One of the faculty members here in The Netherlands (Richard Gill) told me about this social scientist (Diederik Stapel) who long fabricated data purporting to provide evidence for things like: thinking of eating meat causes anti-social behavior. He was only very recently fired. My cynical question is: isn’t there enough latitude in any data purporting to provide evidence for such claims to avoid the need for outright fabrication?
See also http://ktwop.wordpress.com/tag/diederik-stapel/
The study by three university professors to show that meat eaters are “selfish bastards” is based on fraud.
The professors suggested, based on a study, that meat eaters are more selfish than vegetarians and that they are less social to compensate their insecurity and loneliness.
The psychologists of the Radboud University Nijmegen and Tilburg University concluded from various studies on the psychological significance of meat.
They stated that thinking of meat makes people less socially and in many respects more “loutish”. It also appears that people are more likely to choose meat when they feel insecure, perhaps because it is a feeling of superiority or status displays, the researchers suggest.
Rejected Posts of D. Mayo 
Diederik Stapel was the darling boy of Dutch social psychology. One of the most prestigious professors at Tilburg University. His research results frequently made it into the newspapers
Yes, so why is it that there wasn’t more skepticism? I wonder if the same sort of thing could/would occur in the U.S.?
Stapel’s “oevre” is typical of social psychology research. Trendy subjects which hit the media. Popular expert in chat-shows. Nobody ever replicates the research. Nobody ever re-analyses the data. His co-authors didn’t notice that the student-assistant who had helped him with the questionair and sample (another 100 psychology students) didn’t exist. He was the darling of his university – big media presence, huge publication list. The emperor had no clothes.
Pingback: How to hire a fraudster chauffeur | Error Statistics Philosophy
Pingback: Richard Gill: “Integrity or fraud… or just quesionable research practices?” | Error Statistics Philosophy
Pingback: Stapel’s Fix for Science? Admit the story you want to tell and how you “fixed” the statistics to support it! | Error Statistics Philosophy
Pingback: Yes, these were not (entirely) real–my five April pranks | Error Statistics Philosophy
Pingback: Flawed Science and Stapel: Priming for a Backlash? | Error Statistics Philosophy
Pingback: Richard Gill: “Integrity or fraud… or just questionable research practices?” (Is Gill too easy on them?) | Error Statistics Philosophy
Pingback: Richard Gill: “Integrity or fraud… or just questionable research practices?” (Is Gill too easy on them?) | A bunch of data
Pingback: April 1, 2020: Memory Lane of April 1’s past | Error Statistics Philosophy