prevalent than generally acknowledged, and certainly more than a few percent.</p><p>There were several internal factors that contributed to these frauds.  In the case of the fabricated peaks one graduate student was responsible for all the analysis that saw peaks.  His bosses didn't look too closely at the details of the analysis because the results were exciting, and they sparked a hunt for a novel particle state that lasted ten years and wasted a lot of time, including mine.  After another experiment that was almost completely independent found nothing at ten times the sensitivity of the original the community quietly admitted that the original results were most probably fraudulent, but no one was ever really held responsible for it.  It is very hard to prove anything definitely, although I personally believe fraud was committed, as do some others who were more deeply involved in the question than I was.</p><p>In the case of the purely fabricated data, poor supervision of a post-doc who was careful to generate results that his supervisor wanted made it possible.  As someone who did a subsequent experiment in the same area it was very hard to get past reviewer's questions as to why my results were not as good as the other guy's.  Again, proof that was sufficient to stand up to public scrutiny was difficult to come by (how do you prove something has not been done?  Possible, but not easy.)</p><p>These things tend to happen at the very best places--top tier American and European labs, where the degree of external scrutiny is low due to huge egos and carefully protected reputations.  The only cure for this is better-run research groups that practise more self-criticism, which is very unlikely to happen due to the ego-driven nature of science at the individual level, just as free markets are welcome mats to fraud because of individual's propensity to make ego-driven judgements about what they are able to get away with (Vioxx anyone?).</p><p>The communal scientific process will always catch these frauds in the end, just as the legal system generally catches up to market frauds, but we don't do enough to address the dysfunctional conditions that encourage them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists.This was published at more-or-less the mid-point of the most active part of my scientific career , counting from the end of my M.Sc .
to the end of my last post-doc .
In that relatively short span of years I encountered at least two cases of outright scientific fraud : pure fabrication of data , either from experiments that were never done , or from data that had peaks put into it by hand during the analysis stage .
Based on that experience I would have to say that scientific fraud is far more prevalent than generally acknowledged , and certainly more than a few percent.There were several internal factors that contributed to these frauds .
In the case of the fabricated peaks one graduate student was responsible for all the analysis that saw peaks .
His bosses did n't look too closely at the details of the analysis because the results were exciting , and they sparked a hunt for a novel particle state that lasted ten years and wasted a lot of time , including mine .
After another experiment that was almost completely independent found nothing at ten times the sensitivity of the original the community quietly admitted that the original results were most probably fraudulent , but no one was ever really held responsible for it .
It is very hard to prove anything definitely , although I personally believe fraud was committed , as do some others who were more deeply involved in the question than I was.In the case of the purely fabricated data , poor supervision of a post-doc who was careful to generate results that his supervisor wanted made it possible .
As someone who did a subsequent experiment in the same area it was very hard to get past reviewer 's questions as to why my results were not as good as the other guy 's .
Again , proof that was sufficient to stand up to public scrutiny was difficult to come by ( how do you prove something has not been done ?
Possible , but not easy .
) These things tend to happen at the very best places--top tier American and European labs , where the degree of external scrutiny is low due to huge egos and carefully protected reputations .
The only cure for this is better-run research groups that practise more self-criticism , which is very unlikely to happen due to the ego-driven nature of science at the individual level , just as free markets are welcome mats to fraud because of individual 's propensity to make ego-driven judgements about what they are able to get away with ( Vioxx anyone ?
) .The communal scientific process will always catch these frauds in the end , just as the legal system generally catches up to market frauds , but we do n't do enough to address the dysfunctional conditions that encourage them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists.This was published at more-or-less the mid-point of the most active part of my scientific career, counting from the end of my M.Sc.
to the end of my last post-doc.
In that relatively short span of years I encountered at least two cases of outright scientific fraud:  pure fabrication of data, either from experiments that were never done, or from data that had peaks put into it by hand during the analysis stage.
Based on that experience I would have to say that scientific fraud is far more prevalent than generally acknowledged, and certainly more than a few percent.There were several internal factors that contributed to these frauds.
In the case of the fabricated peaks one graduate student was responsible for all the analysis that saw peaks.
His bosses didn't look too closely at the details of the analysis because the results were exciting, and they sparked a hunt for a novel particle state that lasted ten years and wasted a lot of time, including mine.
After another experiment that was almost completely independent found nothing at ten times the sensitivity of the original the community quietly admitted that the original results were most probably fraudulent, but no one was ever really held responsible for it.
It is very hard to prove anything definitely, although I personally believe fraud was committed, as do some others who were more deeply involved in the question than I was.In the case of the purely fabricated data, poor supervision of a post-doc who was careful to generate results that his supervisor wanted made it possible.
As someone who did a subsequent experiment in the same area it was very hard to get past reviewer's questions as to why my results were not as good as the other guy's.
Again, proof that was sufficient to stand up to public scrutiny was difficult to come by (how do you prove something has not been done?
Possible, but not easy.
)These things tend to happen at the very best places--top tier American and European labs, where the degree of external scrutiny is low due to huge egos and carefully protected reputations.
The only cure for this is better-run research groups that practise more self-criticism, which is very unlikely to happen due to the ego-driven nature of science at the individual level, just as free markets are welcome mats to fraud because of individual's propensity to make ego-driven judgements about what they are able to get away with (Vioxx anyone?
).The communal scientific process will always catch these frauds in the end, just as the legal system generally catches up to market frauds, but we don't do enough to address the dysfunctional conditions that encourage them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150867</id>
	<title>Re:Time to man up dude!</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1243711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, how many years of training do you need to work on a factory floor?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , how many years of training do you need to work on a factory floor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, how many years of training do you need to work on a factory floor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149709</id>
	<title>Questionable research practices?</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1243701780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and up to 33.7\% admitted other questionable research practices.</p></div><p>I wonder if this refers to shortcuts taken because its common knowledge, Such as, if you use water as a control lubricant, you might test its wetness, density, purity, viscosity, etc, to compare against water with a slippery polymer in it. I wonder if these "questionable" practices involved taking distilled water, making sure its pure distilled water, and then pulling the other factors off of charts for distilled water or if "Questionable" means something far worse.<br> <br>The reason i bring this up is because hindsight is 20/20 and everybody knows every mistake that they've made, if they're smart and that's what they're fessing up to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and up to 33.7 \ % admitted other questionable research practices.I wonder if this refers to shortcuts taken because its common knowledge , Such as , if you use water as a control lubricant , you might test its wetness , density , purity , viscosity , etc , to compare against water with a slippery polymer in it .
I wonder if these " questionable " practices involved taking distilled water , making sure its pure distilled water , and then pulling the other factors off of charts for distilled water or if " Questionable " means something far worse .
The reason i bring this up is because hindsight is 20/20 and everybody knows every mistake that they 've made , if they 're smart and that 's what they 're fessing up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and up to 33.7\% admitted other questionable research practices.I wonder if this refers to shortcuts taken because its common knowledge, Such as, if you use water as a control lubricant, you might test its wetness, density, purity, viscosity, etc, to compare against water with a slippery polymer in it.
I wonder if these "questionable" practices involved taking distilled water, making sure its pure distilled water, and then pulling the other factors off of charts for distilled water or if "Questionable" means something far worse.
The reason i bring this up is because hindsight is 20/20 and everybody knows every mistake that they've made, if they're smart and that's what they're fessing up to.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149939</id>
	<title>Meta analysis - Kettle Black</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1243703400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it odd that this is all based on Meta Analysis, which itself is still highly suspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that this is all based on Meta Analysis , which itself is still highly suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that this is all based on Meta Analysis, which itself is still highly suspect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150007</id>
	<title>As a scientist...</title>
	<author>cleojo42</author>
	<datestamp>1243704000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am surprised it is this small.

I am sure part of the liars (which is what they are) are doing it for fame and to be the one. Others (liars too) are doing it to keep their jobs, whether that be to get money to do science, or just to cling on.

And forget turning someone in. It will ruin your career.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am surprised it is this small .
I am sure part of the liars ( which is what they are ) are doing it for fame and to be the one .
Others ( liars too ) are doing it to keep their jobs , whether that be to get money to do science , or just to cling on .
And forget turning someone in .
It will ruin your career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am surprised it is this small.
I am sure part of the liars (which is what they are) are doing it for fame and to be the one.
Others (liars too) are doing it to keep their jobs, whether that be to get money to do science, or just to cling on.
And forget turning someone in.
It will ruin your career.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149831</id>
	<title>Re:Questionable research practices?</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1243702560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aye, I think I go with your interpretation here. I personally would confess to "questionable practices" of that kind - not thoroughly testing each and every factor that might have influenced your experiment, because it is "common knowledge" that the factors in question won't matter. Deadlines looming ahead, supervisor chewing your ass, you take the shortcut. No research is perfect. In hindsight you always find some things that you should have tested to be really sure, but real life is not perfect. I'd file that 33.7\% under "maybe questionable, but not malicious". Scientist tend to be overly critical of themselves. I personally could not state that my research was alway impeccable and perfect with a straight face. Who could? We are humans, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aye , I think I go with your interpretation here .
I personally would confess to " questionable practices " of that kind - not thoroughly testing each and every factor that might have influenced your experiment , because it is " common knowledge " that the factors in question wo n't matter .
Deadlines looming ahead , supervisor chewing your ass , you take the shortcut .
No research is perfect .
In hindsight you always find some things that you should have tested to be really sure , but real life is not perfect .
I 'd file that 33.7 \ % under " maybe questionable , but not malicious " .
Scientist tend to be overly critical of themselves .
I personally could not state that my research was alway impeccable and perfect with a straight face .
Who could ?
We are humans , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aye, I think I go with your interpretation here.
I personally would confess to "questionable practices" of that kind - not thoroughly testing each and every factor that might have influenced your experiment, because it is "common knowledge" that the factors in question won't matter.
Deadlines looming ahead, supervisor chewing your ass, you take the shortcut.
No research is perfect.
In hindsight you always find some things that you should have tested to be really sure, but real life is not perfect.
I'd file that 33.7\% under "maybe questionable, but not malicious".
Scientist tend to be overly critical of themselves.
I personally could not state that my research was alway impeccable and perfect with a straight face.
Who could?
We are humans, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28156021</id>
	<title>What science?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243710780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is this book, by Broad and Wade, "betrayers of the truth" that exposes some famous scientific misconducts and frauds.<br>What I realized from this book is that fraud is common in "mesure science". Physics, Chemistry, Biology. Science where no maths are involved but for showing your data is cool (of course, the cited sciences are not limited to that). Science with experiments.</p><p>I do maths and computer science. I may be too pure and naive, but I don't see how to fraud in my field. All my research is about *proving* things that I create correct. I reckon that in formal sciences (science based on theorems and proofs), these frauds are quite inexistant. But maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe those who say "this is not science" are right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is this book , by Broad and Wade , " betrayers of the truth " that exposes some famous scientific misconducts and frauds.What I realized from this book is that fraud is common in " mesure science " .
Physics , Chemistry , Biology .
Science where no maths are involved but for showing your data is cool ( of course , the cited sciences are not limited to that ) .
Science with experiments.I do maths and computer science .
I may be too pure and naive , but I do n't see how to fraud in my field .
All my research is about * proving * things that I create correct .
I reckon that in formal sciences ( science based on theorems and proofs ) , these frauds are quite inexistant .
But maybe I 'm wrong .
Or maybe those who say " this is not science " are right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is this book, by Broad and Wade, "betrayers of the truth" that exposes some famous scientific misconducts and frauds.What I realized from this book is that fraud is common in "mesure science".
Physics, Chemistry, Biology.
Science where no maths are involved but for showing your data is cool (of course, the cited sciences are not limited to that).
Science with experiments.I do maths and computer science.
I may be too pure and naive, but I don't see how to fraud in my field.
All my research is about *proving* things that I create correct.
I reckon that in formal sciences (science based on theorems and proofs), these frauds are quite inexistant.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Or maybe those who say "this is not science" are right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155159</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>FragHARD</author>
	<datestamp>1243700820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah and I wonder what the percent is for the globalwarming pusher crowd ???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah and I wonder what the percent is for the globalwarming pusher crowd ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah and I wonder what the percent is for the globalwarming pusher crowd ??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152405</id>
	<title>Take this (any) study with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>pesho</author>
	<datestamp>1243678200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one beautiful example of 'non research' crap being pushed out. They didn't do a proper 'field study' with well defined and controlled questions. They took a heterogeneous collection of other peoples published results and tried to mix them together. In this type of questionnaire based studies it is extremely important how do you define the question. It is also important to ask the same question in different ways and to control for the motives and the background of the person who answers that.
<p>
For example what are they trying to say here:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A pooled, weighted average of 1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once &#226;" a serious form of misconduct by any standard &#226;" and up to 33.7\% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12\% for falsification, and up to 72\% for other questionable research practices.</p></div><p>

All this depends on how they defined the questions. A narrow question "Have you fabricated data?" will result in a low number. A broad question "Have you ever done an experiment that you now think was not properly controlled?" will give a close to a 100\% positive answers. </p><p>Is it surprising that if 2\% of scientist falsify data 72\% will now about that?</p><p>Not having done their own ground work the only think they can do is to tweak the statistics. Is anyone surprised that it didn't make it to a peer reviewed journal ?? </p><p>
Having said that i don't claim that scientific misconduct does not take place. Most of the research (I am talking about the academic biomedical field) is done by underpaid and overworked grad students and postdocs on tight schedules. They are under pressure to move on with their carriers and get some resemblance of normal life. Their supervisors are on tight schedules to produce results for grant reports and publications so they can get funded. Many universities (I would say most) even have goals of achieving external funding defined as dollars per square foot of lab space. If you don't look like you can bring money at the desired rate you are not hired as a PI, no matter how sound, innovative and important your work may be.
</p><p>This pressure naturally makes people to take shortcuts. But all this is built into the system and there are safeguards. Poor quality research is harder to push into higher impact journals. Good data is reproduced by different groups using different methods and the predictions based on it are experimentally confirmed. So the bad stuff get's sifted out and the sound research gets incorporated into the base knowledge on which future work is built upon.</p><p> If anyone wants to reorganize the current system, they should first have a good plan on how to make it better. Preferably it will be tested on a small scale and shown to work as expected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one beautiful example of 'non research ' crap being pushed out .
They did n't do a proper 'field study ' with well defined and controlled questions .
They took a heterogeneous collection of other peoples published results and tried to mix them together .
In this type of questionnaire based studies it is extremely important how do you define the question .
It is also important to ask the same question in different ways and to control for the motives and the background of the person who answers that .
For example what are they trying to say here : A pooled , weighted average of 1.97 \ % of scientists admitted to having fabricated , falsified or modified data or results at least once   " a serious form of misconduct by any standard   " and up to 33.7 \ % admitted other questionable research practices .
In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues , admission rates were 14.12 \ % for falsification , and up to 72 \ % for other questionable research practices .
All this depends on how they defined the questions .
A narrow question " Have you fabricated data ?
" will result in a low number .
A broad question " Have you ever done an experiment that you now think was not properly controlled ?
" will give a close to a 100 \ % positive answers .
Is it surprising that if 2 \ % of scientist falsify data 72 \ % will now about that ? Not having done their own ground work the only think they can do is to tweak the statistics .
Is anyone surprised that it did n't make it to a peer reviewed journal ? ?
Having said that i do n't claim that scientific misconduct does not take place .
Most of the research ( I am talking about the academic biomedical field ) is done by underpaid and overworked grad students and postdocs on tight schedules .
They are under pressure to move on with their carriers and get some resemblance of normal life .
Their supervisors are on tight schedules to produce results for grant reports and publications so they can get funded .
Many universities ( I would say most ) even have goals of achieving external funding defined as dollars per square foot of lab space .
If you do n't look like you can bring money at the desired rate you are not hired as a PI , no matter how sound , innovative and important your work may be .
This pressure naturally makes people to take shortcuts .
But all this is built into the system and there are safeguards .
Poor quality research is harder to push into higher impact journals .
Good data is reproduced by different groups using different methods and the predictions based on it are experimentally confirmed .
So the bad stuff get 's sifted out and the sound research gets incorporated into the base knowledge on which future work is built upon .
If anyone wants to reorganize the current system , they should first have a good plan on how to make it better .
Preferably it will be tested on a small scale and shown to work as expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one beautiful example of 'non research' crap being pushed out.
They didn't do a proper 'field study' with well defined and controlled questions.
They took a heterogeneous collection of other peoples published results and tried to mix them together.
In this type of questionnaire based studies it is extremely important how do you define the question.
It is also important to ask the same question in different ways and to control for the motives and the background of the person who answers that.
For example what are they trying to say here:A pooled, weighted average of 1.97\% of scientists admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once â" a serious form of misconduct by any standard â" and up to 33.7\% admitted other questionable research practices.
In surveys asking about the behavior of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12\% for falsification, and up to 72\% for other questionable research practices.
All this depends on how they defined the questions.
A narrow question "Have you fabricated data?
" will result in a low number.
A broad question "Have you ever done an experiment that you now think was not properly controlled?
" will give a close to a 100\% positive answers.
Is it surprising that if 2\% of scientist falsify data 72\% will now about that?Not having done their own ground work the only think they can do is to tweak the statistics.
Is anyone surprised that it didn't make it to a peer reviewed journal ??
Having said that i don't claim that scientific misconduct does not take place.
Most of the research (I am talking about the academic biomedical field) is done by underpaid and overworked grad students and postdocs on tight schedules.
They are under pressure to move on with their carriers and get some resemblance of normal life.
Their supervisors are on tight schedules to produce results for grant reports and publications so they can get funded.
Many universities (I would say most) even have goals of achieving external funding defined as dollars per square foot of lab space.
If you don't look like you can bring money at the desired rate you are not hired as a PI, no matter how sound, innovative and important your work may be.
This pressure naturally makes people to take shortcuts.
But all this is built into the system and there are safeguards.
Poor quality research is harder to push into higher impact journals.
Good data is reproduced by different groups using different methods and the predictions based on it are experimentally confirmed.
So the bad stuff get's sifted out and the sound research gets incorporated into the base knowledge on which future work is built upon.
If anyone wants to reorganize the current system, they should first have a good plan on how to make it better.
Preferably it will be tested on a small scale and shown to work as expected.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150857</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>idiot900</author>
	<datestamp>1243710960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Again I'm thinking of medicine. My own post grad work is in astronomy so I'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine, and when I've tried to read medical papers it's usually been an interesting excercise)</p></div><p>I think there are three main hurdles to comprehending scientific literature:</p><p>1) Obtuse grammar. This is universal. Why describe something in five words when you can use twenty?</p><p>2) Jargon: Every field has its jargon, and may co-opt words from the vernacular and give them very specific meanings. This gets in the way of a simplified description.</p><p>3) Intuition: Quite a lot of papers don't properly explain the intuition behind what they do. This is particularly rampant in fields that depend strongly on math. The reader is often expected to recognize the form of an equation without any explanation whatsoever. If you can do this, the intuition often turns out to be surprisingly simple. If you cannot do this (say, you're a new grad student) it looks like an impenetrable wall of Greek letters.</p><p>We can do something about (1) by journals forcing submitters to simplify their language. But fixing (2) by avoiding jargon would interfere with meaning. And fixing (3) would make papers much longer. So it's a tough problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Again I 'm thinking of medicine .
My own post grad work is in astronomy so I 'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine , and when I 've tried to read medical papers it 's usually been an interesting excercise ) I think there are three main hurdles to comprehending scientific literature : 1 ) Obtuse grammar .
This is universal .
Why describe something in five words when you can use twenty ? 2 ) Jargon : Every field has its jargon , and may co-opt words from the vernacular and give them very specific meanings .
This gets in the way of a simplified description.3 ) Intuition : Quite a lot of papers do n't properly explain the intuition behind what they do .
This is particularly rampant in fields that depend strongly on math .
The reader is often expected to recognize the form of an equation without any explanation whatsoever .
If you can do this , the intuition often turns out to be surprisingly simple .
If you can not do this ( say , you 're a new grad student ) it looks like an impenetrable wall of Greek letters.We can do something about ( 1 ) by journals forcing submitters to simplify their language .
But fixing ( 2 ) by avoiding jargon would interfere with meaning .
And fixing ( 3 ) would make papers much longer .
So it 's a tough problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Again I'm thinking of medicine.
My own post grad work is in astronomy so I'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine, and when I've tried to read medical papers it's usually been an interesting excercise)I think there are three main hurdles to comprehending scientific literature:1) Obtuse grammar.
This is universal.
Why describe something in five words when you can use twenty?2) Jargon: Every field has its jargon, and may co-opt words from the vernacular and give them very specific meanings.
This gets in the way of a simplified description.3) Intuition: Quite a lot of papers don't properly explain the intuition behind what they do.
This is particularly rampant in fields that depend strongly on math.
The reader is often expected to recognize the form of an equation without any explanation whatsoever.
If you can do this, the intuition often turns out to be surprisingly simple.
If you cannot do this (say, you're a new grad student) it looks like an impenetrable wall of Greek letters.We can do something about (1) by journals forcing submitters to simplify their language.
But fixing (2) by avoiding jargon would interfere with meaning.
And fixing (3) would make papers much longer.
So it's a tough problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149665</id>
	<title>Pure ignorance and clumsiness are more frequent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of all scientific articles I have read there are no apparent copy-cat actions I could even think of. However, pure ignorance and clumsiness are very very frequent. I can live with typos and errors, if they don't change the big picture.</p><p>However, cheating is another thing. I am aware of people presenting facts technically correct, but in deceitful manners which give the impression the background research is well done. However, scrutinze what was actually done, it falls apart. Yet, what can you do about that. If do you call attention to it, you risk becomining a whiner. And, who wants to be that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all scientific articles I have read there are no apparent copy-cat actions I could even think of .
However , pure ignorance and clumsiness are very very frequent .
I can live with typos and errors , if they do n't change the big picture.However , cheating is another thing .
I am aware of people presenting facts technically correct , but in deceitful manners which give the impression the background research is well done .
However , scrutinze what was actually done , it falls apart .
Yet , what can you do about that .
If do you call attention to it , you risk becomining a whiner .
And , who wants to be that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all scientific articles I have read there are no apparent copy-cat actions I could even think of.
However, pure ignorance and clumsiness are very very frequent.
I can live with typos and errors, if they don't change the big picture.However, cheating is another thing.
I am aware of people presenting facts technically correct, but in deceitful manners which give the impression the background research is well done.
However, scrutinze what was actually done, it falls apart.
Yet, what can you do about that.
If do you call attention to it, you risk becomining a whiner.
And, who wants to be that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150555</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1243708620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One could also argue that if one is manipulative politic in many aspects of their life, they are also most likely manipulative and politic in the others as well. If somebody were always drunk at home, drunk at work, and drunk while in public... why the hell would you think they're always sober while driving? If a scientist is always manipulative with their family, their co-workers, and while attending social events... why the hell would you expect they're always forthright while doing research?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One could also argue that if one is manipulative politic in many aspects of their life , they are also most likely manipulative and politic in the others as well .
If somebody were always drunk at home , drunk at work , and drunk while in public... why the hell would you think they 're always sober while driving ?
If a scientist is always manipulative with their family , their co-workers , and while attending social events... why the hell would you expect they 're always forthright while doing research ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could also argue that if one is manipulative politic in many aspects of their life, they are also most likely manipulative and politic in the others as well.
If somebody were always drunk at home, drunk at work, and drunk while in public... why the hell would you think they're always sober while driving?
If a scientist is always manipulative with their family, their co-workers, and while attending social events... why the hell would you expect they're always forthright while doing research?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152735</id>
	<title>not only better checks/balances</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1243680120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your incentives are aligned wrongly, policing will only go so far: it's like trying to destroy black markets by hiring more cops.</p><p>Most people don't go into science because they want to fabricate data. Sure, people want to be famous, but most of this data being fabricated isn't even anything that would make you famous (only a handful of high-profile examples are). You need a culture that neither encourages nor rewards attempts to meta-game the academic system, and a system that does not encourage gaming it, by for example judging scientists on some quantitative measure of their publication count multiplied by impact factor and citation count.</p><p>It's hard enough to answer difficult questions when everyone in question is acting in good faith, self-examining their own work before publishing it, and generally trying their best to do a good job. It's impossible if you're making some number of people feel they have no choice but to grit their teeth and publish papers they know are somewhat spun or not as good as they could've been. Let the scientists do their damn job, and stop the ranking/numbers game.</p><p>Of course, you can't just give everyone a big salary and free reign to spend the next 20 years doing whatever they want. But I would argue that you really need an evaluation of the quality of a scientist, not the quality of their output. Is this person insightful, knowledgeable, committed to doing good research, plugged in to what the real questions in their field are, has a plausible approach to answering them, etc.? If so, leave them the hell alone and let <em>them</em> decide how to best communicate their results, whether that be a flurry of 10 papers a year or one every 2 years.</p><p>In short, academic publishing is supposed to be about communication: you legitimately have something you think other people would want to read. Adding incentives based on the amount and type of that communication leads to people basically forcing themselves to communicate when they wouldn't have chosen to otherwise, because they need the lines on their CV; this does not improve the quality of the academic literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your incentives are aligned wrongly , policing will only go so far : it 's like trying to destroy black markets by hiring more cops.Most people do n't go into science because they want to fabricate data .
Sure , people want to be famous , but most of this data being fabricated is n't even anything that would make you famous ( only a handful of high-profile examples are ) .
You need a culture that neither encourages nor rewards attempts to meta-game the academic system , and a system that does not encourage gaming it , by for example judging scientists on some quantitative measure of their publication count multiplied by impact factor and citation count.It 's hard enough to answer difficult questions when everyone in question is acting in good faith , self-examining their own work before publishing it , and generally trying their best to do a good job .
It 's impossible if you 're making some number of people feel they have no choice but to grit their teeth and publish papers they know are somewhat spun or not as good as they could 've been .
Let the scientists do their damn job , and stop the ranking/numbers game.Of course , you ca n't just give everyone a big salary and free reign to spend the next 20 years doing whatever they want .
But I would argue that you really need an evaluation of the quality of a scientist , not the quality of their output .
Is this person insightful , knowledgeable , committed to doing good research , plugged in to what the real questions in their field are , has a plausible approach to answering them , etc. ?
If so , leave them the hell alone and let them decide how to best communicate their results , whether that be a flurry of 10 papers a year or one every 2 years.In short , academic publishing is supposed to be about communication : you legitimately have something you think other people would want to read .
Adding incentives based on the amount and type of that communication leads to people basically forcing themselves to communicate when they would n't have chosen to otherwise , because they need the lines on their CV ; this does not improve the quality of the academic literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your incentives are aligned wrongly, policing will only go so far: it's like trying to destroy black markets by hiring more cops.Most people don't go into science because they want to fabricate data.
Sure, people want to be famous, but most of this data being fabricated isn't even anything that would make you famous (only a handful of high-profile examples are).
You need a culture that neither encourages nor rewards attempts to meta-game the academic system, and a system that does not encourage gaming it, by for example judging scientists on some quantitative measure of their publication count multiplied by impact factor and citation count.It's hard enough to answer difficult questions when everyone in question is acting in good faith, self-examining their own work before publishing it, and generally trying their best to do a good job.
It's impossible if you're making some number of people feel they have no choice but to grit their teeth and publish papers they know are somewhat spun or not as good as they could've been.
Let the scientists do their damn job, and stop the ranking/numbers game.Of course, you can't just give everyone a big salary and free reign to spend the next 20 years doing whatever they want.
But I would argue that you really need an evaluation of the quality of a scientist, not the quality of their output.
Is this person insightful, knowledgeable, committed to doing good research, plugged in to what the real questions in their field are, has a plausible approach to answering them, etc.?
If so, leave them the hell alone and let them decide how to best communicate their results, whether that be a flurry of 10 papers a year or one every 2 years.In short, academic publishing is supposed to be about communication: you legitimately have something you think other people would want to read.
Adding incentives based on the amount and type of that communication leads to people basically forcing themselves to communicate when they wouldn't have chosen to otherwise, because they need the lines on their CV; this does not improve the quality of the academic literature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</id>
	<title>Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1243701120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists are humans too and a job won't change some humans from being cheats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists are humans too and a job wo n't change some humans from being cheats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists are humans too and a job won't change some humans from being cheats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150347</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243706760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't a matter of honest... in most cases it is because the people concerned have no idea what they're doing.</p><p>In the UK the government wants over 70\% of school-leavers to go on to university. Then there's the research bodies, most of them charities with an obligation to spend their money on research. This leads to an overabundance of PhD students with little real business doing a medical/biochemical PhD, they simply don't have the skills or common sense to do research, but the money is there and it won't fund medical breakthrough unless they spend it...</p><p>As an example, my fiancee recently joined a project at work that had belonged to another girl for three years before hand. My fiancee has spent the last year re-doing all of the previous experiments because the other girl had been using the "best guess" button on the microscope. If these results had been published, they could have been called 'falsified' as the best guess is a bit like photoshop's automatic white-balance... different images will be distorted to varying degrees and the end result is not consistent with anything. The other girl to this day still doesn't realise that this is a problem.</p><p>Most scientists aren't dishonest, they're just stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't a matter of honest... in most cases it is because the people concerned have no idea what they 're doing.In the UK the government wants over 70 \ % of school-leavers to go on to university .
Then there 's the research bodies , most of them charities with an obligation to spend their money on research .
This leads to an overabundance of PhD students with little real business doing a medical/biochemical PhD , they simply do n't have the skills or common sense to do research , but the money is there and it wo n't fund medical breakthrough unless they spend it...As an example , my fiancee recently joined a project at work that had belonged to another girl for three years before hand .
My fiancee has spent the last year re-doing all of the previous experiments because the other girl had been using the " best guess " button on the microscope .
If these results had been published , they could have been called 'falsified ' as the best guess is a bit like photoshop 's automatic white-balance... different images will be distorted to varying degrees and the end result is not consistent with anything .
The other girl to this day still does n't realise that this is a problem.Most scientists are n't dishonest , they 're just stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't a matter of honest... in most cases it is because the people concerned have no idea what they're doing.In the UK the government wants over 70\% of school-leavers to go on to university.
Then there's the research bodies, most of them charities with an obligation to spend their money on research.
This leads to an overabundance of PhD students with little real business doing a medical/biochemical PhD, they simply don't have the skills or common sense to do research, but the money is there and it won't fund medical breakthrough unless they spend it...As an example, my fiancee recently joined a project at work that had belonged to another girl for three years before hand.
My fiancee has spent the last year re-doing all of the previous experiments because the other girl had been using the "best guess" button on the microscope.
If these results had been published, they could have been called 'falsified' as the best guess is a bit like photoshop's automatic white-balance... different images will be distorted to varying degrees and the end result is not consistent with anything.
The other girl to this day still doesn't realise that this is a problem.Most scientists aren't dishonest, they're just stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149691</id>
	<title>Then how can we know?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if there are so many examples of scientists providing fake data how do i know the results of the survey in the FA are correct?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if there are so many examples of scientists providing fake data how do i know the results of the survey in the FA are correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if there are so many examples of scientists providing fake data how do i know the results of the survey in the FA are correct?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150535</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243708500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Scientists are humans too"</i> and <i>"How Common Is Scientific Misconduct?"</i></p><p>That's why a survey of surveys said 127\% of surveys were inaccurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Scientists are humans too " and " How Common Is Scientific Misconduct ?
" That 's why a survey of surveys said 127 \ % of surveys were inaccurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Scientists are humans too" and "How Common Is Scientific Misconduct?
"That's why a survey of surveys said 127\% of surveys were inaccurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150829</id>
	<title>Re:Vice Provost of Caltech from 1994 said it best</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1243710780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors.</i></p><p>And how would the Vice Provost know this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests , but as time goes on , more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors.And how would the Vice Provost know this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors.And how would the Vice Provost know this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149947</id>
	<title>Not always on purpose</title>
	<author>Evoluteur</author>
	<datestamp>1243703520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4 days ago on that same forum was a post about "Mars robots may have destroyed evidence of life". Scientists didn't fabricate false proofs there but simply made an unconcious mistake to prove their own preconceptions...</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 days ago on that same forum was a post about " Mars robots may have destroyed evidence of life " .
Scientists did n't fabricate false proofs there but simply made an unconcious mistake to prove their own preconceptions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4 days ago on that same forum was a post about "Mars robots may have destroyed evidence of life".
Scientists didn't fabricate false proofs there but simply made an unconcious mistake to prove their own preconceptions...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150361</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1243706880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption, with so few checks and balances, and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages, it's no surprise that you end up with science that's much less than perfect.</p></div><p>Its also no surprise when you end up with science that is horribly incomplete.</p><p>We need to place more emphasis on using the internet as a repository for non-published works. (Like DeepDyve <a href="http://www.deepdyve.com/corp/about" title="deepdyve.com">http://www.deepdyve.com/corp/about</a> [deepdyve.com] ).</p><p>With this comes the boogie man of the kook "scientist".  (Which unfortunately includes any scientist who is not yet published).</p><p>We need to start using something like the Web of Trust found in key signing  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web\_of\_trust" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web\_of\_trust</a> [wikipedia.org] to document the credentials of scientists without regard to the content of any specific work.</p><p>(Scientists A, B, C, and Institution 1, 2, and 5 sign Professor X's credentials certifying that they know him to possess the training and education to conduct studies in his field, without any indication of approval or disapproval of his current work, but with due regard for any past work of which they may be aware).</p><p>With a web of trust you would be able to distinguish the kooks (those with closed webs of trust) from the real scientists (those with open and expanding webs).</p><p>This would allow us at least some clue as to credentials and knowledge of the scientist under discussion rather than the mere presence of an article in a journal of questionable value. <a href="http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/" title="bioethics.net">http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/</a> [bioethics.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption , with so few checks and balances , and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages , it 's no surprise that you end up with science that 's much less than perfect.Its also no surprise when you end up with science that is horribly incomplete.We need to place more emphasis on using the internet as a repository for non-published works .
( Like DeepDyve http : //www.deepdyve.com/corp/about [ deepdyve.com ] ) .With this comes the boogie man of the kook " scientist " .
( Which unfortunately includes any scientist who is not yet published ) .We need to start using something like the Web of Trust found in key signing http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web \ _of \ _trust [ wikipedia.org ] to document the credentials of scientists without regard to the content of any specific work .
( Scientists A , B , C , and Institution 1 , 2 , and 5 sign Professor X 's credentials certifying that they know him to possess the training and education to conduct studies in his field , without any indication of approval or disapproval of his current work , but with due regard for any past work of which they may be aware ) .With a web of trust you would be able to distinguish the kooks ( those with closed webs of trust ) from the real scientists ( those with open and expanding webs ) .This would allow us at least some clue as to credentials and knowledge of the scientist under discussion rather than the mere presence of an article in a journal of questionable value .
http : //blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/ [ bioethics.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption, with so few checks and balances, and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages, it's no surprise that you end up with science that's much less than perfect.Its also no surprise when you end up with science that is horribly incomplete.We need to place more emphasis on using the internet as a repository for non-published works.
(Like DeepDyve http://www.deepdyve.com/corp/about [deepdyve.com] ).With this comes the boogie man of the kook "scientist".
(Which unfortunately includes any scientist who is not yet published).We need to start using something like the Web of Trust found in key signing  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web\_of\_trust [wikipedia.org] to document the credentials of scientists without regard to the content of any specific work.
(Scientists A, B, C, and Institution 1, 2, and 5 sign Professor X's credentials certifying that they know him to possess the training and education to conduct studies in his field, without any indication of approval or disapproval of his current work, but with due regard for any past work of which they may be aware).With a web of trust you would be able to distinguish the kooks (those with closed webs of trust) from the real scientists (those with open and expanding webs).This would allow us at least some clue as to credentials and knowledge of the scientist under discussion rather than the mere presence of an article in a journal of questionable value.
http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/ [bioethics.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150501</id>
	<title>This proves religion  science</title>
	<author>Nexus7</author>
	<datestamp>1243708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not even 1\% of priests have admitted to misconduct. Not only that, they are certain in their laws. These laws don't even need proving or experimentationalistic thingies where numbers can be fudged. It is exactly 6000 years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even 1 \ % of priests have admitted to misconduct .
Not only that , they are certain in their laws .
These laws do n't even need proving or experimentationalistic thingies where numbers can be fudged .
It is exactly 6000 years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even 1\% of priests have admitted to misconduct.
Not only that, they are certain in their laws.
These laws don't even need proving or experimentationalistic thingies where numbers can be fudged.
It is exactly 6000 years!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149687</id>
	<title>This is news?</title>
	<author>schrodingers\_rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1243701480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists have falsified data since the dawn of scientific discovery. The real qualifier is for what reason. Inventing a completely bogus substance with obviously impossible properties and no proof is accepted, even lauded, when it shores up shaky Newtonian proofs in relatavistic physics, but when a a major corporation pays for it it becomes unacceptable. The only way to promote scientific integrity is to have private, biased companies fund all scientific research, so bad ideas are shot down by an angry scientific community. Of course, there is a chronic lack of ability in science to find the bad ideas...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists have falsified data since the dawn of scientific discovery .
The real qualifier is for what reason .
Inventing a completely bogus substance with obviously impossible properties and no proof is accepted , even lauded , when it shores up shaky Newtonian proofs in relatavistic physics , but when a a major corporation pays for it it becomes unacceptable .
The only way to promote scientific integrity is to have private , biased companies fund all scientific research , so bad ideas are shot down by an angry scientific community .
Of course , there is a chronic lack of ability in science to find the bad ideas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists have falsified data since the dawn of scientific discovery.
The real qualifier is for what reason.
Inventing a completely bogus substance with obviously impossible properties and no proof is accepted, even lauded, when it shores up shaky Newtonian proofs in relatavistic physics, but when a a major corporation pays for it it becomes unacceptable.
The only way to promote scientific integrity is to have private, biased companies fund all scientific research, so bad ideas are shot down by an angry scientific community.
Of course, there is a chronic lack of ability in science to find the bad ideas...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149999</id>
	<title>Re:It's quite common</title>
	<author>speculatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1243703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>when I did chemistry at 6th form college (UK term, in US I suppose you'd call it senior high?), I recall doing a practical test in chemistry (titration) where you had some mystery chemicals and a colour change. the experiment was rigged so that it was somewhat like a reaction we'd already seen, but was in fact something quite different. the instructions were to make accurate measurements first, draw the appropriate graphs and *then* speculate on the mystery ingredients.
<br>
<br>
it turned out that we'd never encountered the particular reagents before, and if you did the test accurately you'd have realised it wasn't the old familiar reaction, but had to be something new - the figures would simply not add up. however, a significant number of people rejigged their results to match the known reaction and failed the test totally for two reasons, first being for failing to make accurate measurements and secondly for faking the results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>when I did chemistry at 6th form college ( UK term , in US I suppose you 'd call it senior high ?
) , I recall doing a practical test in chemistry ( titration ) where you had some mystery chemicals and a colour change .
the experiment was rigged so that it was somewhat like a reaction we 'd already seen , but was in fact something quite different .
the instructions were to make accurate measurements first , draw the appropriate graphs and * then * speculate on the mystery ingredients .
it turned out that we 'd never encountered the particular reagents before , and if you did the test accurately you 'd have realised it was n't the old familiar reaction , but had to be something new - the figures would simply not add up .
however , a significant number of people rejigged their results to match the known reaction and failed the test totally for two reasons , first being for failing to make accurate measurements and secondly for faking the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when I did chemistry at 6th form college (UK term, in US I suppose you'd call it senior high?
), I recall doing a practical test in chemistry (titration) where you had some mystery chemicals and a colour change.
the experiment was rigged so that it was somewhat like a reaction we'd already seen, but was in fact something quite different.
the instructions were to make accurate measurements first, draw the appropriate graphs and *then* speculate on the mystery ingredients.
it turned out that we'd never encountered the particular reagents before, and if you did the test accurately you'd have realised it wasn't the old familiar reaction, but had to be something new - the figures would simply not add up.
however, a significant number of people rejigged their results to match the known reaction and failed the test totally for two reasons, first being for failing to make accurate measurements and secondly for faking the results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149663</id>
	<title>It's quite common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243701300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's quite common. A number of my friends are scientists and some have told me they bodge the results now and again to match what they were expecting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite common .
A number of my friends are scientists and some have told me they bodge the results now and again to match what they were expecting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite common.
A number of my friends are scientists and some have told me they bodge the results now and again to match what they were expecting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150369</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Jeff DeMaagd</author>
	<datestamp>1243706940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Regardless, the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective. The institutions and traditions are outdated.</p></div><p>And...?</p><p>I'd be more interested in what you think would fix it rather than another statement that the problem exists, because that's not all that constructive either.  I take it that you are saying that peer review isn't a sufficient means of monitoring and auditing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless , the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective .
The institutions and traditions are outdated.And... ? I 'd be more interested in what you think would fix it rather than another statement that the problem exists , because that 's not all that constructive either .
I take it that you are saying that peer review is n't a sufficient means of monitoring and auditing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless, the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective.
The institutions and traditions are outdated.And...?I'd be more interested in what you think would fix it rather than another statement that the problem exists, because that's not all that constructive either.
I take it that you are saying that peer review isn't a sufficient means of monitoring and auditing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803</id>
	<title>I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is the way that scientific institutions are set up isn't very scientific. There is definitely an attempt at oversight and impartiality but it's very easily corrupted by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of interests and ulterior motives. There aren't nearly enough checks and balances.</p><p>There are many things wrong with the system. Some include:</p><p>- Almost anyone can commission a study, write a book etc. and it's left to the scientific community to place value on that work. Viewed on it's own, without knowledge of the scientific community's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is. For example Wolfram's "New Science" has been largely debunked as mostly a rehash of old ideas (minus accreditation) but it took some time for this to become clear and in the meantime it was popularized in the press as a breakthrough work.</p><p>- The only real form of moderation is whether or not work has made it into a respected journal. Other scientists are then expected to publish corroborating work etc. However, until this is done, it is very difficult to judge the validity of the work, and papers get published that are later discredited. (Cold fusion anyone?) Likewise, work that should be published is often initially rejected. The primary motivation of a lot of the scientific journals is financial gain. In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and doesn't belong in an Internet connected world, yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist's work gets recognized.</p><p>- Speaking of antiquated the institutions, committees and governing bodies of science are about as scientific as a mother's group - it's all professional bitching and posturing for status. Real monkey hierarchy stuff. A lot of decisions get made on the basis of status. It's particularly bad for applied science professions like the medical profession where you hear stories about doctors who should have been prevented from practicing continuing for many years before being disciplined or quietly removed. At the senior level, scientists are often more politician than anything else as then need to secure funding and approval from political bodies. Then you see students who have to work their way up in status being treated like crap "paying their dues" as noted in a story posted a few days ago about a student who died in a chemical fire.</p><p>- Speaking of status, there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large. Some scientific ideas require complex specialized language and university post graduate mathematics to understand, and so require such specialized language. However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication. This is absolutely backward. We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman's overview attached early in the document. Instead, reading a scientific paper if you're not a specialist in the field is an art that you learn when you do post graduate work. If you assess a published article for readability you'll find the statistics you generate tell you that it's dense and difficult to understand. There are journals and subjects that allow simpler and informal<br>language but they are the exception rather than the rule and usually apply as addendum publications for applied fields. (Again I'm thinking of medicine. My own post grad work is in astronomy so I'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine, and when I've tried to read medical papers it's usually been an interesting excercise). Any real simplified content seems to get presented in slide form at conferences and presentations are often a better way of getting an overview.</p><p>I could go on about the shortcomings of various scientific institutions but I won't.</p><p>My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption, with so few checks and balances, and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages, it's no surprise that you end up with science that's much less than perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is the way that scientific institutions are set up is n't very scientific .
There is definitely an attempt at oversight and impartiality but it 's very easily corrupted by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of interests and ulterior motives .
There are n't nearly enough checks and balances.There are many things wrong with the system .
Some include : - Almost anyone can commission a study , write a book etc .
and it 's left to the scientific community to place value on that work .
Viewed on it 's own , without knowledge of the scientific community 's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is .
For example Wolfram 's " New Science " has been largely debunked as mostly a rehash of old ideas ( minus accreditation ) but it took some time for this to become clear and in the meantime it was popularized in the press as a breakthrough work.- The only real form of moderation is whether or not work has made it into a respected journal .
Other scientists are then expected to publish corroborating work etc .
However , until this is done , it is very difficult to judge the validity of the work , and papers get published that are later discredited .
( Cold fusion anyone ?
) Likewise , work that should be published is often initially rejected .
The primary motivation of a lot of the scientific journals is financial gain .
In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and does n't belong in an Internet connected world , yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist 's work gets recognized.- Speaking of antiquated the institutions , committees and governing bodies of science are about as scientific as a mother 's group - it 's all professional bitching and posturing for status .
Real monkey hierarchy stuff .
A lot of decisions get made on the basis of status .
It 's particularly bad for applied science professions like the medical profession where you hear stories about doctors who should have been prevented from practicing continuing for many years before being disciplined or quietly removed .
At the senior level , scientists are often more politician than anything else as then need to secure funding and approval from political bodies .
Then you see students who have to work their way up in status being treated like crap " paying their dues " as noted in a story posted a few days ago about a student who died in a chemical fire.- Speaking of status , there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large .
Some scientific ideas require complex specialized language and university post graduate mathematics to understand , and so require such specialized language .
However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication .
This is absolutely backward .
We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman 's overview attached early in the document .
Instead , reading a scientific paper if you 're not a specialist in the field is an art that you learn when you do post graduate work .
If you assess a published article for readability you 'll find the statistics you generate tell you that it 's dense and difficult to understand .
There are journals and subjects that allow simpler and informallanguage but they are the exception rather than the rule and usually apply as addendum publications for applied fields .
( Again I 'm thinking of medicine .
My own post grad work is in astronomy so I 'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine , and when I 've tried to read medical papers it 's usually been an interesting excercise ) .
Any real simplified content seems to get presented in slide form at conferences and presentations are often a better way of getting an overview.I could go on about the shortcomings of various scientific institutions but I wo n't.My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption , with so few checks and balances , and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages , it 's no surprise that you end up with science that 's much less than perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is the way that scientific institutions are set up isn't very scientific.
There is definitely an attempt at oversight and impartiality but it's very easily corrupted by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of interests and ulterior motives.
There aren't nearly enough checks and balances.There are many things wrong with the system.
Some include:- Almost anyone can commission a study, write a book etc.
and it's left to the scientific community to place value on that work.
Viewed on it's own, without knowledge of the scientific community's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is.
For example Wolfram's "New Science" has been largely debunked as mostly a rehash of old ideas (minus accreditation) but it took some time for this to become clear and in the meantime it was popularized in the press as a breakthrough work.- The only real form of moderation is whether or not work has made it into a respected journal.
Other scientists are then expected to publish corroborating work etc.
However, until this is done, it is very difficult to judge the validity of the work, and papers get published that are later discredited.
(Cold fusion anyone?
) Likewise, work that should be published is often initially rejected.
The primary motivation of a lot of the scientific journals is financial gain.
In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and doesn't belong in an Internet connected world, yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist's work gets recognized.- Speaking of antiquated the institutions, committees and governing bodies of science are about as scientific as a mother's group - it's all professional bitching and posturing for status.
Real monkey hierarchy stuff.
A lot of decisions get made on the basis of status.
It's particularly bad for applied science professions like the medical profession where you hear stories about doctors who should have been prevented from practicing continuing for many years before being disciplined or quietly removed.
At the senior level, scientists are often more politician than anything else as then need to secure funding and approval from political bodies.
Then you see students who have to work their way up in status being treated like crap "paying their dues" as noted in a story posted a few days ago about a student who died in a chemical fire.- Speaking of status, there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large.
Some scientific ideas require complex specialized language and university post graduate mathematics to understand, and so require such specialized language.
However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication.
This is absolutely backward.
We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman's overview attached early in the document.
Instead, reading a scientific paper if you're not a specialist in the field is an art that you learn when you do post graduate work.
If you assess a published article for readability you'll find the statistics you generate tell you that it's dense and difficult to understand.
There are journals and subjects that allow simpler and informallanguage but they are the exception rather than the rule and usually apply as addendum publications for applied fields.
(Again I'm thinking of medicine.
My own post grad work is in astronomy so I'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine, and when I've tried to read medical papers it's usually been an interesting excercise).
Any real simplified content seems to get presented in slide form at conferences and presentations are often a better way of getting an overview.I could go on about the shortcomings of various scientific institutions but I won't.My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption, with so few checks and balances, and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages, it's no surprise that you end up with science that's much less than perfect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28158483</id>
	<title>Pharmaceutical companies set up fake journals</title>
	<author>lsatenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1243787100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been reported that several of the largest pharmaceutical companies setup fake technical journals in which papers written about their new (I ) wonder drugs, are pushed as being utopean. I wont give initials, but judicious search using Google or Yahoo will lead you further information.

When the journal costs a million to setup and distribute, but profits are in the hundred's of millions (or billions), there is a great marketing justification.

Doctors are being bamboozled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been reported that several of the largest pharmaceutical companies setup fake technical journals in which papers written about their new ( I ) wonder drugs , are pushed as being utopean .
I wont give initials , but judicious search using Google or Yahoo will lead you further information .
When the journal costs a million to setup and distribute , but profits are in the hundred 's of millions ( or billions ) , there is a great marketing justification .
Doctors are being bamboozled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been reported that several of the largest pharmaceutical companies setup fake technical journals in which papers written about their new (I ) wonder drugs, are pushed as being utopean.
I wont give initials, but judicious search using Google or Yahoo will lead you further information.
When the journal costs a million to setup and distribute, but profits are in the hundred's of millions (or billions), there is a great marketing justification.
Doctors are being bamboozled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149703</id>
	<title>how does that compare to other profession '?</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1243701660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>corrupt police officer ? corrupt politician ? cooking book finance people ? manager breaking some rules or "making up data" to justify their projects ? And I padd many others. Is it above or below average ? If below average then the reputation is earned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>corrupt police officer ?
corrupt politician ?
cooking book finance people ?
manager breaking some rules or " making up data " to justify their projects ?
And I padd many others .
Is it above or below average ?
If below average then the reputation is earned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>corrupt police officer ?
corrupt politician ?
cooking book finance people ?
manager breaking some rules or "making up data" to justify their projects ?
And I padd many others.
Is it above or below average ?
If below average then the reputation is earned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155749</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Gerzel</author>
	<datestamp>1243707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is WHY science has the peer review process and even after that things are not to be taken as gospel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is WHY science has the peer review process and even after that things are not to be taken as gospel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is WHY science has the peer review process and even after that things are not to be taken as gospel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154721</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>dbrutus</author>
	<datestamp>1243695600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't the cheating, but the tolerance for lax process in the checking system. We don't have anywhere near 1\% of scientists getting caught at fraud. There's something broken with the publishing system if so many can cheat and not get caught.</p><p>Human frailty will always exist. How good you are at catching it is a significant variable that can be controlled. We aren't doing so well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the cheating , but the tolerance for lax process in the checking system .
We do n't have anywhere near 1 \ % of scientists getting caught at fraud .
There 's something broken with the publishing system if so many can cheat and not get caught.Human frailty will always exist .
How good you are at catching it is a significant variable that can be controlled .
We are n't doing so well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the cheating, but the tolerance for lax process in the checking system.
We don't have anywhere near 1\% of scientists getting caught at fraud.
There's something broken with the publishing system if so many can cheat and not get caught.Human frailty will always exist.
How good you are at catching it is a significant variable that can be controlled.
We aren't doing so well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149793</id>
	<title>hell, i did it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i was working for a bullying ar5eh0le who threatened to ruin my PhD chances if i didnt do all this work for him in triplicate in an impossible amount of time with old reagents and second rate kit. guess what. he got his results. but they weren't all from the experiments. i worked for another guy who regularly had pathogens, pathogenic materials and infected tissue in a freezer at a facility with a secure (ie disease-free) animal unit. he didnt give a sh1t and threatened me to keep quiet when i found out. that cost me ajob.</p><p>not all scientists are the sweet honest tweed and pipe types off the telly. some are horrible, selfish wankers. whoc will stop at nothing - N.O.T.H.I.N.G - to further their own careers.  any amateur psychologist could pick them out a mile off. journals can't because all the correspondence is done in writing. i think a psych evaluation should be part of the submission process, i really do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was working for a bullying ar5eh0le who threatened to ruin my PhD chances if i didnt do all this work for him in triplicate in an impossible amount of time with old reagents and second rate kit .
guess what .
he got his results .
but they were n't all from the experiments .
i worked for another guy who regularly had pathogens , pathogenic materials and infected tissue in a freezer at a facility with a secure ( ie disease-free ) animal unit .
he didnt give a sh1t and threatened me to keep quiet when i found out .
that cost me ajob.not all scientists are the sweet honest tweed and pipe types off the telly .
some are horrible , selfish wankers .
whoc will stop at nothing - N.O.T.H.I.N.G - to further their own careers .
any amateur psychologist could pick them out a mile off .
journals ca n't because all the correspondence is done in writing .
i think a psych evaluation should be part of the submission process , i really do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was working for a bullying ar5eh0le who threatened to ruin my PhD chances if i didnt do all this work for him in triplicate in an impossible amount of time with old reagents and second rate kit.
guess what.
he got his results.
but they weren't all from the experiments.
i worked for another guy who regularly had pathogens, pathogenic materials and infected tissue in a freezer at a facility with a secure (ie disease-free) animal unit.
he didnt give a sh1t and threatened me to keep quiet when i found out.
that cost me ajob.not all scientists are the sweet honest tweed and pipe types off the telly.
some are horrible, selfish wankers.
whoc will stop at nothing - N.O.T.H.I.N.G - to further their own careers.
any amateur psychologist could pick them out a mile off.
journals can't because all the correspondence is done in writing.
i think a psych evaluation should be part of the submission process, i really do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28159379</id>
	<title>Re:gray area</title>
	<author>sFurbo</author>
	<datestamp>1243794360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, his result wasn't correct, as can be seen from the Feynmann quote on the wikipedia article you linked to.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , his result was n't correct , as can be seen from the Feynmann quote on the wikipedia article you linked to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, his result wasn't correct, as can be seen from the Feynmann quote on the wikipedia article you linked to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243705140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Scientists are humans too and a job won't change some humans from being cheats.</i></p><p>I see about half a dozen comments along those lines, but giving up and saying "c'est la vie" isn't constructive. Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard. Some are better, some are worse. Regardless, the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective. The institutions and traditions are outdated. We can do better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists are humans too and a job wo n't change some humans from being cheats.I see about half a dozen comments along those lines , but giving up and saying " c'est la vie " is n't constructive .
Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances .
Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard .
Some are better , some are worse .
Regardless , the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective .
The institutions and traditions are outdated .
We can do better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists are humans too and a job won't change some humans from being cheats.I see about half a dozen comments along those lines, but giving up and saying "c'est la vie" isn't constructive.
Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances.
Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.
Some are better, some are worse.
Regardless, the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective.
The institutions and traditions are outdated.
We can do better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149755</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243702080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] by CNN.</p><p>Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks. Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate. Only about 65\% of them supported Obama.</p><p>If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.</p><p>At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">exit-polling data</a> [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.</p><p>Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.</p><p>African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During the election , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin .
See the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] by CNN.Note the voting pattern of Hispanics , Asian-Americans , etc .
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks .
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority .
So , Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate .
Only about 65 \ % of them supported Obama.If African-Americans were not racist , then at most 65 \ % of them would have supported Obama .
At that level of support , McCain would have won the presidential race.At this point , African-American supremacists ( and apologists ) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he ( 1 ) is a member of the Democratic party and ( 2 ) supports its ideals .
That claim is an outright lie .
Look at the exit-polling data [ cnn.com ] for the Democratic primaries .
Consider the case of North Carolina .
Again , about 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton .
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats , and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical .
Yet , 95 \ % of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton .
Why ? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.Here is the bottom line .
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America .
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.African-Americans have established that expressing " racial pride " by voting on the basis of skin color is 100 \ % acceptable .
Neither the " Wall Street Journal " nor the " New York Times " complained about this racist behavior .
Therefore , in future elections , please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color .
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American .
You need not defend your actions in any way .
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today 's moral values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During the election, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc.
These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against non-Blacks.
Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is a non-Black minority.
So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate.
Only about 65\% of them supported Obama.If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65\% of them would have supported Obama.
At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals.
That claim is an outright lie.
Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries.
Consider the case of North Carolina.
Again, about 95\% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton.
Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical.
Yet, 95\% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton.
Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.Here is the bottom line.
Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America.
He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100\% acceptable.
Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior.
Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color.
Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American.
You need not defend your actions in any way.
Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157027</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>Meneguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1243769820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I may add to this thread of discussion, large teams are not necessarily conductive to scrutiny. I know of instances of teams led by big BS writers, which have a large team. The catch here is that in teams in which there is a lot of BS going on there seems to be a lot of changes in the team over time and personnel turnaround time seems to be low.
<br>
My analysis of this kind of situation is that people in teams led a hack/cheat tend to get fed up and just leave, but not report any misconduct because they are afraid of retaliation by said hack. Conversely, teams led by people who do solid research tend to attract and maintain people over the long time.
<br>
So, ultimately, I mean to say that most people doing research are indeed honest and want to do solid and valuable research, since from my experience, (most) honest people tend to abandon ship when they see that they are involved with a cheat. After all, there are not many incentives for becoming a researcher (at least in academia), since we get paid a lot less than working in any industry. Personally, my incentive to be a researcher is to create good research and to interact with people, be them other researchers to bounce ideas or students, who hopefully will look up to me. And this social aspect is, I think, a pretty good deterrent to trying to cheat results, because if one gets caught, all the social profile you worked for years to achieve may come down crashing in a moment.
<br>
I can see why this may be happening a lot in the medical field because there is huge influence being exerted by big pharma on academics, both at the economic level (see the large amounts of funding for new drug patents), and socially, since it is not unheard of from these companies to try to do character assassination on people who refuse to comply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I may add to this thread of discussion , large teams are not necessarily conductive to scrutiny .
I know of instances of teams led by big BS writers , which have a large team .
The catch here is that in teams in which there is a lot of BS going on there seems to be a lot of changes in the team over time and personnel turnaround time seems to be low .
My analysis of this kind of situation is that people in teams led a hack/cheat tend to get fed up and just leave , but not report any misconduct because they are afraid of retaliation by said hack .
Conversely , teams led by people who do solid research tend to attract and maintain people over the long time .
So , ultimately , I mean to say that most people doing research are indeed honest and want to do solid and valuable research , since from my experience , ( most ) honest people tend to abandon ship when they see that they are involved with a cheat .
After all , there are not many incentives for becoming a researcher ( at least in academia ) , since we get paid a lot less than working in any industry .
Personally , my incentive to be a researcher is to create good research and to interact with people , be them other researchers to bounce ideas or students , who hopefully will look up to me .
And this social aspect is , I think , a pretty good deterrent to trying to cheat results , because if one gets caught , all the social profile you worked for years to achieve may come down crashing in a moment .
I can see why this may be happening a lot in the medical field because there is huge influence being exerted by big pharma on academics , both at the economic level ( see the large amounts of funding for new drug patents ) , and socially , since it is not unheard of from these companies to try to do character assassination on people who refuse to comply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I may add to this thread of discussion, large teams are not necessarily conductive to scrutiny.
I know of instances of teams led by big BS writers, which have a large team.
The catch here is that in teams in which there is a lot of BS going on there seems to be a lot of changes in the team over time and personnel turnaround time seems to be low.
My analysis of this kind of situation is that people in teams led a hack/cheat tend to get fed up and just leave, but not report any misconduct because they are afraid of retaliation by said hack.
Conversely, teams led by people who do solid research tend to attract and maintain people over the long time.
So, ultimately, I mean to say that most people doing research are indeed honest and want to do solid and valuable research, since from my experience, (most) honest people tend to abandon ship when they see that they are involved with a cheat.
After all, there are not many incentives for becoming a researcher (at least in academia), since we get paid a lot less than working in any industry.
Personally, my incentive to be a researcher is to create good research and to interact with people, be them other researchers to bounce ideas or students, who hopefully will look up to me.
And this social aspect is, I think, a pretty good deterrent to trying to cheat results, because if one gets caught, all the social profile you worked for years to achieve may come down crashing in a moment.
I can see why this may be happening a lot in the medical field because there is huge influence being exerted by big pharma on academics, both at the economic level (see the large amounts of funding for new drug patents), and socially, since it is not unheard of from these companies to try to do character assassination on people who refuse to comply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149783</id>
	<title>Re:Pure ignorance and clumsiness are more frequent</title>
	<author>SpcCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1243702320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, cheating is another thing. I am aware of people presenting facts technically correct, but in deceitful manners which give the impression the background research is well done. However, scrutinze what was actually done, it falls apart. Yet, what can you do about that. If do you call attention to it, you risk becomining a whiner. And, who wants to be that?</p></div><p>What you can do is read publications with a discriminating eye just the same. If the research is bad, don't believe the conclusions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , cheating is another thing .
I am aware of people presenting facts technically correct , but in deceitful manners which give the impression the background research is well done .
However , scrutinze what was actually done , it falls apart .
Yet , what can you do about that .
If do you call attention to it , you risk becomining a whiner .
And , who wants to be that ? What you can do is read publications with a discriminating eye just the same .
If the research is bad , do n't believe the conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, cheating is another thing.
I am aware of people presenting facts technically correct, but in deceitful manners which give the impression the background research is well done.
However, scrutinze what was actually done, it falls apart.
Yet, what can you do about that.
If do you call attention to it, you risk becomining a whiner.
And, who wants to be that?What you can do is read publications with a discriminating eye just the same.
If the research is bad, don't believe the conclusions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150441</id>
	<title>...Definitely not...</title>
	<author>Damn The Torpedoes</author>
	<datestamp>1243707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The survey percentages given are obviously fabricated</htmltext>
<tokenext>The survey percentages given are obviously fabricated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The survey percentages given are obviously fabricated</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149731</id>
	<title>Yeah...</title>
	<author>dword</author>
	<datestamp>1243701900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and 78\% of the surveys are made up on the spot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and 78 \ % of the surveys are made up on the spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and 78\% of the surveys are made up on the spot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151495</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1243715820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this funny, because over 90\% of wikipedia is totally accurate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Maybe I should be citing it as a source, rather than scientific journals.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this funny , because over 90 \ % of wikipedia is totally accurate .
: PMaybe I should be citing it as a source , rather than scientific journals .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this funny, because over 90\% of wikipedia is totally accurate.
:PMaybe I should be citing it as a source, rather than scientific journals.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155069</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1243700100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh and the fake stem cell guy never had a career to begin with or he would not have had to make shit up. If a programmer can't program no one will employ him it's not a penalty just a declaration of his inability/ stupidity to try a do a job he is unqualified for. What if said programmer was responsible for security software at an American nuke silo and his security programs were fake and communists/ terrorist were able to launch a nuke at Chicago? Would a simple firing be enough?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh and the fake stem cell guy never had a career to begin with or he would not have had to make shit up .
If a programmer ca n't program no one will employ him it 's not a penalty just a declaration of his inability/ stupidity to try a do a job he is unqualified for .
What if said programmer was responsible for security software at an American nuke silo and his security programs were fake and communists/ terrorist were able to launch a nuke at Chicago ?
Would a simple firing be enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh and the fake stem cell guy never had a career to begin with or he would not have had to make shit up.
If a programmer can't program no one will employ him it's not a penalty just a declaration of his inability/ stupidity to try a do a job he is unqualified for.
What if said programmer was responsible for security software at an American nuke silo and his security programs were fake and communists/ terrorist were able to launch a nuke at Chicago?
Would a simple firing be enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28153533</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1243685640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why?  Seriously, why?  What on earth can the "layman" possibly contribute to the process, being - by definition - someone who doesn't understand the subject at hand?  Remember, these are the people who think that "stem cells" are something you get by hacking up small children with knives and that the LHC will destroy the earth.
<br>
 <br>
You think they will be a valuable "check" on the scientific community, if scientists are forced to use simpler words?</p></div><p>Well, for one, isn't knowledge the best remedy for ignorance, and making knowledge more accessible the best remedy for the very problem you state (that non-scientists have no idea what science really is or really does)?</p><p>Aside from that, which could have significant benefits in itself, making knowledge more accessible to someone who's not a trained professional in the field just may mean that some talented amateurs might pick up enough to ask some very good questions. (They will also pick up enough to ask some very stupid questions, that's the nature of any field with amateurs, but usually the insight outweighs the idiocy by a good degree.)</p><p>Those two things aside, it's quite simply pretentious to make things more complex than they have to be in order to be precise. That's just a silly form of looking down your nose at the "little people" and is very childish. Any real scientist would want as many people as possible to be able to understand their work. Even when complexity is required for precision, a less-precise summary can always be presented that gets the main points across, with the full version accessible to those who really need the details.</p><p>Finally, having to put one's work into layman's terms can force one to think about the work at a high level. It's very easy to get into the fascinating details of a project, and not remember to look up every so often to make sure the whole thing is still on track. Having to keep a layman's explanation in mind helps with that.</p><p>Let's turn this around. Putting things in a form that's more readable to a layman may well have some benefits. So what would be the harm, why <i>not</i> do it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Seriously , why ?
What on earth can the " layman " possibly contribute to the process , being - by definition - someone who does n't understand the subject at hand ?
Remember , these are the people who think that " stem cells " are something you get by hacking up small children with knives and that the LHC will destroy the earth .
You think they will be a valuable " check " on the scientific community , if scientists are forced to use simpler words ? Well , for one , is n't knowledge the best remedy for ignorance , and making knowledge more accessible the best remedy for the very problem you state ( that non-scientists have no idea what science really is or really does ) ? Aside from that , which could have significant benefits in itself , making knowledge more accessible to someone who 's not a trained professional in the field just may mean that some talented amateurs might pick up enough to ask some very good questions .
( They will also pick up enough to ask some very stupid questions , that 's the nature of any field with amateurs , but usually the insight outweighs the idiocy by a good degree .
) Those two things aside , it 's quite simply pretentious to make things more complex than they have to be in order to be precise .
That 's just a silly form of looking down your nose at the " little people " and is very childish .
Any real scientist would want as many people as possible to be able to understand their work .
Even when complexity is required for precision , a less-precise summary can always be presented that gets the main points across , with the full version accessible to those who really need the details.Finally , having to put one 's work into layman 's terms can force one to think about the work at a high level .
It 's very easy to get into the fascinating details of a project , and not remember to look up every so often to make sure the whole thing is still on track .
Having to keep a layman 's explanation in mind helps with that.Let 's turn this around .
Putting things in a form that 's more readable to a layman may well have some benefits .
So what would be the harm , why not do it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Seriously, why?
What on earth can the "layman" possibly contribute to the process, being - by definition - someone who doesn't understand the subject at hand?
Remember, these are the people who think that "stem cells" are something you get by hacking up small children with knives and that the LHC will destroy the earth.
You think they will be a valuable "check" on the scientific community, if scientists are forced to use simpler words?Well, for one, isn't knowledge the best remedy for ignorance, and making knowledge more accessible the best remedy for the very problem you state (that non-scientists have no idea what science really is or really does)?Aside from that, which could have significant benefits in itself, making knowledge more accessible to someone who's not a trained professional in the field just may mean that some talented amateurs might pick up enough to ask some very good questions.
(They will also pick up enough to ask some very stupid questions, that's the nature of any field with amateurs, but usually the insight outweighs the idiocy by a good degree.
)Those two things aside, it's quite simply pretentious to make things more complex than they have to be in order to be precise.
That's just a silly form of looking down your nose at the "little people" and is very childish.
Any real scientist would want as many people as possible to be able to understand their work.
Even when complexity is required for precision, a less-precise summary can always be presented that gets the main points across, with the full version accessible to those who really need the details.Finally, having to put one's work into layman's terms can force one to think about the work at a high level.
It's very easy to get into the fascinating details of a project, and not remember to look up every so often to make sure the whole thing is still on track.
Having to keep a layman's explanation in mind helps with that.Let's turn this around.
Putting things in a form that's more readable to a layman may well have some benefits.
So what would be the harm, why not do it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157175</id>
	<title>Re:Of course they're not all honest</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1243772280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't giving up.  It is making a realization that Scientists are human, they are effected by stresses, desire, ambition, and all the other factors that effect everyone else.  The problem is that the culture makes scientists seem like objective and truthful people who are somehow better then the rest of humanity. Even the Scientists themselves believe in this. This cultural mind set has created the rash of Scientific Misconduct.</p><p>The system for advancement and recognition for scientist are for the most part based on that these people are some how better then everyone else.  Even the peer review system it assumes that all the scientists will objectively look at all the problems and give honest feedback.  That is not the case though, if there is a popular theory going around and say a "rogue" scientist found a disprove to the theory. The peer review may just rip it to shreds for various human reasons.  1. You need to change your college lecture. 2. It disproves your own work. 3. If you are wrong too then you get a bad name. 4. All the smarter scientists are following the theory...</p><p>When you make rules to prevent such things you need to take the fact that everyone is human into consideration and adjust the rules to minimize such occurrences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't giving up .
It is making a realization that Scientists are human , they are effected by stresses , desire , ambition , and all the other factors that effect everyone else .
The problem is that the culture makes scientists seem like objective and truthful people who are somehow better then the rest of humanity .
Even the Scientists themselves believe in this .
This cultural mind set has created the rash of Scientific Misconduct.The system for advancement and recognition for scientist are for the most part based on that these people are some how better then everyone else .
Even the peer review system it assumes that all the scientists will objectively look at all the problems and give honest feedback .
That is not the case though , if there is a popular theory going around and say a " rogue " scientist found a disprove to the theory .
The peer review may just rip it to shreds for various human reasons .
1. You need to change your college lecture .
2. It disproves your own work .
3. If you are wrong too then you get a bad name .
4. All the smarter scientists are following the theory...When you make rules to prevent such things you need to take the fact that everyone is human into consideration and adjust the rules to minimize such occurrences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't giving up.
It is making a realization that Scientists are human, they are effected by stresses, desire, ambition, and all the other factors that effect everyone else.
The problem is that the culture makes scientists seem like objective and truthful people who are somehow better then the rest of humanity.
Even the Scientists themselves believe in this.
This cultural mind set has created the rash of Scientific Misconduct.The system for advancement and recognition for scientist are for the most part based on that these people are some how better then everyone else.
Even the peer review system it assumes that all the scientists will objectively look at all the problems and give honest feedback.
That is not the case though, if there is a popular theory going around and say a "rogue" scientist found a disprove to the theory.
The peer review may just rip it to shreds for various human reasons.
1. You need to change your college lecture.
2. It disproves your own work.
3. If you are wrong too then you get a bad name.
4. All the smarter scientists are following the theory...When you make rules to prevent such things you need to take the fact that everyone is human into consideration and adjust the rules to minimize such occurrences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28170227</id>
	<title>Re:not surprising</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1243880820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Disclaimer: I'm a scientist.[...]</p><p>There is 2 ways to stay in the system: either you are lucky or you lie like hell.</p></div><p>You have managed to stay in the system, haven't you?  Which is your method?  I can guess, since luck is by definition unlikely...</p><p>(I know; I know: deconstruction is an easy game...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm a scientist. [ .. .
] There is 2 ways to stay in the system : either you are lucky or you lie like hell.You have managed to stay in the system , have n't you ?
Which is your method ?
I can guess , since luck is by definition unlikely... ( I know ; I know : deconstruction is an easy game... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm a scientist.[...
]There is 2 ways to stay in the system: either you are lucky or you lie like hell.You have managed to stay in the system, haven't you?
Which is your method?
I can guess, since luck is by definition unlikely...(I know; I know: deconstruction is an easy game...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154005</id>
	<title>Validation Problems</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1243688940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If one does not show the validity of (many different) measurement instruments such as the surveys (re-)examined in TFA, it is fairly impossible to draw any valid conclusions in any meta-analysis. The alternative is to assume the validity of the originals. In this case, we are to assume that that the responses provided by people who are saying that they have not been honest are true, as well as assuming that the person(s) who created the instruments and/or reports derived from them and not just fabricating the results in part or in whole. And now with this meta-analysis we have to add another layer of unsupportable assumption of validity. Cripes, what a mess. But once you ask the question you have to ask it all the way down, and the question has to be asked.</p><p>One solution is to do independent replication. But for replications to be used to test the original results, enough of them have to be done to give an adequate statistical test of the comparison. It's tough enough just to get a decent experiment funded -- getting a replication funded is nigh impossible. And multiple replications? Forget it. Plus, in the publish-or-perish climate, damn few are willing to devote their time and energy to extensive work that gets little to no publishing credit. It's amazing we get anything done, much less further the progress of the science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If one does not show the validity of ( many different ) measurement instruments such as the surveys ( re- ) examined in TFA , it is fairly impossible to draw any valid conclusions in any meta-analysis .
The alternative is to assume the validity of the originals .
In this case , we are to assume that that the responses provided by people who are saying that they have not been honest are true , as well as assuming that the person ( s ) who created the instruments and/or reports derived from them and not just fabricating the results in part or in whole .
And now with this meta-analysis we have to add another layer of unsupportable assumption of validity .
Cripes , what a mess .
But once you ask the question you have to ask it all the way down , and the question has to be asked.One solution is to do independent replication .
But for replications to be used to test the original results , enough of them have to be done to give an adequate statistical test of the comparison .
It 's tough enough just to get a decent experiment funded -- getting a replication funded is nigh impossible .
And multiple replications ?
Forget it .
Plus , in the publish-or-perish climate , damn few are willing to devote their time and energy to extensive work that gets little to no publishing credit .
It 's amazing we get anything done , much less further the progress of the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one does not show the validity of (many different) measurement instruments such as the surveys (re-)examined in TFA, it is fairly impossible to draw any valid conclusions in any meta-analysis.
The alternative is to assume the validity of the originals.
In this case, we are to assume that that the responses provided by people who are saying that they have not been honest are true, as well as assuming that the person(s) who created the instruments and/or reports derived from them and not just fabricating the results in part or in whole.
And now with this meta-analysis we have to add another layer of unsupportable assumption of validity.
Cripes, what a mess.
But once you ask the question you have to ask it all the way down, and the question has to be asked.One solution is to do independent replication.
But for replications to be used to test the original results, enough of them have to be done to give an adequate statistical test of the comparison.
It's tough enough just to get a decent experiment funded -- getting a replication funded is nigh impossible.
And multiple replications?
Forget it.
Plus, in the publish-or-perish climate, damn few are willing to devote their time and energy to extensive work that gets little to no publishing credit.
It's amazing we get anything done, much less further the progress of the science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675</id>
	<title>Re:I'd guess very very common</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1243709580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Almost anyone can commission a study, write a book etc. and it's left to the scientific community to place value on that work. Viewed on it's own, without knowledge of the scientific community's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is.</i>
<br> <br>
Well, yeah, if you are not qualified to judge the validity of a scientific work, you will not be able to judge it.  What do you propose instead? That people <i>not</i> be allowed to publish studies and books?
<br> <br>
<i>In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and doesn't belong in an <b>Internet connected world</b>, yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist's work gets recognized.</i>
<br> <br>
You've answered your own question there: the value of the publishing system is no longer the <i>dissemination</i> of publications (ie anyone can just dump their research on the internet now) but the review process and the reputation those journals have built up.  As imperfect as the peer review process is, I haven't really seen anyone propose anything better.  This is novel research, <i>no one</i> can tell you with absolute certainty whether a paper is correct or worth publishing; the best you can do is let a couple of different people in the same field whack at it for a bit and see if it passes the smell test.  Of course that means that some (in fact, quite a few) undeserving papers will be published, and deserving ones rejected, but again, what's the alternative?
<br> <br>
<i>Speaking of status, there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication.</i>
<br> <br>
This is utterly bogus.  I think it's one of those things that people just like repeating because it sounds like an easy win.  Maybe it's different in other fields, but I have no problems reading biomedical literature, and I am not a trained scientist.
<br> <br>
<i>We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman's overview attached early in the document.</i>
<br> <br>
Why?  Seriously, why?  What on earth can the "layman" possibly contribute to the process, being - by definition - someone who doesn't understand the subject at hand?  Remember, these are the people who think that "stem cells" are something you get by hacking up small children with knives and that the LHC will destroy the earth.
<br> <br>
You think they will be a valuable "check" on the scientific community, if scientists are forced to use simpler words?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost anyone can commission a study , write a book etc .
and it 's left to the scientific community to place value on that work .
Viewed on it 's own , without knowledge of the scientific community 's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is .
Well , yeah , if you are not qualified to judge the validity of a scientific work , you will not be able to judge it .
What do you propose instead ?
That people not be allowed to publish studies and books ?
In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and does n't belong in an Internet connected world , yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist 's work gets recognized .
You 've answered your own question there : the value of the publishing system is no longer the dissemination of publications ( ie anyone can just dump their research on the internet now ) but the review process and the reputation those journals have built up .
As imperfect as the peer review process is , I have n't really seen anyone propose anything better .
This is novel research , no one can tell you with absolute certainty whether a paper is correct or worth publishing ; the best you can do is let a couple of different people in the same field whack at it for a bit and see if it passes the smell test .
Of course that means that some ( in fact , quite a few ) undeserving papers will be published , and deserving ones rejected , but again , what 's the alternative ?
Speaking of status , there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large .
... However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication .
This is utterly bogus .
I think it 's one of those things that people just like repeating because it sounds like an easy win .
Maybe it 's different in other fields , but I have no problems reading biomedical literature , and I am not a trained scientist .
We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman 's overview attached early in the document .
Why ? Seriously , why ?
What on earth can the " layman " possibly contribute to the process , being - by definition - someone who does n't understand the subject at hand ?
Remember , these are the people who think that " stem cells " are something you get by hacking up small children with knives and that the LHC will destroy the earth .
You think they will be a valuable " check " on the scientific community , if scientists are forced to use simpler words ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost anyone can commission a study, write a book etc.
and it's left to the scientific community to place value on that work.
Viewed on it's own, without knowledge of the scientific community's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is.
Well, yeah, if you are not qualified to judge the validity of a scientific work, you will not be able to judge it.
What do you propose instead?
That people not be allowed to publish studies and books?
In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and doesn't belong in an Internet connected world, yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist's work gets recognized.
You've answered your own question there: the value of the publishing system is no longer the dissemination of publications (ie anyone can just dump their research on the internet now) but the review process and the reputation those journals have built up.
As imperfect as the peer review process is, I haven't really seen anyone propose anything better.
This is novel research, no one can tell you with absolute certainty whether a paper is correct or worth publishing; the best you can do is let a couple of different people in the same field whack at it for a bit and see if it passes the smell test.
Of course that means that some (in fact, quite a few) undeserving papers will be published, and deserving ones rejected, but again, what's the alternative?
Speaking of status, there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large.
... However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication.
This is utterly bogus.
I think it's one of those things that people just like repeating because it sounds like an easy win.
Maybe it's different in other fields, but I have no problems reading biomedical literature, and I am not a trained scientist.
We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman's overview attached early in the document.
Why?  Seriously, why?
What on earth can the "layman" possibly contribute to the process, being - by definition - someone who doesn't understand the subject at hand?
Remember, these are the people who think that "stem cells" are something you get by hacking up small children with knives and that the LHC will destroy the earth.
You think they will be a valuable "check" on the scientific community, if scientists are forced to use simpler words?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152015</id>
	<title>Re:Time to man up dude!</title>
	<author>Nathan Boley</author>
	<datestamp>1243675680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>you actually have to treat your scientist well.</i> </p></div><p>You talk about working two years on an experiment to find out your hypothesis is wrong?  Cry me a river.  There's tons of people that work for two years, five years, ten years, pitching in to build up a business, and then they'll get bumped out on the street because some jackass guy in bufukistan can do it cheaper.</p></div><p>
I think that you are missing the gp's point.<br>
<br>
ASAICT he is saying that good research jobs *are* cushy ( which they should be - it's important to reward competent researchers ) but that we dont reward good research properly.<br>
<br>
Working 2 years and producing a strong negative result is good science, but it doesnt get you published in a good journal. So, when you embark on a two year project as a post doc to test a hypothesis and get a negative result, what do you do? Get another post doc, and be severely underpaid for another 2 years? Leave science altogether? Or fabricate results. None of those are good options for a good researcher and, until we as a society start rewarding people for good science and not just exciting results, we will continue to have people inflating the excitement of their work.<br>
<br>
As far as your analogy goes, I think it would be better to say that someone works 2, 5, 10 years to develop a *profitable* business and then be kicked out on the street when someone else develops a less profitable business. Does that happen? Probably, but I'll bet that it's pretty rare.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you actually have to treat your scientist well .
You talk about working two years on an experiment to find out your hypothesis is wrong ?
Cry me a river .
There 's tons of people that work for two years , five years , ten years , pitching in to build up a business , and then they 'll get bumped out on the street because some jackass guy in bufukistan can do it cheaper .
I think that you are missing the gp 's point .
ASAICT he is saying that good research jobs * are * cushy ( which they should be - it 's important to reward competent researchers ) but that we dont reward good research properly .
Working 2 years and producing a strong negative result is good science , but it doesnt get you published in a good journal .
So , when you embark on a two year project as a post doc to test a hypothesis and get a negative result , what do you do ?
Get another post doc , and be severely underpaid for another 2 years ?
Leave science altogether ?
Or fabricate results .
None of those are good options for a good researcher and , until we as a society start rewarding people for good science and not just exciting results , we will continue to have people inflating the excitement of their work .
As far as your analogy goes , I think it would be better to say that someone works 2 , 5 , 10 years to develop a * profitable * business and then be kicked out on the street when someone else develops a less profitable business .
Does that happen ?
Probably , but I 'll bet that it 's pretty rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> you actually have to treat your scientist well.
You talk about working two years on an experiment to find out your hypothesis is wrong?
Cry me a river.
There's tons of people that work for two years, five years, ten years, pitching in to build up a business, and then they'll get bumped out on the street because some jackass guy in bufukistan can do it cheaper.
I think that you are missing the gp's point.
ASAICT he is saying that good research jobs *are* cushy ( which they should be - it's important to reward competent researchers ) but that we dont reward good research properly.
Working 2 years and producing a strong negative result is good science, but it doesnt get you published in a good journal.
So, when you embark on a two year project as a post doc to test a hypothesis and get a negative result, what do you do?
Get another post doc, and be severely underpaid for another 2 years?
Leave science altogether?
Or fabricate results.
None of those are good options for a good researcher and, until we as a society start rewarding people for good science and not just exciting results, we will continue to have people inflating the excitement of their work.
As far as your analogy goes, I think it would be better to say that someone works 2, 5, 10 years to develop a *profitable* business and then be kicked out on the street when someone else develops a less profitable business.
Does that happen?
Probably, but I'll bet that it's pretty rare.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151783</id>
	<title>Re:It's quite common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243674360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150789</id>
	<title>Missed one statistic</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1243710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many researchers are having sex with the lab chimps?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many researchers are having sex with the lab chimps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many researchers are having sex with the lab chimps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28165761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28153533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28170227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28159379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28159339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_30_147221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28159379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28170227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149755
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149985
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150423
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28154721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28165761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152999
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150353
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28151563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28149803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28153533
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28155177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28159339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28157071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_30_147221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28152629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_30_147221.28150829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
