Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fraud perpetrated by an individual which misled the field as whole is not the same as 'fraud in government funding'. Again, scientists are human and will do things for personal gain. There are mechanisms being implemented in science funding that are meant to try and curb this behavior. NIH intramural research now require the use of electronic lab notebooks, which greatly reduce the ability to doctor data post-exp…
> Again, scientists are human and will do things for personal gain. Which was my original point. > But saying that all funding towards a scientific dead-end due to misdirection by individual researchers is proof of fraud in government funding doesn't compute. Who said this?
> Please provide evidence of fraud in government funding.
> Are you serious? Just go look at the recent Alzheimer's research scandal. It's the tip of the iceberg.
> But saying that all funding towards a scientific dead-end due to misdirection by individual researchers is proof of fraud in government funding doesn't compute.
> Who said this?
That was how I interpreted you bringing up the Alzheimer's scandal. When you say "why do you think so much fraud has been uncovered recently?" and mention the Alzheimer's scandal, I feel you portray it as an overwhelming or systematic issue with government funded research.
The process of getting funding for science from a government agency is tedious and painful. There are many eyes that review each grant application. It takes months/years, there are usually reviews to make sure that research is on track and aligns with the original proposal... So when you say that the Alzheimer's scandal is the tip of the iceberg, it implies systematic and widespread fraud in science funding rather than individual instances of fraud and misconduct.