BBC News: 'Fake research' comes under scrutiny

[AndyPR]

The scale of "fake research" in the UK appears to have been underestimated, a BBC investigation suggests.

Official data points to about 30 allegations of research misconduct between 2012 and 2015.

However, figures obtained by the BBC under Freedom of Information rules identified hundreds of allegations over a similar time period at 23 universities alone.

There are growing concerns around the world over research integrity.

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has begun an inquiry into the issue to reassure the public that robust systems are in place in the UK.

Stephen Metcalfe, the committee's chairman, said it was vitally important that people have confidence in research that is paid for by public funds.

"Where research has been found to be fraudulent at a later point it has a big impact on the public - it leads to mistrust," he told BBC News.

"What we want to do is to investigate how robust the mechanisms are for ensuring that research is ethical, it is accurate, it is, to a degree, reproducible."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39357819

I wonder if the Countess of Mar is aware of this Committee, or if we could point them in the direction of PACE. Although, if their remit is only to "reassure the public that robust systems are in place in the UK." then you don't necessarily need to investigate anything at all.

@charles shepherd , any mileage we can make out of this in relation to PACE?

 

[Alvin2]

They are probably looking at changing the process, not specific examples, but if it can be used to fact check PACE thats a bonus

 

[Laelia]

Although, if their remit is only to "reassure the public that robust systems are in place in the UK." then you don't necessarily need to investigate anything at all.

Is this the clumsiest piece of BBC journalism ever? Or is the author of this article trying to expose The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee of the real purpose of it's inquiry?

Either way brilliant!

 

[Barry53]

I would say the BBC can see there is a storm coming, and suddenly realises it needs to try and look like it has had no part to play in tacitly supporting bad science such as PACE, by only reporting what it has been spoon fed from the SMC.

 

[alex3619]

I wonder if they will look at how extremely poor research gets approved, funded and published? I doubt it, I expect to see its beyond the scope of any terms of reference. I would like to be wrong about this though.

 

[Esther12]

I wonder if they will look at how extremely poor research gets approved, funded and published? I doubt it, I expect to see its beyond the scope of any terms of reference. I would like to be wrong about this though.

I've been wondering how we can investigate the process that led to PACE and FINE getting funding, and see if there's been any attempt to learn from these mistakes from the institutions involved.

 

[trishrhymes]

I would say the BBC can see there is a storm coming, and suddenly realises it needs to try and look like it has had no part to play in tacitly supporting bad science such as PACE, by only reporting what it has been spoon fed from the SMC.

Sadly, I suspect that's wishful thinking. I can't see why the BBC will connect this with ME research at all.

The impression I get is that they are talking about blatant cheating like copying other people's data or making up data, not the finer points of protocol changes etc.

 

[Solstice]

I've been wondering how we can investigate the process that led to PACE and FINE getting funding, and see if there's been any attempt to learn from these mistakes from the institutions involved.

Well, if they don't see it as mistakes then I doubt it would do much good. It's all about that cost-effectiveness and i'm sure they feel as if they achieved that goal. It's just that us pesky patients won't take it lying down, making life difficult for them.

 

[Chrisb]

I thought that the Science and Technology Committee could, unfortunately, never be taken quite seriously since the time it had David Tredinnick as a member.

 

[char47]

When i saw the headline 'fake research' on the BBC website this morning, there was a nanosecond where i thought i might be about PACE & my eyes got very wide but i quickly came back to reality before i clicked on it, that would be far too good to be true that the beeb would actually start reporting some truth instead of propaganda around ME.

Nevertheless, although I wasnt sure where to post this as it's not directly related to ME/CFS, I thought it was relevant given the whole PACE debacle. And i wondered whether it would be worth someone like @Jonathan Edwards (or someone with equal credibility/prestige) contacting them & putting them on to the PACE story? just an idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39357819

ETA I trust the mods will move this thread if they think it should be somewhere else - if so apologies for any inconvenience

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I wondered whether it would be worth someone like @Jonathan Edwards (or someone with equal credibility/prestige) contacting them & putting them on to the PACE story? just an idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39357819

The BBC have been put on to the PACE story. It is not quite clear yet how they may respond but it has not been dismissed.

 

[char47]

Hi Jonathan thanks for replying. I was thinking of Steven Metcalfe & the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee who have "begun an inquiry into the issue to reassure the public that robust systems are in place in the UK". I would've thought that PACE was a powerful illustration of how, despite appearances to the contrary, the peer review system for starters, is certainly not robust enough to weed out these problems?.

Perhaps 'robust enough' isnt the words i'm looking for, i'm having trouble articulating concepts tonight, I shpould probably turn off the screen, but i hope ykwim. i just felt that if ever there was fodder for such an inquiry... it should be PACE?!....

"What we want to do is to investigate how robust the mechanisms are for ensuring that research is ethical, it is accurate, it is, to a degree, reproducible." yeah well you'd better look at PACe because it was none of these things!

 

[Barry53]

The BBC have been put on to the PACE story. It is not quite clear yet how they may respond but it has not been dismissed.

Cautiously encouraging. I imagine there might be a lot of hand wringing going on.