Christian Science Monitor: Fraud in scientific research: It happens, and cases are on the rise

4 Oct

The Christian Science Monitor has an article out today: Fraud in scientific research: It happens, and cases are on the rise

Of 2,000 retractions of published scientific papers since 1977, 866 were because of fraud, a new study finds. Another 201 were plagiarized. But it’s hard to know if more scientists are cheating, or if detection is simply better.

Is it a real increase, or just better awareness…

Who is their prime example of science fraud? I’m sure you’ve guessed it: Andrew Wakefield. Ironically, on the day when Mr. Wakefield is giving a faux press conference in a public park, the Monitor uses a photo from Mr. Wakefield’s public park appearance during a past AutismOne convention:

Why use Mr. Wakefield as the example? Many reasons come to mind, but the fact that he is probably the most publicly recognizable that the Monitor could have chosen. Also, the Monitor states:

One of the most high-profile examples involved the issue of childhood immunizations.

That paper, which the PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] study identifies as the most widely cited retracted work, cited research purported to uncover a link between autism and vaccines given to children. The work was published in 1998 in the British medical journal Lancet. Subsequent studies reportedly indicated that the data were fraudulent. Meanwhile, Britain’s General Medical Council stripped the study’s author, Andrew Wakefield, of his status as a “registered medical practitioner” for misconduct after investigating his research effort.

So Mr. Wakefield has the dubious distinction of having written the most cited retracted work. He’s the best at something.

By Matt Carey

2 Responses to “Christian Science Monitor: Fraud in scientific research: It happens, and cases are on the rise”

  1. Science Mom October 5, 2012 at 01:00 #

    I guess we should be eating crow right now because hey, Wakefield’s number one.

  2. Sullivan (Matt Carey) October 5, 2012 at 03:12 #


    I was serious when I wrote that using “developmentally disabled” was highly insulting. Take your bigotry elsewhere. I am not approving your comment. Even though I am sure a number of people would enjoy pointing out how ridiculous it is.

Leave a Reply to Science Mom Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: