Six Degrees of Scientific Misconduct
30/08/10 15:03 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 15:03.
The falsification of data is a very serious offense in the scientific community, because scientists formulate their research plans around what is currently known. A great deal of time, energy and resources can be wasted if the fraud puts investigators on the wrong track. However, what sets scientific thought apart from, for example religious thought, is that science is self correcting and we have faith that ultimately the truth emerges.
The argument that scientific violations by a "superstar" researcher might be either more or less forgivable than for example a new investigator is based on the respect that their peers hold for these individuals and their work. A high profile scientist might be thought to have more influence than a new or average investigator, and their actions might affect more people adversely. However, it seems to me that the nature and potential negative impact of a specific fraud has much greater bearing than who perpetrated it, especially since information is so easily disseminated nowadays. The embarrassment associated with the discovery of scientific misconduct is devastating regardless of whether one is at the end or beginning of their scientific career.
With the pressures for researchers to demonstrate strong productivity by way of publications for securing funding, promotion and job security, I have little doubt that minor falsification of data is pretty wide spread. It is probably inherent in "hypothesis-driven" research. Generally, these "slight corrections" or omissions of data have relatively little consequence and may in fact put other investigators on the right track. A good example of this is the pioneering genetics work of Gregor Mendel. It is seems very likely that this Augustinian priest and scientist, whom we hold justifiably in high regard, may have manipulated his data with peas with a confirmation bias.
As in most other professions, honesty and integrity in the pursuit of science are virtues that we should all continue to aspire towards. Those that seriously violate the trust we have in each other should be pitied rather than vilified. In the end, their life's work offers little contribution and may have handicapped the scientific endeavors of others.
Link to the original blog post.
The falsification of data is a very serious offense in the scientific community, because scientists formulate their research plans around what is currently known. A great deal of time, energy and resources can be wasted if the fraud puts investigators on the wrong track. However, what sets scientific thought apart from, for example religious thought, is that science is self correcting and we have faith that ultimately the truth emerges.
The argument that scientific violations by a "superstar" researcher might be either more or less forgivable than for example a new investigator is based on the respect that their peers hold for these individuals and their work. A high profile scientist might be thought to have more influence than a new or average investigator, and their actions might affect more people adversely. However, it seems to me that the nature and potential negative impact of a specific fraud has much greater bearing than who perpetrated it, especially since information is so easily disseminated nowadays. The embarrassment associated with the discovery of scientific misconduct is devastating regardless of whether one is at the end or beginning of their scientific career.
With the pressures for researchers to demonstrate strong productivity by way of publications for securing funding, promotion and job security, I have little doubt that minor falsification of data is pretty wide spread. It is probably inherent in "hypothesis-driven" research. Generally, these "slight corrections" or omissions of data have relatively little consequence and may in fact put other investigators on the right track. A good example of this is the pioneering genetics work of Gregor Mendel. It is seems very likely that this Augustinian priest and scientist, whom we hold justifiably in high regard, may have manipulated his data with peas with a confirmation bias.
As in most other professions, honesty and integrity in the pursuit of science are virtues that we should all continue to aspire towards. Those that seriously violate the trust we have in each other should be pitied rather than vilified. In the end, their life's work offers little contribution and may have handicapped the scientific endeavors of others.
Link to the original blog post.