As scientists, we like to think that
science is a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud.
The
perception is that, other than junk science, science should be beyond reproach, unsullied by lies and propaganda.
Results should always be regarded as valid and
completely unbiased.
Unfortunately,
human nature dictates that scientists are human and are always going to be
prone to bias and error. Most such mistakes are subconscious, and a result of looking too hard
for patterns that are not there.
Unfortunately,
there are a number of more sinister cases, where scientists deliberately fabricated results, usually for personal fame. With the advent of corporate and
politically funded research grants, poor results are becoming more dictated by
policy than by scientific infallibility.
Some of
the More Common Types of Science Fraud
There
are many types of science fraud, from minor manipulation of results or
incorrect causal connections to full-blown fabrication of
results and plagiarism of
the work of others.
There
have been cases of researchers stealing the work of their students to obtain
all of the credit and kudos.
There
is a well-documented rumor of a scientific referee delaying the work of a
rival, to ensure that he received the acclaim and a Nobel award. These
allegations are often difficult to prove, as institutions often cover them up
and try to sweep science fraud under the carpet.
Citations
are one area of the scientific process that
is coming under increased pressure, especially with the easy availability of
information on the internet.
A citation, or reference, is supposed to credit past research that influenced the
current research. Now, a bibliography and
list of works cited often becomes a list to impress, readers assuming that the
longer the list, the better the paper.
For
example, most academics have had a tutor assign an essay and instructed them to
use ‘at least twenty references.’ Most students then use 3 or 4 sources and
throw in the other 16 to fill the quota, a problem in every academic area, not
just science.
It
is better to use a few reliable primary sources than rely upon secondary
sources, all often saying the same thing. Supervisors and referees are becoming
stricter about quality rather than quantity, so attitudes should slowly change.
Conversely,
not citing the research of others, and stealing ideas, is another common
science fraud. It is very easy to ‘spin’ the words of others, and pass it off
as the researcher’s own.
Most
scientific papers, especially during the literature review, use other sources, but they need to be properly cited.
A
related type of fraud is where supervisors and funding bodies, who had little
direct involvement in the work, often appear in the title whereas lab
assistants, typists and translators are missed out. To try to evade this
practice, it is common to include anacknowledgements
page, to avoid cluttering up the title too
much.
Some
Famous Science Frauds
Dr. Hwang Woo Suk
For
those who remember, this South Korean announced, to a fanfare, that he had
successfully cloned a dog, and also had some success in human cloning. This
research was published, passed the tests and then he was subsequently suspected
of fraud and ethical violations.
He
withdrew the paper and, as yet, there is no consensus as to whether the fraud
was deliberate or the result of a badly written paper.
The Piltdown Hoax
This
is probably one of the most famous science frauds of all time, which persisted
for many years. A fossilized skull, apparently of the ‘missing link’ between
apes and humans, was discovered in a quarry in Piltdown, Sussex, England. The
find was taken to a distinguished paleontologist, Arthur Smith Woodward, head
of the Geological Department at the British Museum.
He
declared the find authentic, but almost straight away, questions were asked,
and it gradually came to light that it was made up from bones of at least 3
hominid species, including the jawbone of an Orangutan with filed down teeth.
Poor Woodward was the victim in this fraud, and his otherwise notable career
became forgotten, his name forever linked with the fraud.
The
perpetrators remain unknown, although the discoverer, Charles Dawson is
suspected as an attempt to find fame and fortune.
Institutional
Problems
Institutions
are often reluctant to discipline wrongdoers, ignoring it, quietly shifting the
fraudster to another department or even disciplining the wrongdoer.
Science
has a problem that people are reluctant to risk losing their careers to reportscience fraud.
The
problem is that it is difficult for reviewers to
isolate flawed results without repeating the experiment themselves.
The
Grey Area
The
problem is defining what fraud is and what is honest. Scientists, like anybody,
can make genuine mistakes, or be a little eager to see a correlation amongst
the randomness.
This
is not really fraud, but experimental error, and it would be unfair to be overly critical about this process.
Unfortunately, a scientist’s wages and career are possibly on the line unless
they produce results, and this crosses the line.
Another
example of a grey area is in images. Scientists in cell biology, for example,
would often use false color in an image to enhance areas, making it easier for
their results to be seen.
With
the increasing sophistication of graphics programs, there have been
implications that this image enhancement has actually been used to manipulate
images and show what is not there. Many scientific bodies now advise against
enhancing images, because it leaves the researcher open to accusations.
The
Review Process – Is it Flawed?
The
fact is that, despite a few high profile cases, the scientific peer review process is
fairly sturdy.
Reviewers
pick out the worst of the fraud and replication of the experiment will pick out
the aberrations and cases where genuine mistakes have been made.
A
major shift in scientific beliefs does not happen with one paper, however
groundbreaking the research. Hundreds of papers are required for the scientific
community to accept something as ‘proof’.
A
paper selectively using a few citations will
eventually caught out and copyscape and other tools are making it easier to
detect plagiarism.
Journals
are starting to encourage an acknowledgments
page, where the many people contributing to
the research can have some recognition, from the copywriter to the lab
technician.
A
far more sinister process than failures in the system is the increasing amount
of private research funding in the quest for research grants.
The
Global Warming debate is one area where the genuine science has been swamped in
a sea of conflicting interest, and it has moved into politics rather than
science. The quest for grants has lead to the over exaggeration of the
significance of proposals and often research tied to areas with mass appeal,
driving out pure science.
Scientists
are paid according to the number of papers that they produce, and this leads to
rushed and shoddy science, as well as discriminating against female researchers
who take maternity leave or work part time to juggle bringing up children and
work.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário