Race, Nationality and Scientific Fraud By Brian Simpson

     I am always amazed at how sites like American Renaissance have an uncritical acceptance of data, such as IQ, especially that always ranking whites second to other special  groups, even though the entire field of the social science is stricken by a replication crisis, and the widespread existence of fraud and misplaced use of statistics. Thus, we have a highly cited  paper arguing that most published  research is false:

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.”

     This applies especially to IQ research, which clearly has political implications, and is used for the justification of the cognitive status of particular groups.

     I was interested to see vDare.com publishing a piece on scientific fraud and its relation to nationality:

“Scientific fraud—falsifying scientific data or manipulating the scientific evaluation process—has become a serious problem. At best, it is a threat to public confidence in science. At worst, if the fraud is not revealed, then public policy could be shaped by bogus data. This problem is universal. But there are distinct national patterns. In particular, fraud is endemic in non-Western countries—and among non-Western scientists who immigrate here. The most infamous scientific fraudster of recent years did come from the West: the Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel. At the time of writing, he has had to retract 58 scientific articles in which he made up or manipulated his data. Significantly, many of these were politically useful from a Leftist perspective, such as the claim that a dirty, untidy environment made people more racist or that people who eat meat are more selfish than vegetarians. [RETRACTED ARTICLE. Coping with chaos: how disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination, By D. Stapel & S. Lindenberg, Science, 2011] Clearly, any sensible scholar is going to be very cautious about citing anything ever written by Diederik Stapel, even if it has not been retracted. Indeed, lay readers should be careful to ask for the author of any Leftism-helpful social psychology finding, when told about it by acquaintances, lest its author turn out to be Diederik Stapel.

But—breaking news—microbiologist Elizabeth Bik just went public alleging astonishingly massive scientific fraud, between 2004 and 2019, among academics at Annamalai University in Tamil Nadu in India. This may lead to the retraction of up to 200 papers by microbiologists at the university.[ Research fraud in over 200 Annamalai University papers, alleges US scholar,  by Megha Kaveri,The News Minute, November 15, 2019] And this is much more typical. Scientists from some countries are systematically more inclined to make up data or corrupt the peer-review process, than are scientists from others. In the peer-review process, an academic journal sends a study out to other academics for scholarly evaluation. Many scientists research extremely narrow fields, meaning there are very few people in the world who are qualified to judge the merits of their studies. Consequently, when scientists submit an article to a journal, they are often asked to nominate potential peer-reviewers, and also to provide their email addresses. A conscientious editor would check who these nominees were and make an informed choice as to whether they were suitable reviewers. But apparently many editors, even of prestigious journals, do not practice due diligence.

Corrupt researchers realize this. Accordingly, they invent a couple of fictitious researchers and provide emails to which they—the study’s authors—have access. Sometimes they give real researchers’ names, but create a new email, bogus addresses for them. They are then able to peer-review their own papers and recommend that they be accepted.  Journal editors have gradually got wise to this ruse and are able to see that the that IP address of the author and reviewer are the same, leading to the corrupt scientist being caught out. There are clear national differences in this practice. The world leader: China. Between 2012 and 2016, 276 studies by Chinese academics were retracted for fake peer review. In a distant second place was Taiwan, with 73, followed by Iran, with 65, South Korea, 33, Pakistan, 19, and India, 16. [The Economy of Fraud in Academic Publishing in China, by Mini Gu, WENR, April 3, 2019].”

     The widespread existence of scientific fraud and the replication crisis will play havoc with the type of naïve empiricism adopted on the IQ question by the likes of American Renaissance.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Tuesday, 28 June 2022