Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
14 March 2009
Like you, I’ve developed a sneaking respect for all the fun and interesting tricks a person can use to distort the scientific evidence, so Dr Scott S Reuben is a double scumbag: this week, in the biggest fraud case from recent medical history, he has been caught out, rather unimaginatively, just fabricating his data.
How did he get away with it?
Firstly, if you’re planning a career in scientific fraud, then medicine is an excellent place to start. Findings in complex biological systems – like “people” – are often contradictory and difficult to replicate, so you could easily advance your career and never get caught.
And fraud is not so unusual, depending on where you draw the line. In 2005 the journal Nature published an anonymous survey of 3247 scientists: 0.3% admitted they had falsified research data at some point in their careers, in acts of outright fraud; but more interestingly, 6% admitted failing to present data if it contradicted their previous research.
They are not alone. Robert Millikan, to take just one example, won a Nobel prize in 1923 after demonstrating that electricity comes in discrete units (electrons) with his oil drop experiment. Millikan was mid-career – the peak period for fraud – and fairly unknown. In his famous paper from Physical Review he said: “this is not a selected group of drops but represents all of the drops experimented on during 60 consecutive days”.
That was untrue: in the paper there were 58 droplets, but in the notebooks there are 175, annotated with phrases like “publish this beautiful one” and “agreement poor, will not work out”. Chillingly, there is a continuum between this naughtiness, and lots of apparently innocent research activity: what should you do with the outliers on the graph? When you drop something on the floor? When the run on the machine was probably contaminated?
Dr Reuben was at the other end of the scale. He simply never conducted various clinical trials he wrote about for ten years. In some cases he didn’t even pretend to get approval to conduct studies on patients, but just charged ahead and invented the results all the same.
The details haven’t come out yet – investigators have asked various academic journals to formally withdraw at least 21 studies – but fabrication is often easier to spot than selective editing, and some people have argued for various fraud detection tools to be used more commonly by academic journals.
The human brain is a fairly bad random number generator, for example, and simple frauds have often been uncovered by forensic statisticians looking at last digit frequency: if you’re pencilling numbers into a column at random, you might have a bit of an unconscious preference for the number 7. And a more interesting version of this pattern spotting applies to the lead digits further to the left in a number, which should conform to the Benford Distribution: a mathematical formalisation of the common sense observation that 1 is more common than 9 in these positions, if you’re measuring stuff.
Fine, you might say: I’ll use a random number generator. But here you run into the problem of telltale uniformity in your randomness. Jan Hendrik Schön co-authored roughly one paper every week in 2001, but his results were too accurate. Eventually someone noticed that two studies had the same amount of “noise”, and it turned out that many of his experimental results had been generated by computer, using the very equations they were supposed to be checking, with supposedly realistic random variation built into the model.
But for all our joy at mischief, we should remember that fraud has consequences. Faking the coin can retard progress, and it can waste the time of big thinkers. Arthur Smith Woodward, one of the 20th century’s greatest paleontologists, burned valuable life at Piltdown every year until he died, trying to find more remains to match the fraudulent Piltdown Man.
And in medicine, data isn’t an arbitrary or abstract thing: Reuben’s work examined the best way to manage pain after operations, and he provided evidence that non-opiate medications are equally effective. Now that field is in turmoil. And pain really matters.
References:
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/health/research/11pain.html?_r=2
www.anesthesiologynews.com/index.asp?ses=ogst§ion_id=3&show=dept&article_id=12634
www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118500359/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 18, 2009 at 3:20 am
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxlEVskbuk
skip bbc link {posted above} ~ if you wish
‘it’s up peeps’
fill up upon u tube education
check it out
may make more scattah sense
loveUP
bb1980 said,
March 19, 2009 at 12:24 am
Jesus wept….its like being trapped in lift with a third rate adolescent poet. Is the above poster really or some odd joke ?
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 1:38 am
re: conflict
only a foolish or fraud man of god would refute logic pure maths and critical falsification etc?
only a foolish or fraud scientist would deny god?
spooky is
A DOGMATIC SCIENTIST THAT ~LIKE MANY THAT FOLLOW FALSE DOCTRINES~
cannot sea true ‘g{o}od’
deny the obvious
you only have to see the tearing down humor on bad science sight to see how the gang [can] pick upon the maverick
yet it always the maverick that gentetics let survive? 🙂
and are the reason for all of man~kind
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 1:44 am
re
jokes
be very very careful………….
re
the above post is exactly as written for a really interesting debate over on guardian website – re – sexual evolution – w*nkers etc including
but though you will need to read every post to overstand all i posted there {if they allow it up – as i am overstandably being sensored now – even though i holdin back :)} and possibly hear{here}
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 1:47 am
mirror mirror what do we sea in psychology bb
lift i up in trinity 3
rate thee highly highly that thee cannot yet sea clearly
clearly?
love we
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 2:00 am
i have great respect that
as yet
no posts {of this poster} have here been deleted
i repeat it
HEAR
BEN – BIG UP
i bow down
this is good
NATURE
this will be one thing i cannot fault your experimental practice UPon
when i stalk you (if i have to):)
TO~i~let diss~able GO
🙂
YOU ARE DEEP MY BROTHER
reeeeeeeeeeeSPEC’
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 4:08 am
Re
45
DHR said,
March 17, 2009 at 3:14 am
SEE ABOVE i.e. post 45
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESPEC’
NAILED IT
hats off
and i have
[hidden in shame]
as you {imply}say a heck of a {bunch of em}issue{s}
🙂
one of{as} many 4 sure
equal and more{including} ~2~ yours
i give thanks
clear post
that there are some deep ethical issues out there THAT NEED AIRING – IN GOOD FAITH
IS BIG ISSUE – THE ISSUE – FOUNDATION OF A SOCIETY THAT ITS ICON DEALS {OR IN PLACEBO TRIES TO ~ is seen to by bright youths at least andor = terrorists anorexics and more}
ben is our only icon of power right now
HOPE IS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
more power 2 yous
dear ben
and
dear dhr
may your god blesss
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 4:24 am
apologies ~~~
they did not allow the deep analysis
on ‘sexsual evolution’ column
email
good@gmx.co.uk
if you want a copy summary
of all three pages of comment
or part{realistically – rationally speaking}
which you will need to read in full
Martin said,
March 19, 2009 at 4:34 am
It’s like English, only not.
Ethics, if you really are posting genuine posts please try and make your posts clearer; at the moment you make less sense than a stunned haddock.
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 4:34 am
32. Diversity said,
March 15, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Be tolerant of your teachers: you may find you have to learn through teaching in the future.
###############################################
hats of generally
and this closing line
very yin yang
very eastern
BALANCED
SEEEEN
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 4:44 am
🙂
Martin said,
March 19, 2009 at 4:34 am
It’s like English, only not.
Ethics, if you really are posting genuine posts please try and make your posts clearer; at the moment you make less sense than a stunned haddock.
:)))
YOU IS CLOSE BUT RACIST
🙂
AND SEE THE NEWS CLIP WHERE THE GIRLS TRY AND EXPLAIN WHY SANDSKRIT SCRIPT IS SO GOOD FOR TO BE in {and most are already doing science music english french some asia language etc etc – are you the same – or very focused fishy scientist} – IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO EXPLAIN – BUT THEY TRY
🙂
ps hit the link to u tube?
yet?
errrr?
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 5:11 am
mirror mirror
martin brother
oh HE…….
{that which the data appears to show is a dumb stunned haddock scattah bait
{latest paradym – cite: see above for others – as i cant make sense of what or who i am any more:) }}
………is JUST A TIDDLER white~in IN SHARKS NOVELITY SUIT baskin AND VERY VERY STUNNED had~STING~dock SENT DOWN NEW LEAF searchin
🙂
i agree
i guess i better say this
b4 someoone else doth
~so we can get the debate movin
~and as it cometh 2 i mind
mad!
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 5:13 am
re ~ insult i self 1st
dunno about baskin shark ~ more like basket case scientist
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 5:44 am
I COULD GO ON IT SOO TIRESOME
LITTLE BOYS LOVE IT THOUGH
dunno about stunned haddock
dumb flounder ring
may be
he k{no} pie~ranna
etc etc etc
yawn
i think you’ll find i [it] is a bit more complex than that
and simple
🙂
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 5:58 am
btw
a thought
one or two bytes
~a nibble~
to ease you back in
I thought we scientists were curious
and creative
creatures
survival drive maladaptive?
and all that
poke around ask deep questions solve riddles etc
like to be falsified
I must be wrong – back of class
but hang on ~ i look at ben
& bow down
is it just the just or unjust followers of a cult that are out of water p~sueduko all they k{no}
hmmmmmm
fishy inflection mi feel
cruel
one wonders
have they read every post in one flow
and the critical thesis{dogma} scattah data article
are they bringing to bare all they k{no}
less muddled said,
March 19, 2009 at 6:59 am
For some people, you need to point out the errors in their statistical analysis to make them look like idiots.
For others, you need to point out their questionable ethics, or hidden agenda, and then make them look like idiots.
And then there are those who need nothing more than an open comments section, and they will do the rest themselves.
Still, at least it is laid out like really bad poetry from an Open Mic night at the local pub.
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:13 am
i think you’ll find hidden agenda is close sir
as stated
{but it not as simple as your hate implies}
what is yours
less muddle or more
well done
but what is good?
for some no hate at all
point your sword elsewhere
spot less love
please
make a unity not bullet point someone
you feel what i sayin and dare not challenge it?
the muddle is what i trying to point at with
you
you cant spot one simngle point i have made
you must be dull today child
poet scientist – what da differnce – open mic – yes – pub no prob not – that’ll ne a pub lickin you?
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:22 am
lay out – design then?
a plan?
you mean?
not conscious stream?
web
brainstorming etc like mit
but totaly your you
structure
convention
form
etc
dogma
arrogance
no delve – not worth it???
please show the way – i know nothing but love
then
4 scientist laid out with really hateful sarcasm is the lowest defence of wit?
i claim no true specialisation – true
i give you a run for your money
but as the form here is bullying
i worry of childs
and do not wonder that so many women stay away
i no poet poo it
i a po~meme errrrrrr re face
not poker point like some do
are you worried your child and you can make more sense than you???
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:23 am
quick hide your results unless the gang agree
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:27 am
the need to hide~~~~~~~~~
now translate my feelings
into abuse[‘world’], science{‘pure’&’imaginary’&’applied’} and society
we 2
need a writer tagged less abusive muddle
i feel
i must hide till then
in shame?
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:32 am
March 19, 2009 at 6:59 am
For some people, you need to point out the errors in their statistical analysis to make them look like idiots.
YES BUT IT WONT HELP
IT NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT
I TRIED IT
For others, you need to point out their questionable ethics, or hidden agenda, and then make them look like idiots.
YEH DITTO LAST SET OF FLAMIN CAPITALS
And then there are those who need nothing more than an open comments section, and they will do the rest themselves.
MIRROR MIRROR
FALL ON SAME SWOED
Still, at least it is laid out like really bad poetry from an Open Mic night at the local pub.
AND THIS IS QUALITY CON~TROLLER FAT
SURRRRRRRRRFsir
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:49 am
rather would along with the issues please?
but
is anyone tryin to truely model us?
or are insults more fun
am i a scumbag then
am i as bad as the rest
yet i tell no lies
i make no claim
false nasty or other wise
vien
like you
i come to reveal
relieve all our pain
pain??????????
the chapp above called
“jesus wept” ~ not sure which post
or did they check the link to u tube already
less muddled?
oh they know they have met my sort
b4
assume? and sketch in the curve
ball…………..x
will others do better
please
discuss the issues {and dynamics} not personality labeling strings of insanity
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 7:58 am
less muddled said,
March 19, 2009 at 6:59 am
And then there are those who need nothing more than an open comments section, and they will do the rest themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
classy:
can anyone spot why a posting saying this is CLEARLY A FALSE PARADYM
OXYMORON GOOD N PROPER
then
less muddled said,
March 19, 2009 at 6:59 am
Still, at least it is laid out like really bad poetry from an Open Mic night at the local pub.
what???
{especially as the line above it covered it ~ or not?}
and would that be a bod thing
alcohol i guess hmm i agree
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 8:12 am
less muddled said,
March 19, 2009 at 6:59 am
Still, at least it is laid out like really bad poetry from an Open Mic night at the local pub.
THIS IS CLOSE – I ADMIT – IN POSITIVITY MODE
IN THAT I IS ANCIENT TRUTH ORAL
COMMUNITY – TRIBE
WRITTEN I BECOME MUDDLED MORE SO
you cannot write love down
DISCUSS
Martin said,
March 19, 2009 at 11:10 pm
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 8:12 am
“you cannot write love down
DISCUSS”
Erm, you just did. L O V E. See, it’s easy.
(Yes, I know you shouldn’t feed the trolls, but this one’s just too darn entertaining!)
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:11 am
twitter away
this troll trawling subject
ethicspiedpiper@bengoldacre tinyurl.com/chdrky or direct to tinyurl.com/cahfkg MODELS
Martin said,
March 19, 2009 at 11:10 pm
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 19, 2009 at 8:12 am
“you cannot write love down
DISCUSS”
Erm, you just did. L O V E. See, it’s easy.
(Yes, I know you shouldn’t feed the trolls, but this one’s just too darn entertaining!)
DEEP!!!! MARTIN
YOU FEEL BITTER AND WAY OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE
AND OFF BALANCE
and you have failed to write love down
WELL DONE CLASS
YOU ARE AT LEAST AS TRYING
AS I
YOU SEE WHY BEST TO WRITE IN RIDDLES
you cannot write ‘love’ down
it is felt
martin i would not want as counciler
nor loving enquirer
DISCUSS
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:21 am
i obvious write too crazy for martin
imagine we on QI
with dear gay~ish steven FRY
martin just got the fog horn
fishing on da rocks
for trolls
mirror mirror found
trawlin around
how profound
is this how you treat your patients???
or you meet no people in your lab cloak
and dagger
asbo anyone?
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:24 am
i have failed you martin my son
still
martin fails to sea the difference
between love and fascists at their limits
but i will try to help him
still
feel da love
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:27 am
report
yous card:)
martin
could do better !&or?
i ask da class……….y
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:38 am
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPxlEVskbuk
tinyurl.com/chdrky or direct to tinyurl.com/cahfkg MODELS
& love
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:45 am
www.celebritypaycut.com/warming-skeptics/65582
if you find twittering churpilydifficult
but do not assume?
ethicspiedpiper said,
March 20, 2009 at 11:37 am
note: for data accuracy
i notice 1 entry has been pulled
i not sure why
it was lovin self mockin funny
and relevant – abstractly
i shall ask the moderator why
or ben
when i meet him
i give thanks
for tolerance
good@gmx.co.uk
MSB said,
March 20, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Martin again (for some reason I can’t use the same log-in at work and home).
ethicspiedpiper: Considering that the Pied Piper of Hamelin was (supposedly) responsible for the drowning of first the rats and then the children of Hamelin, as an ethics pied piper are you trying to get rid of our:
a) ethics, or
b) chavs with lisps?
badrescher said,
March 25, 2009 at 2:00 am
Diversity: “Be tolerant of your teachers: you may find you have to learn through teaching in the future.”
I’m not actually criticizing my teachers. I’ve had some bad ones, but most were great. Those who inspired my comments are peers (other teachers). One would think they would learn through teaching, but that only works if what you are teaching is accurate…
wayscj said,
November 21, 2009 at 6:24 am
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids