Re: "Scientific misconduct" in gov't data

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Hi Otto,

>Otto Raabe wrote:
> At 05:35 PM 12/17/1999 -0600, Jim Muckerheide wrote:
>
> >Group,
> >
> >Would they also pursue "scientific misconduct" if the scientists
> >"cooked" the data to meet EPA demands, like radiation health effects
> >data/scientists? (recall Otto Raabe's email on the data falsified by
> >Mays and Lloyd for BEIR IV).
> >
> **********************************
> December 20, 1999
> Davis, CA
> 
> I must object that I did NOT and would NOT suggest the Mays and Lloyd
> "falsified" any data. Ray Lloyd is a gentleman and honest scientist, as was
> Chuck Mays. What they did was present the real data in a way that happened
> to make it appear to be linear because the region below 1 Gy was grouped
> with higher dose data. This is not an unusual nor dishonest approach. 

Per the recent Office of Research Integrity definitions as we now
understand them, misrepresenting raw data by manipulating data groups
to intentionally produce a result that falsely represents a
relationship contrary to a scientifically fair and honest
representation of the actual relationship constitutes "Scientific
Misconduct" as defined by the "falsification" category, especially
when using such misleading results to achieve desired ends (e.g.,
funding or "policy" objectives).

I think you are right to say that this is "common." There are dozens
of cases (as 'required' :-) in the "science" that claims to support
the LNT. 

However, an engineer, or doctor, or lawyer, or a plumber, (or a
'licensee' :-) who equivalently misrepresents data (even/especially on
behalf of their 'boss' or their 'clients') in performing in their
professional capacity (to obtain funds or achieve a preferred end by
such misrepresentation) is able to be held accountable. Why are
scientists able to be held harmless. (Even John Gofman can still
effectively call himself a "scientist.") 

We need to make the same true for the "scientists" that misrepresent
data to satisfy their funding agencies. It wouldn't seem that there is
a substantial difference between "not using" some data, and juggling
the analysis of that data, to misrepresent the actual relationship for
substantive and intentional purposes in its use for "policy," or to
get funding (as with Robert Liburdy at Berkeley). Unfortunately the
accountability was only the loss of his gov't-funded job and $3.3 M
research grant with $800 K expended, his ability to get gov't funding
or be part of gov't review committees for 3 years. Berkeley kept the
grant but had to "return" $840K as faudulently obtained/expended funds.)

We should leave the final judgement of whether Mays and Lloyd, and
BEIR IV, undertook to produce biased data to explicitly misrepresent
the radium dial painter data to falsely justify the LNT for
self-interest purposes at great cost (fraud?) of the general public to
a qualified investigation of the data and how "carefully" it had to be
"cooked" to meet the requirement to misrepresent the data in BEIR IV.

(I'd like to hear more about these "not unusual" cases of
misrepresenting data. :-)

>The
> important point is that data that look linear over a range of doses may not
> actually precisely represent the intermediate, low, or high ends of the
> dose range because of the effect of data grouping or imprecision.

It would seem to me that there are "incidental" and "intentional"
cases assessing data to show a biased result, that have "results" that
are either "insignificant" or "substantial" in their purposes and
consequences. When the result is to misrepresent data that is used to
justify a such a significant "conclusion" as to support the LNT, a
result that is essential to the regulators and funding agencies, and
at the heart of extracting $100s Billions from the public for no
public benefits, the investigators should tell us their conclusions
with respect to the 'egregiousness' of the misrepresentation, and
whether it was by "intent."

We should also work with Congress, our scientific organizations, and
take other appropriate legal action as necessary, to assure that any
and all such formal allegations of  'scientific misconduct' are
undertaken by unbiased and full investigations to objective standards.

Thanks, Otto.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health
muckerheide@mediaone.net
==============================


> Otto
> *****************************************
> 
>                 *****************************************************
>                 Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
>               Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health (ITEH)
>                    (Street address: Building 3792, Old Davis Road)
>                 University of California, Davis, CA 95616
>                 Phone: 530-752-7754  FAX: 530-758-6140
>                 E-mail ograabe@ucdavis.edu
>               *****************************************************
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html