 |
 |
Oli, did you actually read the whole blog? Thank goodness someone is keeping watch, it is a great deal more sinister than merely "interesting". Clearly, it's not only aristocratic Ministers in the German Federal Government who succumb to such temptations. This is, however, a completely different discussion from the multitude of valid "disconfirmations" or even "falsifications" of the reigning shibboleths in science. Many years ago I heard of, but unfortunately did not make a note of, (at least one) a fascinating book recording all the "valid" scientific experiments that appear to contradict current theory - a la Thomas Kuhn of course, we are just waiting for the next paradigm shift and revolution to set us on a new and better "verified" path, hopefully in sub-atomic physics and in cosmology (which is only about 70% wrong at present) for example. If science is supposed to be genuinely open and empirical then it is by definition never absolute... but human pride and ambition tends to get in the way.... That is why I suspect such "negative" results do not get published and in some cases are even (gasp) suppressed. Chris is right, the blog http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/. is not only fascinating but salutary and in a way rather depressing... Alan On 22/10/2012 16:20, Oli Usher wrote: > Retraction Watch is indeed interesting. > > But negative results and misconduct are not the same thing. > > Oli > > On 22/10/2012 16:16, Chris Stokes wrote: >> There's the fascinating Retraction Watch blog >> http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/. >> >> Aren't there plenty of books published on scientific misconduct, >> especially on specific alleged miscreants, like Millikan, Mendel, >> Cyril Burt...? >> >> Chris >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Palmer >> Sent: 22 October 2012 11:30 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: [PSCI-COM] Communicating Negative Results in Research >> >> Dear List, >> >> Reading Ben Goldacre's latest book 'Bad Pharma', one of the problems >> he mentions is (some) researchers feel negative results are not >> interesting and hence don't (aways) publish them. Does the list >> feel >> that the same problem (lack of interest) exists with science >> communication discussing/explaining negative results? The only >> activity I can think of that brings them to public attention are the >> IgNobels, but perhaps there are other events/formats ? >> >> regards, >> >> Richard >> > ********************************************************************** Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html You may also change your settings and subscribe/unsubscribe to psci-com from the web site. Psci-com is part of the National Academic Mailing List Service, known as 'JISCMail'. It adheres to the JISCMail Acceptable Use Policy: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/acceptableuse.html and to the JISCMail guidelines for etiquette: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/etiquette.html Email commands: 1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message: set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens] 2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens] 3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message: leave psci-com -- [include hyphens] Please allow up to 24 hours for these commands to activate. Remember that you will need to send commands using the same email address that you used to register on psci-com. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to: [log in to unmask] **********************************************************************