Massive Fraud Uncovered in Work by Social Psychologist
Image:
By Ewen Callaway of Nature magazine
When colleagues called the work of Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel too good to be true, they meant it as a compliment. But a preliminary investigative report (go.nature.com/tqmp5c) released on October 31 gives literal meaning to the phrase, detailing years of data manipulation and blatant fabrication by the prominent Tilburg University researcher.
"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work at the university.
Stapel's eye-catching studies on aspects of social behaviour such as power and stereotyping garnered wide press coverage. For example, in a recent Science paper (which the investigation has not identified as fraudulent), Stapel reported that untidy environments encouraged discrimination ( Science 332, 251-253; 2011).
"Somebody used the word 'wunderkind'," says Miles Hewstone, a social psychologist at the University of Oxford, UK. "He was one of the bright thrusting young stars of Dutch social psychology -- highly published, highly cited, prize-winning, worked with lots of people, and very well thought of in the field."
In early September, however, Stapel was suspended from his position as dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences over suspicions of research fraud. In late August, three young researchers under Stapel's supervision had found irregularities in published data and notified the head of the social-psychology department, Marcel Zeelenberg. Levelt's committee joined up with sister committees at the universities of Groningen and Amsterdam, where Stapel has also worked, to produce the report. They are now combing through his publications and their supporting data, and interviewing collaborators, to map out the full extent of the misconduct.
Mistakes made
Stapel initially cooperated with the investigation by identifying fraudulent publications, but stopped because he said he was not physically or emotionally able to continue, says Levelt. In a statement, translated from Dutch, that is appended to the report, Stapel says: "I have made mistakes, but I was and am honestly concerned with the field of social psychology. I therefore regret the pain that I have caused others." Nature was unable to contact Stapel for comment.
The report does not identify specific papers that contain manipulated or fabricated data, pending the completion of the investigations. The investigators conclude, though, that Stapel acted alone. "The co-authors, and in particular the PhD students, were absolutely not involved, they really didn't know what was going on in this data fabrication," Levelt says.
Often, the report says, Stapel and a colleague or student came up with a hypothesis, and then designed an experiment to test it. Stapel took responsibility for collecting data through what he said was a network of contacts at other institutions, and several weeks later produced a fictitious data file for his colleague to write up into a paper. On other occasions, Stapel received co-authorship after producing data he claimed to have collected previously that exactly matched the needs of a colleague working on a particular study.
The data were also suspicious, the report says: effects were large; missing data and outliers were rare; and hypotheses were rarely refuted. Journals publishing Stapel's papers did not question the omission of details about where the data came from. "We see that the scientific checks and balances process has failed at several levels," Levelt says.
At a press conference, Tilburg University's rector, Philip Eijlander, said that he would pursue criminal prosecution of Stapel. The committee is also producing a list of tainted papers to guide co-authors and journal publishers in what will probably be a long list of retractions.
Joris Lammers, a psychologist at Tilburg who did his PhD under Stapel's supervision, says he is "shocked" by the findings. Lammers says he worked independently of Stapel and collected all the data in his PhD himself--the report notes that his dissertation is not under suspicion. Several other former collaborators contacted by Nature declined to comment.
Hewstone, who has never worked with Stapel, had initially fretted that Stapel's fraudulent oeuvre would undermine other findings in the field of social psychology. While editing a new edition of a social-psychology textbook, however, Hewstone turned up no references to Stapel's work in 15 chapters, suggesting that Stapel's work was not as influential as he had thought. "I think the impact is going to be particularly devastating for the young people he worked with, but not for the field of social psychology as such," he says.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on November 1, 2011.
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentFunny how you are perfectly willing to accept the fact that it was fellow scientists who found this guy out and took steps to address the situation, but you absolutely ignore the fact that such investigations have been done in regards to things like climate gate and the science still stands. I guess it only counts as valid of it fits your pre-concieved notions of how things should be... In short, you know jack about science and an awful lot about being a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't surprise me in the least: in the so-called social sciences, the science is often very thin, the theses tendentious, and intended to bolster some left-wing agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what is the status of those students whose PhD dissertations were based on the false research, and whose findings will now be refuted? Will they be required to surrender their degrees, since their "original research" was found to be false and regardless of their own innocence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know more about science & scientists than you ever will. I would have more respect for the field I love & was once part of if it had not been invaded by people who would do or say anything to protect their funding rather than adhering to the ethics of yesteryear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way I applaud the outing of this fraud. My complaint is that too few of the frauds are denounced by fellow scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trashing of sciences reputation is not new. It has however become more prevalent & unfortunately many scientists now do not blow the whistle on errant colleagues. The results are catastrophic with billions of dollars being wasted.
A particularly galling case, of which I have some knowledge, was the falsified results published by Dr William McBride regarding the Debendox case.
He had previously become a medical hero in 1961 for discovering the connection between thalidomide & birth defects. His falsified data regarding Debendox led to others wasting a huge amount of research time. Those who tried to allert the science community to the falsifications were ignored. The same things are occuring in climate science where even blatant failings are being glossed over.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McBride_(doctor)
Well sir. If you are indeed Dr. McBride, the world is in your debt, and several people here owe you at the least an apology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI certainly am not Dr McBride. His earlier work with Thalidomide no doubt saved thousands of people from terrible deformaties but this work later led him to think he was infallible. He falsified data about another drug. He could not believe he was wrong. He is now disgraced but it took a long time even though there were those who tried to reveal the truth early on. It is a tradgedy that could have been nipped in the bud. Please read my earlier post again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe latest round of Nobel physicists haved proved yet again warming/climate change is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's face it. Social science and psychology are the sketchiest 'science'. Everything about it is variable and subject to whim and downright falsehood, as is the brain itself. Medical science and DNA type researches are the real forefront with universally repeatable results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCitation, please! You may know a lot about science, but we don't know that--and you don't know who we are. The evidence for rising CO<sub>2</sub> global warming is undeniable, no matter what's causing it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, the article states: "We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work at the university.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people tell me something has been "peer-reviewed", I always take that with a grain of salt. This is just one more example of why I do that.
Wait. Is "I know more about science & scientists than you ever will" a testable hypothesis? Oh right. No, it isn't. Well, there goes the chance that I will read anything else that you write.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have some evidence of this dishonesty aside from a single scientist? No? Then STFU. Thank you for playing.
Boy, am I glad this science "scam" thing is nearly over. Kids won't have to waste their time learning about Pasteur, Jenner, Mendel, Crick, Curie, Salk, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and the host of other charlatans, and we can get back to the good ol' Dark Ages when our only problems were plague, witches, persecution, and short lifespans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPychiatry is a great example
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe any of the recent NOBEL prize physicists received their honor for climate change, nee global warming so what makes them climate experts ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo ,It was the other way around
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, there is a lot of ignorance on this board. I don't even know what a statement like "Everything about it is variable and subject to whim and downright falsehood, as is the brain itself" even means. How is something subject to falsehood? And, saying that everything about it is variable is absolutely correct. Variables change. That is what they do. What about quantum physics? The behavior of some particles change just by being observed. Oh no! Variability! Do you think medical science doesn't have variables? Variables are what makes a study. Can you even with a straight face say that genetic studies are repeatable? Maybe if you focus on one gene. Try taking into account the entire genome and get back to me when we understand exactly how the interactions among all genes exactly predict outcomes. Then I might listen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPutting "science" in quotes does not change the fact that as research psychologists, we absolutely do science. Science isn't a product nor does it care how variable something is. Science is a process by which questions are asked, hypotheses are set forth, data are collected systematically, the hypotheses are evaluated, the results get integrated into theory, and the whole process starts over. To say that psychology isn't a science is not only silly, but it is just wrong.
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that what we do isn't science. Essentially, what you are saying is "oh no, human behavior is too complex and there are too many factors involved in predicting behavior, I say we just give up and ignore it!" Sounds kind of dumb when it is rephrased that way, doesn't it?
@tuned
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe you are saying that. First, genetic research is plagued par excellence with irreproducible results. It's probably the major field in which papers get published with null hypothesis results. Second, psychology has probably the widest field of any science. Social psychology is a far cry from cognitive psychology. A great deal of the papers published within contemporary cognitive psychology are multidisciplinary with the like of physicists, neuroscientists, psychiatrists and neurologists as co-authors.
Scientists are human. It is good they caught him. And I agree with a previous poster that social psychology is an area that is easier for fraudulent results to get published because there isn't as much checking. Often followup experiments are not the same as the original experiment performed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for Carlyle's comments, one's beliefs should not affect scientific research but they sometimes do. One's beliefs should also not affect whether or not one accepts verified scientific evidence, something that happens far more often than misguided scientists. Once the world became round, there was no going back.
Now now now, my dear commenterees, there's still more cold hard facts to come in, we haven't seen the tip of the iceberg yet, much more is still unknown, maybe even those who discredited the other scientists will be discredited them selves? Hmmm? Science is still testing what we know. I also do agree with "tuned" that DNA type researches, neurology and medical sciences are some real forefronts, although psychology is quite interesting, it is the soul of the Physical mind, what we think may not be how we be, although it is quite "whimsical" as said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:) (Smiley Face)
"He probably learned his data manipulation skills from some well known warmist climate scientists. Science really has become infected with the dishonesty disease."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice unwarranted extrapolation there. Worked on it for a whole minute, did you?
Your comments are fair enough. Based on your post, you could not possibly accept for instance the claim by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCOIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources
This claim has never been refuted yet the IPCC continues to have the unqualified support of one side of the climate debate. Truth it seems is simply incidental. The result is billions of misdirected dollars that could be used to fight disease, for crop research where salt tolerant cereal crops for instance could be developed & many other projects.
Then please explain how you are expert in the area of climate science because, whatever your actual credentials: you display only opinions which are obviously driven by your experience in a completely different area. I hasten to point out that the existence of charlatans in medical science is "an established tradition" - whereas earth sciences have a much cleaner history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW: a friend who's just been diagnosed with osteoporosis is worried because the putative benefits of so many treatments for that disease also have possible side effects which are more devastating (and immediate) than the disease itself. This looks to be an example of the drug companies suppressing negative information about their drugs - so add that to the tradition of medical science fraud.
You do not need to be an expert to see through obviously false & unproven claims. You really only need the capacity to breath in & out at the appropriate times without being told, to realise that the leading organisation charged with advising governments on climate change, allows its chairman to claim, without any contradiction,that humans cause earthquakes & tsunamis simply is not credible. There are many such deficiencies & false claims emanating from this organisation yet though they are repeatedly outed, they continue to be supported by those who refuse to examine their beliefs in spite of contra evidence. This robs the whole movement of credibility, even aspects that do deserve support..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, totally put in my place... For someone who claims to be a scientist you sound more like you have an axe to grind. One that has very little to do with data and a lot to do with your personal preference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I know more about science & scientists than you ever will." Really? You know this how? What are you 12? If that's the best response you have to my post science is in a lot deeper than you think, because the American public isn't going to respond well to that kind of petulance (I certainly hope you really aren't a scientist because I'm pretty let down, I have to say). How about you cite some evidence that actually supports your claims? That's what scientists do right? Show me how wrong I am. So far you've cited situations where the perpetrators were caught... Which doesn't exactly sound like the system is failing to me. Sure, there are bound to be some who aren't. Probably more of them than are caught. How many though? Got any quantification? How about a rough idea? Don't feel bad, you can find folks who have actually done that work for you if you really want to zing me (I'm not even a working scientist and I know about that work... Odd that you don't being that you know more about science than I ever will). Oh wait... Turns out that on the whole science still works pretty well. Darn the luck.
Wow, totally put in my place... For someone who claims to be a scientist you sound more like you have an axe to grind. One that has very little to do with data and a lot to do with your personal preference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I know more about science & scientists than you ever will." Really? You know this how? What are you 12? If that's the best response you have to my post science is in a lot deeper than you think, because the American public isn't going to respond well to that kind of petulance (I certainly hope you really aren't a scientist because I'm pretty let down, I have to say). How about you cite some evidence that actually supports your claims? That's what scientists do right? Show me how wrong I am. So far you've cited situations where the perpetrators were caught... Which doesn't exactly sound like the system is failing to me. Sure, there are bound to be some who aren't. Probably more of them than are caught. How many though? Got any quantification? How about a rough idea? Don't feel bad, you can find folks who have actually done that work for you if you really want to zing me (I'm not even a working scientist and I know about that work... Odd that you don't being that you know more about science than I ever will). Oh wait... Turns out that, on the whole, science still works pretty well. Darn the luck.
What is the point of me pointing these things out to you. If you were really interested it would take you an hour or so to check the veracity of the claims made by the IPCC. Rate of glacier melt in India is another one, lifted from an undergraduates paper & false. Peer reviewed by whom? Everything according to the IPCC is peer reviewed that they publish. There are plenty of other examples but if you automatically reject any contra claims what is the point of me trying to point things out to you. Do you think humans are causing earthquakes & tsunamis ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll I aim to do is try to make people treat bad science the way it should be treated. At least the people associated with Diederik Stapel did not just sit back & allow the fraud to be perpetrated. This is also the case in most other branches of science. Why is it that this never happens in climate science no matter what the evidence. Why is the IPCC not held to account & people sacked who lie & deceive.
Most of them run for cover when you ask them to logically answer a couple of simple questions but unfortunately no matter what the evidence they are mostly hard wired & logic can not find a circuit to operate within. Still, it is good sport for a while.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this