important to run on page 3 of today's New York=20
Times, could be a useful news peg and reference=20
for discussion of notably flawed and misleading=20
but well-publicized work by U.K. psychiatrists and their followers.
November 2, 2011
Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research
By=20
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/benedict_carey=
/index.html?inline=3Dnyt-per>BENEDICT=20
CAREY
A well-known psychologist in the Netherlands=20
whose work has been published widely in=20
professional journals falsified data and made up=20
entire experiments, an investigating committee=20
has found. Experts say the case exposes deep=20
flaws in the way science is done in a field,=20
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics=
/psychology_and_psychologists/index.html?inline=3Dnyt-classifier>psychology,=
=20
that has only recently earned a fragile respectability.
The psychologist, Diederik Stapel, of Tilburg=20
University, committed academic fraud in =93several=20
dozen=94 published papers, many accepted in=20
respected journals and reported in the news=20
media, according to a report released on Monday=20
by the three Dutch institutions where he has=20
worked: the University of Groningen, the=20
University of Amsterdam, and Tilburg. The journal=20
Science, which published one of Dr. Stapel=92s=20
papers in April, posted an =93editorial expression=20
of concern=94 about the research online on Tuesday.
The scandal, involving about a decade of work, is=20
the latest in a string of embarrassments in a=20
field that critics and statisticians say badly=20
needs to overhaul how it treats research results.=20
In recent years,=20
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics=
/psychology_and_psychologists/index.html?inline=3Dnyt-classifier>psychologis=
ts=20
have reported a raft of findings on race biases,=20
brain imaging and even extrasensory perception=20
that have not stood up to scrutiny. Outright=20
fraud may be rare, these experts say, but they=20
contend that Dr. Stapel took advantage of a=20
system that allows researchers to operate in near=20
secrecy and massage data to find what they want=20
to find, without much fear of being challenged.
=93The big problem is that the culture is such that=20
researchers spin their work in a way that tells a=20
prettier story than what they really found,=94 said=20
Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the=20
University of California, Santa Barbara. =93It=92s=20
almost like everyone is on=20
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics=
/steroids/index.html?inline=3Dnyt-classifier>steroids,=20
and to compete you have to take steroids as well.=94
In a prolific career, Dr. Stapel published papers=20
on the effect of power on hypocrisy, on racial=20
stereotyping and on how advertisements affect how=20
people view themselves. Many of his findings=20
appeared in newspapers around the world,=20
including The New York Times, which reported in=20
December on his study about advertising and identity.
In a statement posted Monday on Tilburg=20
University=92s Web site, Dr. Stapel apologized to=20
his colleagues. =93I have failed as a scientist and=20
researcher,=94 it read, in part. =93I feel ashamed for it and have great=
regret.=94
More than a dozen doctoral theses that he oversaw=20
are also questionable, the investigators=20
concluded, after interviewing former students,=20
co-authors and colleagues. Dr. Stapel has=20
published about 150 papers, many of which, like=20
the advertising study, seem devised to make a=20
splash in the media. The study published in=20
Science this year claimed that white people=20
became more likely to =93stereotype and=20
discriminate=94 against black people when they were=20
in a messy environment, versus an organized one.=20
Another study, published in 2009, claimed that=20
people judged job applicants as more competent if=20
they had a male voice. The investigating=20
committee did not post a list of papers that it had found fraudulent.
Dr. Stapel was able to operate for so long, the=20
committee said, in large measure because he was=20
=93lord of the data,=94 the only person who saw the=20
experimental evidence that had been gathered (or=20
fabricated). This is a widespread problem in=20
psychology, said Jelte M. Wicherts, a=20
psychologist at the University of Amsterdam. In a=20
recent survey, two-thirds of Dutch research=20
psychologists said they did not make their raw=20
data available for other researchers to see.=20
=93This is in violation of ethical rules=20
established in the field,=94 Dr. Wicherts said.
In a survey of more than 2,000 American=20
psychologists scheduled to be published this=20
year, Leslie John of Harvard Business School and=20
two colleagues found that 70 percent had=20
acknowledged, anonymously, to cutting some=20
corners in reporting data. About a third said=20
they had reported an unexpected finding as=20
predicted from the start, and about 1 percent admitted to falsifying data.
Also common is a self-serving statistical=20
sloppiness. In an analysis published this year,=20
Dr. Wicherts and Marjan Bakker, also at the=20
University of Amsterdam, searched a random sample=20
of 281 psychology papers for statistical errors.=20
They found that about half of the papers in=20
high-end journals contained some statistical=20
error, and that about 15 percent of all papers=20
had at least one error that changed a reported=20
finding =AD almost always in opposition to the authors=92 hypothesis.
The American Psychological Association, the=20
field=92s largest and most influential publisher of=20
results, =93is very concerned about scientific=20
ethics and having only reliable and valid=20
research findings within the literature,=94 said=20
Kim I. Mills, a spokeswoman. =93We will move to=20
retract any invalid research as such articles are clearly identified.=94
Researchers in psychology are certainly aware of=20
the issue. In recent years, some have mocked=20
studies showing correlations between activity on=20
brain images and personality measures as =93voodoo=94=20
science, and a controversy over statistics=20
erupted in January after The Journal of=20
Personality and Social Psychology accepted a=20
paper purporting to show evidence of extrasensory=20
perception. In cases like these, the authors=20
being challenged are often reluctant to share=20
their raw data. But an analysis of 49 studies=20
appearing Wednesday in the journal PLoS One, by=20
Dr. Wicherts, Dr. Bakker and Dylan Molenaar,=20
found that the more reluctant that scientists=20
were to share their data, the more likely that=20
evidence contradicted their reported findings.
=93We know the general tendency of humans to draw=20
the conclusions they want to draw =AD there=92s a=20
different threshold,=94 said Joseph P. Simmons, a=20
psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania=92s=20
Wharton School. =93With findings we want to see, we=20
ask, =91Can I believe this?=92 With those we don=92t,=20
we ask, =91Must I believe this?=92 =94
But reviewers working for psychology journals=20
rarely take this into account in any rigorous=20
way. Neither do they typically ask to see the=20
original data. While many psychologists shade and=20
spin, Dr. Stapel went ahead and drew any conclusion he wanted.
=93We have the technology to share data and publish=20
our initial hypotheses, and now=92s the time,=94 Dr.=20
Schooler said. =93It would clean up the field=92s act in a very big way.=94
[]
[]
---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------
