Sadly, I can’t say I’m that surprised at the 20% statistic. Especially in the field of biology, research has become BIG business, and to more and more researchers, all that matters (just like an company with shareholders) is the bottom line. They don’t care if their work is reproducable, clear, or even totally correct. Because they know if they get their high profile, dramatic articles in prestigious journals, it will advance their career and get them funding for companies they start (or patents they sell). In a sense, it’s just human nature. But I wish, sometimes, that we could occasionaly do better.

That said, it’s a hard problem. Even ignoring money and companies– your published work IS what builds your reputation for your career in science, and some people will exploit that. But I can’t think of a better way to judge a scientist then by the research he publishes, so we’re kind of stuck with it.

Some new digital cameras used by police departments incorporate a cryptographic hash into the image, which will be altered if any image manipulation is done on the picture, allowing photo evidence that’s harder to tamp;er with. Unfortunately, many images in science require SOME manipulation, such as raising the contrast or brightening the image. So I’m not sure that cryptographic standards will help– though I think they may become common in the news media in the next 15 years.

So, yeah… just some thoughts.