From The Why Science Is NOT Always Cool Department:

From the San Francisco Chronicle (!), via WND, comes evidence of corruption of the scientific method. (Surprise!)

Up to a third of scientists have engaged in ethically questionable practices over the last three years, according to a survey published in today's issue of the British science journal Nature.

The surveyed behaviors range from extremely serious acts such as fraud and plagiarism -- which were committed by only a fraction of a percent to 1. 4 percent, respectively -- to acts that are ethically far more ambiguous, such as ignoring data that contradict one's theory.

The survey does not necessarily mean that one-third of all the biomedical scientists surveyed are guilty of misconduct, as many of their acts are subject to varying interpretations, (Emphasis mine.) cautions the study's lead author, sociologist Brian C. Martinson of HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis, which sponsors research on health-related issues.

Wouldn't you expect someone with an interest in preserving the status quo to say something like that?

Still, the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health, suggests that science is becoming so competitive and so dominated by big business (Emphasis mine.) that many scientists repeatedly find themselves faced by uncomfortable ethical choices -- and the decisions they make may not always be the wisest, Martinson said in a phone interview.

Of course big business is the culprit. It couldn't possibly be scientists screwing with reality in order to promote a political agenda. Can you say "Lysenko" ?

He said he rejects "people who want to sensationalize (this finding) and say 'all scientists are corrupt' " -- which isn't his belief. Rather, he hopes to start a serious national discussion of the moral dilemmas generated for scientists by the high-pressure, big-bucks atmosphere of modern science.
Historically, scientists have defined misconduct as publication of false, fabricated or plagiarized data. But that's far too narrow a definition of scientific misconduct, Martinson said, and he and two colleagues, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries, both of the University of Minnesota, try to go far beyond it in their study.

The anonymous surveys were mailed to almost 8,000 NIH-funded biomedical researchers. Of the seven most-frequently reported instances of possible misconduct in scientific publication, the biggest sound pretty harmless to laypeople: "inadequate record-keeping related to research projects," which was admitted by 27.5 percent of the 3,247 respondents.

The others were:
-- "Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source," reported by 15.5 percent.
-- "Dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate," admitted by 15.3 percent.
-- "Using inadequate or inappropriate research designs," acknowledged by 13.5 percent.
-- "Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data," reported by 12.5 percent.
-- "Withholding details of methodology or results in papers or (research) proposals," cited by 10.8 percent.
-- "Inappropriately assigning authorship credit" -- that is, not fairly identifying the researchers, admitted by 10 percent.