Plain English Summary
Think scientists always play by the rules? Think again. This landmark survey anonymously asked over 3,200 US scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health whether they had cut corners in their research. Outright fraud like faking data was rare (under 2%), but the broader picture was eye-opening: a full third admitted to at least one serious questionable practice in just the past three years. Common offenses included changing a study's design because of funding pressure, tossing out data based on a hunch, and sloppy record-keeping. Seasoned scientists were actually worse than newcomers. Because these are self-reported numbers from people admitting to their own bad behavior, the real rates are almost certainly higher. This matters hugely for controversial fields like parapsychology, where pre-registering studies and independent replication are the best defenses against exactly these kinds of shortcuts.
Research Notes
Landmark empirical study of research misconduct prevalence that provided the first large-scale quantitative evidence for widespread questionable research practices beyond fraud. Essential context for the library's methodology/integrity cluster: the 33% self-admission rate underscores why pre-registration, blinding, and replication matter in contested fields like psi research.
An anonymous mail survey of 3,247 NIH-funded US scientists (1,768 mid-career R01 grantees and 1,479 early-career postdoctoral trainees) asked respondents to self-report engagement in 16 specific questionable research practices over the past three years. While falsification and plagiarism were reported at under 2%, broader misbehaviours were strikingly common: 33% admitted to at least one of the ten most serious behaviours, including changing study design under funding pressure (15.5%), dropping data on gut feeling (15.3%), and inadequate record keeping (27.5%). Mid-career scientists reported significantly higher rates than early-career (38% vs 28%, P<0.001). The authors argue these are conservative estimates and call for attention to systemic features of the research environment that may foster misbehaviour.
Links
Related Papers
Companion
More in Methodology
Paranormal belief, conspiracy endorsement, and positive wellbeing: a network analysis
Planning Falsifiable Confirmatory Research
Addressing Researcher Fraud: Retrospective, Real-Time, and Preventive Strategies — Including Legal Points and Data Management That Prevents Fraud
Quantum Aspects of the Brain-Mind Relationship: A Hypothesis with Supporting Evidence
Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research
📋 Cite this paper
Martinson, Brian C, Anderson, Melissa S, de Vries, Raymond (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a
@article{martinson_2005_scientists_badly,
title = {Scientists behaving badly},
author = {Martinson, Brian C and Anderson, Melissa S and de Vries, Raymond},
year = {2005},
journal = {Nature},
doi = {10.1038/435737a},
}