Questionable, Objectionable or Criminal? Public Opinion on Data Fraud and Selective Reporting in Science

Area of Science:

• Scientific integrity
• Research ethics
• Public perception of science

Background:

• Data fraud and selective reporting pose significant threats to scientific credibility.
• Disagreement exists among scientists regarding sanctions for data fraud and the ethics of selective reporting.
• Public funds support research, making public welfare a key concern in scientific reproducibility.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate public opinion on the morality of data fraud and selective reporting in science.
• To understand public judgments on appropriate sanctions for scientific misconduct.
• To explore demographic and partisan influences on public attitudes toward scientific misconduct.

Main Methods:

• A survey experiment with a nationwide convenience sample (N=821).
• A follow-up survey with a representative sample of US adults (N=964).
• Ordered logistic regression analysis to examine demographic and partisan differences.

Main Results:

• The public distinguishes between data fraud and selective reporting but deems both immoral.
• Most community members believe scientists committing these acts should be fired and lose funding.
• A majority of Americans support criminal penalties for data fraud, with few demographic or partisan differences in punitiveness.

Conclusions:

• Public moral intuitions align with the need for social control policies in science.
• Strong public consensus exists on the unacceptability of data fraud and selective reporting.
• Findings underscore the importance of public trust and accountability in scientific research.