Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4379457.stm

Sponsors 'manipulate' scientists
By Melissa Jackson
BBC News education reporter

One in 10 research scientists is under pressure to tailor findings to suit the work's sponsor, a survey reveals.

Women are more likely to be targeted than men, according to the research, carried out by two unions.

Unions say the findings were "extremely worrying" and called for research to be properly financed, and for an end to fixed-term contracts for scientists.

The Royal Society, the UK's national academy of science, is drawing up guidelines to combat the problem.

More than 10% of scientists have been asked by their commercial backer to tailor their research conclusions to meet the sponsor's requirements, according to the survey of university and government laboratories.

Research, carried out jointly by the Association of University Teachers (AUT) and the public service union Prospect, found that women were under even greater pressure.

However, most (84.5%) of the 358 respondents (58% male and 38% female) said they had never been asked by a sponsor to skew their research.

A total of 7.9% of those who took part in the online poll said they had been asked in general terms to tailor their conclusions to the funder's preferred outcome.

A further 1.2% of the total said they were asked to tailor their results so that they might obtain further contracts, and another 1.7% said they had been discouraged from publishing their findings by their backer.

When the figures were broken down, 11.5% of women (compared to 6% of men) said they had been asked to tailor conclusions to suit their sponsor's preferred outcome; 1.5% of women (compared to 1% of men) were asked to do so to obtain further contracts and 2.3% of women (compared to 1.5% of men) had been discouraged from publishing their findings.

Contract culture

Prospect Head of Research and Specialist Services Sue Ferns says the findings reinforced union concerns.

"Given that all the survey's respondents considered that their key role was to provide impartial and objective advice, any evidence to suggest some members feel under pressure to modify their results is extremely worrying.

"Prospect has been arguing for some years that the contract culture is a real barrier to developing a long-term strategic approach to science, and it is disappointing that our warnings over the dangers of commercialisation and loss of independence are still going unheeded in some quarters.

"Any request to falsify results brings science into disrepute, threatens the integrity of scientific advice to government and damages public trust in government itself.

"Science, above all else, is about a pursuit for the truth."

An AUT spokesman said: "These findings are worrying and indicate a possible problem when research projects involve some commercial money.

"The fact that many researchers are also on fixed-term contracts and whose continued employment also relies on the funding of the research is not good for those staff, or for the long-term future of British research.

"One message we think government and employers should take from this is to end the practice of fixed-term contracts and properly finance research."

The Royal Society is equally concerned about the survey results.

Sir Patrick Bateson, chair of the Royal Society working group on best practice in communicating research results said: "It is clear that some researchers are influenced by their affiliations, be they to funders, sponsors or employers, when carrying out or reporting their work.

"In many cases these biases are introduced unknowingly, but can be avoided if researchers become more aware of the potential problems.

"There are also occasions when biases, for instance on the selection of evidence, are deliberate, and such practices are clearly undesirable.

"The Royal Society will shortly be publishing recommendations to overcome some of the problems of affiliation bias when research results are communicated to the public."

The survey looked at other issues relating to scientists' work, including job satisfaction and volume of work.

========================================

It's great to see this important subject getting an airing.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The TRL and IPCC come to mind.

What isn't mentioned is the number who will, of their own accord, produce results which will put them in a favourable position for future funding.
After all, who wants to be out of work?

Cheers
Peter

I'm amazed that the figure is so low

TBH, I would have thought most research - particularly that which is funded by commercial organisations or public bodies - is designed to prove a particular hypothesis. If it fails to do so, then it is likely to be filed away and forgotten.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I may be cynical, but I'm really amazed that so many admitted to it.

Cheers
Peter

Absolutely. And it's a self reporting poll. I quite sure scientists aren't too keen on admitting that they are slanting their work. Clearly this will lead to a high level of underreporting. Maybe most of those who said 'yes' are the percentage who object - the slanters said 'no'.

But I reckon the big factor is that a great deal of science has a genuinely unbiased intention - maybe as much as 80%. So when we look instead at politically or commercially sensitive work the level of blackmail will be far far higher.

We should conclude that blackmail is approaching universal levels in the sensitive work. Isn't it scary?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think it depends largely on what research is being done.
For example, pharmaceutical research is likely to be rigorous - they do want accurate and reliable research results. (nobody wants another thalidomide episode)
On the other hand, when it comes to things like global warming it's completely different. Many of its fiercest critics are retired professors, who no longer have careers to protect.

Cheers
Peter

read a report a year or so ago, carried out by a University on the effectivness of active vehicle speed limiting. I said it would reduce casualties by 30%.

The research was funded by an electronics manufacturer that was going to market the technology...impartial, I think not...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills