Thats called manufacturing results and its a massive nono. I work in a research pathology lab and I’ve refused to do sketchy analysis for clients asking me fudge stuff to fit a narrative. I can’t put into words how irresponsible this is, anyone else would be fired on the spot.
That’s all fine and dandy there, Kyle. But have you ever tried doing real science as taught by the “The Institute for Creation Science”? They have so called journal articles and are definitely doing real Science, it’s right in the name. You just need to adjust your definitions of “Science” and “Scientific Journal” and “facts”. I am definitely trusting people who took bus loads of drugs or were dropped on their heads as babies to provide us with sound scientific information.
I’ve also dealt with this! Clients loved asking me to lie to the EPA directly. Now that I’m doing medical R&D testing, every so often we’ll have to remind an engineer that “no, we can’t just do more testing and average the results.”
I was maintenance at a marine bio lab, made friends with the techs who work for the senior research scientists. They’re made to create results in a clients favor all the time. In my experience it’s treated as gross but normal, like an old man hanging out naked in the locker room. You don’t get more grants if you prevent the client from doing what they want. It really put a tinge on my perspective of “commercial science”. Even the government funded stuff came with “stipulations” of the results they wanted pretty often.
and also peer reviewed research needs to be replicated to verify that it works too. they are probably going to look for an old study, or something, or even a blog to back up thier claims.
Thats called manufacturing results and its a massive nono. I work in a research pathology lab and I’ve refused to do sketchy analysis for clients asking me fudge stuff to fit a narrative. I can’t put into words how irresponsible this is, anyone else would be fired on the spot.
That’s all fine and dandy there, Kyle. But have you ever tried doing real science as taught by the “The Institute for Creation Science”? They have so called journal articles and are definitely doing real Science, it’s right in the name. You just need to adjust your definitions of “Science” and “Scientific Journal” and “facts”. I am definitely trusting people who took bus loads of drugs or were dropped on their heads as babies to provide us with sound scientific information.
It should be a PSA that the generation that had those big clunky TV remote controls dropped om their domes as kids are now in positions of influence.
Sony, what have you done?!?
Why were people dropping remotes on children’s heads?!?
This is what happens when you give power to people who ate paint chips as kids.
I’ve also dealt with this! Clients loved asking me to lie to the EPA directly. Now that I’m doing medical R&D testing, every so often we’ll have to remind an engineer that “no, we can’t just do more testing and average the results.”
Ahh, the good old “stop iterating as soon as results tips in your favour” or “repeat until you get an iteration chain that matches your desire”
Been there, done that
It’s normal, when private companies regulate themselves 😌
I was maintenance at a marine bio lab, made friends with the techs who work for the senior research scientists. They’re made to create results in a clients favor all the time. In my experience it’s treated as gross but normal, like an old man hanging out naked in the locker room. You don’t get more grants if you prevent the client from doing what they want. It really put a tinge on my perspective of “commercial science”. Even the government funded stuff came with “stipulations” of the results they wanted pretty often.
i doub these clients will read the actual research paper when they come out, and only the partial results.
Manufacturing Results is the main mode of operation of Think Tanks.
It is even named after a war machine 🤔 coincidence?
and also peer reviewed research needs to be replicated to verify that it works too. they are probably going to look for an old study, or something, or even a blog to back up thier claims.