Interesting question results from this, when is flawed methodology also flawed ethics? And vice versa. My two examples are Internet statistics and the Rimm study. 1. The stats one is in Michael Wolffs (1998) Burn Rate: how I survived the gold rush years on the Internet, New York: Touchstone, p.130 when he recalls simply making up statistics about the Internet under the pressure of internet-hype. 2. Rimm study. There's no doubt (to me at least) there is deeply flawed methodology in this report. Or that the research of it has some links to anti-porn campaigners who were then targetting censoring legislation against the Internet. There's a conspiracy theory (which may be true) about this report that it was created in order to touch of a moral panic in order to get censoring legislation pushed through in the USA. My memory is there's lots of circumstantial evidence that points this way but I'm not certain a 'smoking gun' or complete proof was found. See Mike Godwin's Cyberrights, Times Books 1998, for this story.