What pushes scientists to lie?

Originally posted by DeepThought

The important thing is the processes in place to discourage excessive lying.

So moderate lying is fine?

Moderate lying happens a lot, and people generally get away with it. That doesn't make it 'fine'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you must be a smoker AND a republican. They go together well.

So read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

No, I am not a smoker or a republican.

We were talking about Singer. You changed the subject in attempt to digress away from Singer because you can't challenge any of his peer reviewed articles. Try not to confuse the two again.

Was it you that was fine with Monsanto funding GMO studies and accepting the findings of that study as long as they were peer reviewed?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
No, I am not a smoker or a republican.

We were talking about Singer. You changed the subject in attempt to digress away from Singer because you can't challenge any of his peer reviewed articles. Try not to confuse the two again.

Was it you that was fine with Monsanto funding GMO studies and accepting the findings of that study as long as they were peer reviewed?

I wasn't talking about Singer, I was talking all along about Soon. You are the one moving the goalposts.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I wasn't talking about Singer, I was talking all along about Soon. You are the one moving the goalposts.

I told you I didn't know much about Soon. It is Singer I have been asking you to prove lied about anything and you have not done that. FAIL!

Originally posted by sonhouse
I wasn't talking about Singer, I was talking all along about Soon. You are the one moving the goalposts.

Was it you that was fine with Monsanto funding GMO studies and accepting the findings of that study as long as they were peer reviewed?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Was it you that was fine with Monsanto funding GMO studies and accepting the findings of that study as long as they were peer reviewed?

Not recently, i never spoke of Singer. Peer reviewed is only the first step, you get published but then the paper is under scrutiny by the scientists in whatever discipline was written about. If they have a problem with a paper you can believe they will try to refute it. So it is not just peer review that counts. It will get a paper published but that is not the end all of the process.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Is this potentially financially biased in the matter too?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

No idea, who wrote the paper and have they received payments from tobacco companies?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not recently, i never spoke of Singer. Peer reviewed is only the first step, you get published but then the paper is under scrutiny by the scientists in whatever discipline was written about. If they have a problem with a paper you can believe they will try to refute it. So it is not just peer review that counts. It will get a paper published but that is not the end all of the process.

"If they have a problem with a paper you can believe they will try to refute it."

Then you should have no problem finding those refutations. Why havn't you?

Originally posted by DeepThought
No idea, who wrote the paper and have they received payments from tobacco companies?

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.full

Originally posted by Metal Brain
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.full

The article spends some time pointing out that the group of non-smokers who developed lung cancer is too small for firm conclusions to be drawn. It also shows that women who had lived with men who were heavy smokers were borderline significantly (*) more likely to develop lung cancer and it shows that people who do smoke are significantly, in both the statistical and quantitative sense, more likely to develop cancer. Also they make the point that the study does not distinguish between partners of smokers who smoke outside and those who smoke inside with the windows shut.

Basically given their caution, and that they report a potential harm from passive smoking, no I think there is little risk of bias in that study.

(*) Borderline significance is one of those tricky subjects. Basically, if it is a benefit then borderline significance is non-significance. If it is a harm, which is what this study is measuring, then borderline significance is significance. So they have actually shown a connection between passive smoking and lung cancer.