Do Scientists ever manipulate their findings for social, political or economic reasons?

Question

Here are some examples where manipulation of findings might occur: research on global warming or pharmacutical research. Can you think of any other examples where scientists have been hired by industry in order to support their agenda which could be financial.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, scientists often manipulate studies to correlate with the opinions of those that fund the research. There is much more money to be had by finding "poof" of global warmingthen against it. Another good example of research catering to policy is in the field of education. The "No Child Left Behind Act" of 2001 was paased on the basis that America's schools were failing and falling behind in the world. The truth is that American schools have been doing a very good job of educating our citizens and U.S. schools educate a higher percentage of the population than does any other similarly sized and similarly developed nation on Earth. This kind of finding does not get research grants. Gloom and doom gets grants.

Answer 2

Jo,

To do so is unethical. Unfortunately, not every human being behaves in an ethical fashion. Many scientsts do, indeed, manipulate their findings to support their preconcieved notions, political beliefs, or because they are paid to.

Some do so with the full knowledge that they are doing so. Others do so simply by allowing their beliefs/wishes to bias how they view their data - what do they include? How do they present it? How do their feelings affect their logic? This sort of thing is one of the reasons peer review is so important in science - to help eliminate bias.

With strongly politically charged issues (like Global Warming) or those with huge economic factors (like smoking), you'll find scientists on both sides of the aisle. Paid, True Believers, or even those who honestly believe their work and the body of work they're defending.

A dead give-away that a particular scientist or group of scientists are biased and allowing that bias to influence their work is when they, or their supporters, try to shut off debate on a theory. Even GRAVITY is still up for debate. There are groups screaming that Global Warming is PROVEN (amazing to think they can predict the climate in 100 years when they can't predict the weather next week), or the EVOLUTION is PROVEN, or that INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS UTTERLY PROVEN - and anyone who disagrees must be cast out!

Good scientsts are always open to new data, new ways of seeing, and good logic. Some theories (such as gravity and evolution) have a huge body of evidence and experimental verifiation supporting them. This tends to increase the confidence in those theories - but you'll still find folks arguing the point. And they may be right. Everyone KNEW that time and mass were inviolate - Newton proved it! Right up until Einstein.

So, short answer, yes, they do. Some deliberately, some uintentionally. They are human, after all.

Other examples - Smoking, Electricity (the big DC vs AC debates for home supply), Weight Loss products, Penile Enhancement products, Hair Re-growth products, Evolution, the list goes on...

EDIT: For those of you curious about the 'certainty' of Global Warming, I've added a link to the Wikipedia entry on the Heidelberg Appeal, signed by over 4,000 scientists (hard sciences, not movie stars and social scientists) and over 70 Nobel Prize Winners. This is a call for more realistic assessment of the theory of global warming. It's not a fact, folks, it's a theory and one that has become heavily politicized. It's a poster-child for manipulating data for political or economic means for BOTH sides.

Orion

Answer 3

Yes, I can give you another example of when scientists have not been honest about their data but it was not because they were being payed by industry.

In the 1960s and 1970s, researchers studying chimpanzees withheld the information concerning observations that chimps conduct wars. The researchers were afraid that the political powers of the time would use this information to justify Americas participation in the Viet Nam War.

Something like, "War is inevitable, even chimpanzees do it". I don't think the political types would have been that stupid but the researchers didn't think that the public was ready for this information at the time.

Answer 4

Pretty much any industry that deals with natural resources is going to find that the wonders of capitalism cloaked in a scientist's lab-coat are far, far removed from objectivity, not to mention ethics.

Consider these industries: The Paper/Timber Industry. Millions are spent on 'studies' convincing the civility of a certain region that 'reforestation' (i.e. planting trees) is OK for the environ after clear-cutting of old-growth forests has occured (consider the NorthWest Coast of the US, as well as British Columbia, and Alaska)... not to betray my poli-socio views, but I do believe the earth is ours to use. But the above is just an example.

The coal industry is the same way- I'm sure that studies could be found that state that the upending of terrain in Pennsyvania, West Virgina and other large coal-producing states in the name of coal is a good thing. Not to mention the benefit of the energy produced outweighing that god-awful emission into the atmosphere it makes when fossil fuels are incinerated.

Petroleum, Diamonds, etc., etc., etc.... pure, objective research for the good of humanity is not easy to find these days. Namely because research takes money, and well, organizations with lots of that floating around aren't really going to spend it on studies making their industry look bad. Quite the opposite really.

Answer 5

Yes on the issue of the decline in Polar Bear populations. News accounts have reported the plight of Polar Bears and their dwindling populations. What the reports fail to mention is that of the 7 geographically defined Polar Bear populations only 2 are in actual decline. Another 2 are showing increase and the remaining 3 are net zero. Many Global Warming shrills are trying to get the Polar Bear declared an endangered species so as to get Kyoto in via this back-door. Protected status would require the United States to mitigate 'harmful' factors that negatively impact on the species...ie adopt the alarmist Anthropomorphic (human caused) Global Warming position.

Answer 6

Man-ipulating data is getting pretty "old". It waxeth so old it's "ready to vanish": Hebrews 8. Yet "many" still get duped (deceived, bewitched, seduced) by it. Example: majority of USA got duped, again, by G.W. Bush, who arrogantly said (in his second coming speech) that he'd take his rod of iron 'rule of law'(worketh wrath) globe-all. But my Bible says: "whether prophecies, they shall fail". Not to mention "the end" is already written, and it ends Grace Us.

I got a kick out of this YouTube video about POTUS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrMMVfBqOk

What I hear from sincere scientists is they submit their findings and the government changes the findings to suit their political agenda; And scientists either put up with it or lose their funding. Those who put up with it become as scape-goats of such left and right blame game of scape-goats and dumb-sheep, as if the sacrificial victims of dumb-sheep on the right who also know not the will of God is not to have sacrifice, not then, not now, not ever, and doing the will of God precedes receiving the promise.

However the BIG Meltdown going exponential has become a hot topic in the globe-all community, the #1 issue in many countries, and the brave scientists are using this opportunity to speak out. No doubt a BIG Meltdown will unthaw many frozen chosen hearts.
http://www.godshew.org/BigMeltdown.htm

When scientists do collaborate and unify, then it has an effect. For example when more than a few scientists petitioned parent company Disney about a matter, the parent corrected the child.

Perhaps the anti-war folk should be petitioning G. Bush senior, about his "more the child of hell" son of man "should repent".

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 7

Sure. They're the reasons for many isolated scientists who deny global warming.

But not 2500 scientists from 130 countries with many other people looking over their shoulder. They produced the most data based and peer reviewed scientific document in history. The IPCC report is solid and unbiased science. Truthfully, science just doesn't get any better than this.

Denying it is like denying we went to the moon.

People here do that, but not anyone knowledgeable and important.

Answer 8

like in most other professions, a scientist has to manipulate what they find to ensure that it can be published and that they can become more well known. it is just like journalism. a newspaper company will only put into print what they think is going to be good for sales in their area depending on the demographics (political, environmental, social) of where it is released. they always put thing out that are not gonna cause a big reaction from the public.

Answer 9

Of course...every scientist that Bush listens to uses manipulated data. The Rx drug world is a good example too. This is why you can have a court case with two expert witnesses giving opposite testimony. Sure, each could simply have contrary findings due to varying testing methods but I believe frequently bias is ignored to gain the desired results.

Creationist scientists are probably the ultimate example of ignored bias in their research.

Answer 10

all the time you only have to look at some of the political statements made by some of the social studies groups and the crap they come out with not only that they change there belief and finding from one to the next ,example genealogist wont admit genes can ie do affect behavior because of the social problems this would cause and it would be political incorrect