Don't they have any ethics? What's a person suppose to believe? Come on, let's be reasonable.

US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research
November 16, 2010
US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies, published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
Ads by Google
Theology Studies Online - Earn A Theology Degree or Diploma from Home. Get Free Info Today! - http://www.eLearners.com/Theology

Fraudsters are also more likely to be "repeat offenders," the study shows.
The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn—and therefore officially expunged from the public record—between 2000 and 2010.
A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification).
The highest number of retracted papers were written by US first authors (260), accounting for a third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud.
The UK, India, Japan, and China each had more than 40 papers withdrawn during the decade. Asian nations, including South Korea, accounted for 30% of retractions. Of these, one in four was attributed to fraud.
The fakes were more likely to appear in leading publications with a high "impact factor." This is a measure of how often research is cited in other peer reviewed journals.
More than half (53%) of the faked research papers had been written by a first author who was a "repeat offender." This was the case in only one in five (18%) of the erroneous papers.
The average number of authors on all retracted papers was three, but some had 10 or more. Faked research papers were significantly more likely to have multiple authors.
Each first author who was a repeat fraudster had an average of six co-authors, each of whom had had another three retractions.
"The duplicity of some authors is cause for concern," comments the author. Retraction is the strongest sanction that can be applied to published research, but currently, "[it] is a very blunt instrument used for offences both gravely serious and trivial."
Provided by British Medical Journal (news : web)

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-significantly-publish-fake.html./

No individual scientific report or theory is ever fully accepted until it has been checked and duplicated by a large number of fellow researchers. Only things that have been thoroughly corroborated are accepted, otherwise it's rejected.

If you choose to reject science, are you ready to also reject all the improvements that science has provided to modern life? If so, I know of several Amish comminities who will willingly accept you.

Science is simply the creator's way of making life physically more comfortable, while religion is his way of making it more spiritually comfortable. I see no reason for any conflict between the two.

Aevory, don't you know that to many people science is not bogus and scientists are no liars? To them these are educated men and women that are seeking to answer our needs and concerns.


They believe that these people called scientists have done the research in all instances. People have faith in their scientistsnd teachers aevory. Everything that a scientists publishes is an official truth and is presented as such.


These same people also believe that mankind is basically good and that science would only be used to help mankind. They can't fathom the use of science to control people; and yes lies are a part of that.


With science there's a lot of disinformation involved. I think any rational person could see that.


Science is bittersweet while Jesus is pure and holy Truth.

I got one word for you: MARS

ok...I'll give you two: MARS and CANALS

As if that is an all or nothing and the difference between someone smart and someone who may be an old coot...............get my drift, ghoti? flicka? shakey? blisterink? anyone?