Fraud in science has been a topic of frequent debate in recent years, but a particularly heated debate has been the question of whether it is simply an occasional “rotten apple” or the “tip of an iceberg” with a bottom that bodes ill. It is clear that scientists in general and research psychologists in particular must be crystal honest in their scientific activities. Principle B of the 1992 General Code explicitly states that psychologists “shall exercise integrity in research, teaching, and psychological practice” (APA, 1992). Moreover, several specific standards in the 1992 code specifically address research fraud. This section addresses the following questions: What is scientific fraud? How common is it? Why does it happen?
Dictionary « American Heritage Dictionary» (1971) defines fraud as “intentional deception practiced to obtain an undeserved or illegal advantage” (p. 523). There are two main types of fraud common in science: 1) plagiarism- deliberate appropriation of other people's ideas and passing them off as one's own and 2) falsification of data. In the 1992 code, plagiarism is specifically condemned by standard 6.22, and data falsification is specifically condemned by standard 6.21 (Table 2.4). The problem of plagiarism is characteristic of all areas of human activity, and falsification of data occurs only in science, so the next section will be devoted specifically to this issue.
Table 2.4Data falsification and plagiarism: standardsARA
Standard 6.21. Report about the results
a) Psychologists do not fabricate data or falsify research results in their publications.
b) If psychologists discover important errors in their published data, they endeavor to correct these errors by correction, retraction, typographical correction, or other appropriate means.
Standard 6.22. Plagiarism
Psychologists do not claim significant portions of other people's work as their own, even when citing that work or data sources.
Data falsification
If science has a moral sin, it is the sin of lack of crystal honesty in handling data, and the attitude towards data lies at the foundation of the entire edifice of science. But if the foundation fails, everything else fails, so data integrity is of utmost importance. This type of fraud can take various forms. The first and most extreme form is when the scientist does not collect data at all, but simply fabricates it. The second is hiding or changing part of the data to better present the final result. The third is collecting a certain amount of data and completing the missing information to a complete set. The fourth is hiding the entire study if the results are not as expected. In each of these cases, the deception is intentional and the scientists appear to be “receiving an undeserved or illegal benefit” (i.e., publication).
Standard 6.25.
Once the results of a study have been published, psychologists should not withhold the data underlying their conclusions from other scientists who wish to analyze them to test the claim made and who intend to use the data only for that purpose, provided that it is possible to protect the confidentiality of the participants and if legal rights to proprietary rights exist. the data does not prevent their publication.
In addition to failure to replicate the findings, fraud may be discovered (or at least suspected) during a standard audit. When a research paper is submitted to a journal or a grant application is submitted to an agency, several experts review it to help decide whether the paper will be published or a grant awarded. Moments that look strange will probably attract the attention of at least one of the researchers. The third opportunity to detect fraud is when employees working with the researcher suspect the problem. This happened in 1980 in one infamous study. In a series of experiments that seemed to make a breakthrough in the treatment of hyperactivity in children with developmental delays, Stephen Bruning obtained data suggesting that in this case
stimulant medications may be more effective than antipsychotics (Holden, 1987). However, one of his colleagues suspected that the data was falsified. The suspicion was confirmed after three years of investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health { National Institute of Mental Health - NIMH), who financed some of Bruening's research. In court, Bruning pleaded guilty to two counts of representation in NIMH falsified data; in reply NIMH dropped charges of perjury during the investigation (Byrne, 1988).
One of the strengths of science is self-correction through repetition of experiments, careful testing, and the honesty of colleagues. And indeed, such an organization many times made it possible to detect fraud, as, for example, in the case of Brüning. But what if the experts can't detect any evidence of falsification, or if the falsified results match other, real discoveries (that is, if they can be repeated)? If fake results are consistent with true findings, there is no reason to check them and the fraud may remain undetected for many years. Something similar probably happened in psychology's most famous case of suspected fraud ("suspected" since the final decision is still pending).
The case concerns one of the most famous British psychologists - Cyril Burt (1883-1971), a leading participant in the debate about the nature of intelligence. His studies of twins are often cited as evidence that intelligence is predominantly inherited from one parent. One of Burt's results showed that identical twins have almost the same performance IQ, even if immediately after birth they were adopted by different parents and raised in different conditions. For many years, no one questioned his findings, and they entered the literature on the heritability of intelligence. However, attentive readers over time noticed that, describing in different publications the results obtained from studying different numbers of twins, Bert indicated absolutely same statistical results (same correlation coefficient). From a mathematical point of view, obtaining such results is very unlikely. Opponents accused him of falsifying results to bolster Burt's beliefs in the heritability of intelligence, while defenders countered that he had collected valid data but had become forgetful and inattentive in his reporting over the years. In defense of the scientist, it was also said that if he had been involved in fraud, he would probably have tried to hide it (for example, he would have taken care of the mismatch of correlations). There is no doubt that there is something strange about Burt's data, and even his defenders admit that many of them have no scientific value, but the question of whether there was intentional fraud or whether it was a matter of inattention and/or negligence may never be answered. resolved, in part, because after Bert's death, his housekeeper destroyed several boxes containing various documents (Kohn, 1986).
It has become very popular to examine the Burt case (Green, 1992; Samelson, 1992), but the important point for our purposes is that irregularities in the data, whether caused by errors, inattention, or intentional distortion, may go undetected if
the data fits well with other findings (that is, if they have been replicated by anyone). This was the case for Burt; his findings were quite similar to those found in other twin studies (eg, Bouchard & McGue, 1981).
It should be noted that some commentators (e.g., Hilgartner, 1990) believe that other than when falsified data replicate “correct” data, there are two other types of reasons why falsification may not be detected. First, the large number of studies published today allows spurious information to slip through undetected, especially if it does not report major findings that attract widespread attention. Secondly, the reward system is designed in such a way that new discoveries are paid, while the work of scientists engaged in “simple” reproduction of other people’s results is not considered fully creative and such scientists do not receive academic awards. As a result, some questionable studies may not be reproducible.
It is also believed that the reward system is in some sense the reason for the emergence of fraud. This opinion brings us to the final and fundamental question - why does fraud occur? There are various explanations - from individual (weakness of character) to social (a reflection of the general moral decline of the late 20th century). Placing responsibility on the academic reward system is placed somewhere in the middle of the list of reasons. Scientists who publish their research get promoted, gain tenure, win grants, and have the opportunity to influence audiences. Sometimes the constant “die, but publish” effect on the researcher is so strong that it leads him (or his assistant) to the idea of breaking the rules. This may happen on a small scale at first (adding small amounts of information to produce the desired results), but over time the process will grow.
What does this mean for you as research students? At the very least, this means that you need to be conscientious with the data, follow the research procedure scrupulously, and never do not give in to the temptation to falsify even a small amount of information; Also, never discard data obtained from research participants unless there are clear instructions to do so, determined before the experiment begins (for example, when participants do not follow instructions or the researcher misdirects the experiment). In addition, it is necessary to retain the original data or at least have a brief description of it. The best defense against accusations that your results look weird is your ability to provide data on demand.
The importance of the ethical basis of research cannot be overestimated, which is why this chapter is placed at the very beginning of the book. But the discussion of ethical standards is not limited to one chapter - you will come across this topic more than once in the future. If you, for example, pay attention to the content, you will see that each subsequent chapter contains an insert on ethics, dedicated to
issues such as the confidentiality of field participants, participant selection, responsible use of surveys, and the ethical competence of experimenters. In the next chapter, however, we will consider a problem from a different circle - the development of an ideological basis for research projects.
Not only the Russian Federation, but also other countries around the world are faced with the problem of falsification of scientific achievements. It is known that more than 120 cases of falsification of scientific discoveries have already been uncovered in the United States. science social medicine water
Several types of falsification of scientific discoveries can be distinguished: the first type is violation of copyright and appropriation of someone else's intellectual property, the second type is fabrication of data, that is, adjusting the figures obtained during the study to figures that would correspond to the successful completion of the research. The danger of such falsified scientific discoveries is that the data from such a “discovery” can cause significant and irreparable harm to human health, since other scientists may have mistakenly relied on the data from these studies in their work. People who engage in falsification in the field of science are not guided by good intentions, but most likely by selfish ones. Since a number of countries have special privileges for scientists, the number of published works can also determine the degree of popularity and demand for a scientist. Experts in the field predict that falsification of scientific papers will only increase over time. However, this problem is extremely serious because there is no mechanism for removing false scientific information from the public domain. Biology and medicine suffer the most from falsification. The whole world knows the case of cardiologist John Darcy from Harvard Medical School. During the three years of his activity, he published more than a hundred works. And during the study of his articles by a special commission, the fact that the data obtained was unreliable was revealed. Thus, John Darcy discredited himself, his co-author and the reviewer, who were unable to detect the falsity of the research before the publication of his articles.
This case is not the only one that raises the question: why do scientists, neglecting scientific honesty, publish deliberately false data? Like all ordinary people, scientists must not only engage in scientific research, but also provide for their families. Scientific activity is directly related to positions, grants and employment contracts that scientists enter into with the state or private companies. And to avoid dismissal or demotion, scientists are forced to publish as often as possible. It turns out that in order to be a sought-after scientist, you need to monitor your prestige, status, and position in society. That is, such organization of the work of scientists only contributes to an increase in falsification in science. But we should not forget that all people can make simple human mistakes and scientists are no exception.
Science, to a certain extent, is a tool for managing public opinion, and falsification is directly related to this phenomenon. In order to make one theory scientific and another unscientific, some scientists, sacrificing their high ideals, fabricate research data in such a way as to distort and present the theory as the only true one. And this is already connected with the fact of neglect of moral values. Previously, it was religion and moral values that restrained falsification within permitted limits, but in modern society moral values and religion are already losing their former meaning.
Photos from open sources
Falsification of truth is a common thing in our wretched society, where it is headed by a handful of multi-rich people, for whom unlimited power over the people is much more important than the development and prosperity of modern civilization. And there is no crime that they would not commit for the sake of the power of money. (website)
Today it is almost no secret to anyone that for the sake of this very notorious unlimited power of the world government, history is distorted, written and rewritten. However, as it became known, even more terrible for society is the falsification of science, which allows the Illuminati to keep humanity in darkness, poverty and hunger.
Photos from open sources
This is precisely the statement made by Alfred Webre, who was once a White House adviser, and therefore knows first-hand all the ins and outs of the US government’s policy of hiding scientific data. So Webre claims that in the United States, development of, say, the same time machine has been going on for at least eighty years. During this time, during numerous experiments there were both dead and missing, however, in the end, the results were amazing, proving that it is possible to travel both to the past and to the future.
Photos from open sources
For this reason, Webre says, the White House government, for example, knew in advance about the tragedy of September 11, 2001, knew in the early seventies. This is proven even by the “Illuminati” playing cards that appeared in 1995, which depicted the collapsing twin towers of the famous New York World Trade Center. Then, of course, all this was written off as a coincidence, but in fact, such decks of cards are evidence of information leakage.
Photos from open sources
But why in this case the US government did not prevent the most ambitious terrorist attack of the early 21st century is another question, although it is again closely related to the distortion of the truth (any).
Falsification and secrecy go hand in hand
The richest clans of the Earth, which are sometimes called the world government, sometimes the Illuminati, which is essentially the same thing, at the beginning of the last century classified all scientific experiments that would undermine their fabulous income from the sale of gas, oil, and other important natural resources, and therefore world science today is bribed. All developments such as “time machine”, “perpetual motion machine”, “zero energy and its wireless transmission” are tabooed. These developments can only be carried out by selected (you know who) scientists in secret laboratories under the supervision of, say, the same CIA. Therefore, the results of these studies are closed to society, but the Illuminati themselves successfully use them for their own selfish, almost misanthropic purposes.
Photos from open sources
Alfred Webre gives an example that the world “elite” a hundred years ago developed a memorandum aimed at falsification in the field of science and practically destroying it throughout the world. It all started with the destruction of the disciplines fundamental to science and education - the scientific method and logic. Thanks to this, fundamental science is practically marking time - it has reached a complete dead end. This is also confirmed by the luminaries of modern scientific thought, such as M. Kaku, V. Katyuschik, S. Sall and many others, who plainly state that today we are practically running in the opposite direction from the same zero-energy (free for all humanity) and many other great discoveries, since dogmas and patterns that contradict common sense are imposed on society.
Instead of Mendeleev's Newtonius, Einstein's erroneous theory
For example, why was the element newtonium, which was in the zero row and with which the table began, excluded from D. Mendeleev’s table? But the fact is that newtonium corresponds to the world ether, which stores and transmits all types of energy in nature. The theory of the ether itself led to limitless and practically free energy, which was not at all part of the plans of the oil and gas magnates. And then, instead of the theory of ether, Einstein's theory of relativity was imposed on the world. Moreover, the German scientist himself would be very surprised if he became acquainted with some of the provisions of “his theory”, which were openly falsified.
Photos from open sources
In fact, it is not space that is bent, explains V. Katyushchik, but a place; for example, the trajectory of photons passing by the Sun is bent, but not space. These are the basics of the scientific method, which are not taught in universities, like the interpretation of the first law of logic. And why? Yes, because otherwise students will get to the bottom of the truth and ask in surprise: what does space curvature have to do with it?
Why and how do the richest clans in the world falsify science?
In the middle of the last century, journalists still raised this issue - about the falsification of science. For example, in the Financial Times newspaper of that time you can find the article “What is Science?” It said that modern luminaries of science are far from being celestial beings who do everything for the good of the people. Among them there are a lot of swindlers, crooks and falsifiers, and for the sake of money they are ready for any meanness, even crime. Unfortunately, the authors of that article concluded, the activities of such “prominent scientists” are recognized by society too late, sometimes when they are no longer alive. And sometimes you can’t even get to the bottom of the truth, who is to blame for what...
However, as Alfred Webre explains, journalists at that time did not understand the main reason why people from science falsify this very science, that they are simply paid for their silence, their fraud and even their crimes. Moreover, they pay well, since this is very beneficial to the world government. But in fact, there are two sciences in the world. One is true, but secret, and the second is public, but deceitful and corrupt. By the way, the same picture can be seen in education, which is why society is becoming more and more stupid and less educated, despite the numerous secondary and higher educational institutions. And the fact that the satirist Zadornov ridicules the Unified State Exam and American education, which has already captivated the whole world, including Russia, is in fact far from funny, but sad and even tragic for all humanity...
Photos from open sources
Let's say, the same Rockefeller is generously paid by the so-called “science commissions”, which have been created in almost all the advanced countries of the world, thereby suppressing any attempts to develop and even more so implement the same alternative fuel-free technologies, medicines for the most terrible diseases of our century , means of extending life, revealing the hidden potential of a person and much more that undermines their power over the world. Thanks to these commissions, everything advanced is declared charlatanism, pseudoscience, and obscurantism. At the same time, the world government itself, with the other hand, also generously finances its underground science, and uses the fruits of purchased scientists to direct forbidden knowledge to further strengthen its already almost limitless power...
One of the most famous falsifications in the history of science is the “Pittledown Man.” Many Darwinists, however, claim that this event was an exception and nothing like this could happen now. However, the list of falsifications in science does not end there: it includes Archaeoraptor, and the birch moth, and the midwife toad, and Haeckel’s embryos, and Ancona sheep, and the Tasaday Indians, and Bathybius haeckelii, and Hesperopithecus (“man from Nebraska") - the “missing link”, which turned out to be a pig. Falsification has proven to be a "serious, deep-rooted problem" that impacts much of modern scientific research, especially in the field of evolution. Due to a series of events, scientists have been forced to admit this, and now they are trying to combat this problem.
Most known cases of falsification in science these days are in the biological sciences. In the field of medical biology alone, in 2001, the US Department of Health's Office of Research Integrity uncovered 127 cases of falsification. This number has increased for the third time since 1998. The problem is not just of academic interest: it concerns the health and lives of people. There is more at stake than prestige and money - falsification can cause human death, and in medical science, falsifiers are “playing with lives.” Similar cases occur all over the world. In Australia, scientific misconduct has created such a crisis that the issue has been taken up in the country's parliament, and scientists have been called for to create an organization to monitor scientific integrity.
One example of falsification is the widely cited immunological studies on kidney transplantation performed by Zoltan Lukas (MD from Johns Hopkins University and PhD in biochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Recently it was discovered that they contain false information. Dr. Lucas was an assistant professor and taught surgery at Stanford University. His graduate student, Randall Morris, discovered that Lucas was writing reports on research that, as far as Morris knew, had never been done. Morris knew this because he would be obligated to take part in such a study! And these works were published in reputable journals and, undoubtedly, many scientists relied on their results when conducting their own research. As a result of this epidemic of modern falsifications, the editors of the magazine Nature concludes:
“The days are long gone when falsification of scientific results could be ignored on the grounds that it was carried out only by madmen who were not capable of harming anyone. The woefully long list of false studies suggests that falsifiers believe in the results they report, so they see no threat in other researchers trying to replicate their work.”.
Or they believe that no one would think of repeating their research, at least not for some time (many scientific studies are not repeated, but medical research is usually repeated several times because of its importance to human health, although this process often takes several years). The problem of falsification is so widespread that scientists who are not involved in falsification sometimes deserve special recognition - like the Italian scientist Franco Rasetti: “Today we hear about a lot of falsifications in science and create numerous commissions and ethics committees. For Rasetti, scientific integrity was an axiom.".
The falsification has spread to such an extent that the authors of one of the works devoted to this problem conclude: “...science retains very little resemblance to its usual image”. Although falsification of results is more common among researchers working alone, it also occurs in group projects under the supervision of colleagues. Among those accused of falsification are the great biologists of our time. The problem exists at Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, Baylor University and other major universities. A review of falsifications in a Nature editorial noted that in many cases, false results are the work not of ambitious young scientists, but of sophisticated researchers. The article reads:
“...a good dozen cases of falsification revealed in the last five years occurred at the best research institutions in the world - Cornell, Harvard, Yale, the Sloan-Kettering Institute and so on - and they involved people who were recognized among their peers as outstanding scientists . Requirements to publish work can explain the abundance of boring scientific literature - but not falsification."
Methods of falsification are varied - from falsifying data to outright rewriting of large sections from other articles. Nature finds that plagiarism is on the rise, especially in the field of molecular biology. To prevent information leaks, many scientists even present incorrect information in the manuscripts of their articles, making adjustments to it only immediately before publication. And the forecast for the future is disappointing: the number of falsifications will increase, especially in medical biology, where a scientist is required to publish a lot of work.
Falsifiers among Darwinists
The scientific method is an ideal, but there are cases in which it is especially difficult to apply. This applies in particular to the “proof” of certain scientific hypotheses – for example, from the field of “origin science”. A good example of this difficulty is "the theory of evolution [as] another example of a theory highly valued by scientists... but lying in a certain sense too deep to be directly proven or disproved". The main problem with this issue is arrogance, a quality common in the scientific world. Some scientists believe that they know everything best and only they have the right to ask questions, and if they don't ask them, then no one else should either.
A famous case of falsification in evolutionary research involving the Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer was the subject of a classic book called The Case of the Midwife. Kammerer drew “nuptial calluses” in ink on the feet of the toads he studied. And although this forgery, which supposedly testified in favor of the Lamarckian theory of evolution, was exposed, for decades it was used by ideologists of evolution in Soviet science, including Trofim Lysenko. In another, similar case, William Summerlin falsified the results of an experiment in the 1970s by drawing black spots on white experimental mice with a felt-tip pen.
But a very recent case of falsification in evolutionary research is Archaeoraptor, the “evolutionary find of the century”, which allegedly confirmed the origin of birds from dinosaurs. National Geographic Society "hailed the fossil find... as the true missing link in the complex chain connecting dinosaurs and birds". Simons analyzed the authenticity of Archaeoraptor, which "several eminent paleontologists" called "the long-awaited key to the mystery of evolution," and proved that it was a hoax. High-resolution X-ray tomography revealed “scattered fragments skillfully glued together.” This falsification combined “fanaticism and extravagance,” “the collapse of an overgrown ego,” “abuse of trust,” and “vicious thought.” The story of the Piltdown Man repeated itself, and Simons adds that in this story, “every single” participant showed their worst side.
Paul Harvey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, expresses dismay at Möller's “massive body of work with new data and analysis”—all of which are now suspect,30 and a fact that “makes many editors nervous.” ...Michael Ritchie from the University of St. Andrews (UK), magazine editor Journal of Evolutionary Biology and member of the leadership of scientific societies publishing journals Evolution and Animal Behavior r [stated]: “We have to think carefully about what we are going to do and do it right. I think we shouldn’t make hasty decisions.”.
Möller's problem first surfaced when laboratory assistant Jette Andersen claimed that the Oikos journal article was not based on her data, as Möller claimed, but on fabricated data. The investigation confirmed this fact. Then suspicions affected other works. Scientists now fear that much of Möller's work was falsified, and all of his work is under suspicion.
Recent events indicate the seriousness of the problem
Unfortunately, medicine and biology especially suffer from falsifications. The authors of one study found 94 papers in the field of oncology that “probably” contained falsified data. Two years later, many of these works have yet to be rebutted by their authors. Thus, the conclusion is confirmed that “even if scientific incorrectness is proven, there is no mechanism to remove incorrect information from scientific literature”.
One case of medical fraud involves cardiologist John Darcy of Harvard Medical School. The data that formed the basis of more than 100 of his publications over a period of about three years was fabricated. This case shows how just a few people can create many fraudulent publications. Having studied 109 articles by Darcy, researchers found in them completely “abnormal” data that obviously could not be true, numerous inconsistencies, and gross internal contradictions. There were examples of glaring errors and inconsistencies that the reviewers simply had to notice. The authors of the analysis conclude that the co-authors and reviewers who read this work were grossly incompetent.
Another case involved a biological study that seemed to “turn the generally accepted theory of cell signaling on its head.” The article received a refutation by the authors only “15 months after publication. This fact shocked cytologists, and, as the authors of the review note, this irrevocably ended the career of Siu-Kwon Chen, one of the co-authors of the article. Gary Struhl, a scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Columbia University (New York), co-author of the article and leader of the work, published a refutation on February 6.” In his rebuttal, Struhl stated that Chen, "performing postdoctoral research in his laboratory misreported results or failed to perform critical experiments described in the paper"(S.-K. Chan and G. Struhl Cell 111, 265-280; 2002). Struhl discovered the problem by repeating some of Chen's experiments. Having not received the expected results, Struhl, according to him, asked for an explanation from his former subordinate, who by that time had moved to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. “Faced with this discrepancy, S.-K. Chen told me that most of his experiments... either were not performed or gave results different from those given in the article.". Struhl writes in the rebuttal: “Consequently, I declare that this article and its conclusions are invalid.”. They worked on the research project for five years before the results were published in October 2002.
How to measure a lie
Broad and Wade argue that lying in science has not been an exceptional phenomenon, but, on the contrary, a trend - from its origins to the present day. However, it would be very useful to try to measure the extent of falsification in science - currently and in the past. For example, is it possible to say that four percent of all scientific papers over the past thirty years contain false data? Or is it six percent? Or thirty? This proportion depends on what we call lies and whether we include unintentional lies (such as experimental errors) in this category. A figure of one percent may seem insignificant or, depending on your point of view, catastrophic. Let's say, if AIDS affects half a percent of the world's population, it will be called an epidemic (or rather, a pandemic). In addition, even if the experiment is repeated and the results are found to be inconsistent with the published data, it will be very difficult to prove the fact of falsification, since evidence of dishonesty is easy to hide. If a certain scientist claims that a given result has been obtained, then the maximum that can be proven is a consistent discrepancy between the results of repeated experiments and the data of this scientist. Dishonesty can only be exposed if some laboratory technician calls out the falsification.
Why has deception become common?
The modern system of organizing scientific research contributes to the spread of falsifications. Careers—positions, grants, lucrative employment contracts, and literally the well-being of scientists—are at stake. This is partly a result of the “publish or quit” policy in academic institutions. As Broad and Wade note, “Grants and contracts from the federal government... quickly dry up unless they are followed by immediate and continued success.”. The incentive to publish, create a name for oneself in science, receive prestigious awards and invitations to participate in the management of educational institutions - all this creates a temptation for fraud. The authors come to a frightening conclusion: “Lies and violation of norms are inherent in science, like no other type of human activity”. And as Broad and Wade point out, scholars “They are no different from other people. Putting on a white coat at the door of the laboratory, they do not get rid of the passions, ambitions and mistakes that accompany a person on any path in life.”.
Typically, when falsified, the data is not completely rewritten. Most often, the falsifier slightly changes them, ignores some of the received data, and “corrects” some of the data to such an extent as to change a result that is close to expected, but does not have the required statistical reliability, to the level of 95% confidence. It is very difficult to understand whether the falsification was intentional. It is difficult to distinguish dishonesty from normal human error, carelessness, negligence or incompetence. A scientist can, guided by a speculative theory, turn a blind eye to obvious facts that contradict his ideas. Generally accepted theories seem to be carved in stone: they are not so easy to refute, even if there is a huge amount of new information that contradicts this “sacred” theory.
One of the reasons for falsification in science is the fact that the purpose of science is to create comprehensive theories, not to collect facts. Sometimes it is difficult to make the facts fit the theory - for example, in situations where there are many anomalies. In these cases, there is a strong temptation to ignore facts that do not agree with these theories. From the earliest days of science, the desire to gain recognition from colleagues (and become famous) led to the temptation to distort or ignore the data obtained, manipulate the facts, and even commit outright lies.
Don't notice your colleagues' mistakes
Given the fact that scientific communication is carried out primarily through printed publications, there is a tendency to publish only the work of those few scientists who have been able to significantly confirm a certain theory, and not to publish many results that appear to be less significant. Therefore, scientists often, consciously or not, do this: if the facts confirm the theory, then they are emphasized, if they do not fully confirm, then they are corrected, and if they contradict, then they are ignored. But there is also more sophisticated falsification. One example is the case of Dr. Gluck:
“Only a month has passed since the National Institute of Psychiatry issued a verdict on the Breuning investigation, and the medical community is already shocked by a new scandal. For 22 years, physician Charles Gluck rose through the ranks of science. Graduating in 1964, he has since published nearly 400 papers at a tremendous rate of about 17 per year. For his work on cholesterol and heart disease, Gluck received the prestigious Riveschl Prize from the University of Cincinnati in 1980. Gluck was the director of the Lipid Research Center and the Chief Clinical Research Center at the university, making him one of the most powerful and highly paid scientists in the state. Last July, however, the National Institutes of Health discovered that Gluck's paper, published in August 1986 in the journal Pediatrics, contained numerous inconsistencies and errors. The article, according to the NIH, was frankly shoddy, and its conclusions were unfounded.”
How did Gluck manage to get an article full of “inconsistencies and errors” published in a peer-reviewed journal? The practice of peer reviewing grant applications means that the scientists who decide who gets the money have a great deal of influence on what kind of research gets done. Opportunistic research is funded, and work that supposedly contradicts generally accepted theories (for example, Darwinism) has virtually no chance of receiving funding. Dalton notes that despite the well-known problem with peer review, “no serious alternative to this system has yet been proposed. “It’s easy to say the system is bad. It's harder to fix it,” says Ronald McKay, a stem cell scientist at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Paralysis in Bethesda, Maryland. They tried to improve the matter by requiring reviewers to sign their names on reviews. It was assumed that if reviewers were required to sign a review, their work would become more open, and no one would be able to obstruct the research under the guise of anonymity. Rennie advocates this approach. He says: “This is the only system that is trustworthy, worthwhile, transparent and honest... I made this appeal to scientists, but the majority did not support me.”
The many “flaws in the article publishing system” are mainly due to the fact that “peer review does not guarantee quality.” One way to combat this problem is to publish the names of reviewers; these people must be trusted. Another way is to publish clear and strict criteria for selecting articles, and if an article does not meet these criteria, the author must revise it until it does.
Does the scientific world correct the mistakes of individual scientists?
Peer review turned out to be a sham. Eventually “much of what goes into print without causing any objection is in fact incorrect, and no one knows about it - or maybe no one cares about it”. Anderson has analyzed attempts to defend the peer review system: for example, the editor-in-chief of Science Donald, Donald Kennedy, states that “no one ever expected that peer review would detect falsification.” Kennedy believes that he partially succeeded in justifying this system of review, but also Science, and in Nature Articles containing false data have been published, and the inconsistencies in these articles can hardly be called invisible. As an example, he cites Jan Hendrik Schon, who in one of his works
“used the same curve in two different graphs, and in another article gave the results without error values. Both journals emphasize that they select articles for publication on the basis of high scientific merit and reviewers on the basis of excellence. Could editors and reviewers have failed to notice these glaring inconsistencies? In these articles, among other things, statements were made that were of great importance for industry and science. In addition, Sean was exposed by scientists who were not involved in the review."
The problem is that “science has a pathogenic side,” since “lust for power” or “greed” “can afflict a scientist” just like anyone else. Anyone who has worked in a laboratory or university, or even read about the history of science, is familiar with the pride, envy, and competitive spirit that afflicts scientists working in the same field. In an effort to “win,” some scientists “concocted” discoveries for themselves: they adjusted the actual results to what they expected to get.
The main problem with falsification is science itself. Scientists “see their profession in the light of spectacular ideals created by philosophers and sociologists. Like any believers, they tend to interpret what they see in accordance with what their faith dictates.". And, unfortunately, science is "a complex process in which the observer can see almost anything he wants by narrowing his field of view". For example, James Randi concluded that scientists are very easy to deceive using magic tricks. The problem of objectivity is very serious because many scientists believe passionately in their work and the theories they are trying to prove. This passion can support a scientist in his efforts to achieve a result, or it can affect the result and even distort it.
Many examples show that scientists are especially prone to self-deception in cases where they are dealing with facts that call into question the foundations of their worldview. “All people making observations, even well-trained ones, tend to see what they expect to see.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the highly controversial field of evolutionary research.
Robert Rosenthal, in a series of experiments that have now become classics, studied scientists' perceptions of experimental results. In one of the experiments, he suggested that scientists conduct a test with “active” and “sluggish” rats. In reality, the rats were randomly divided into two groups. None of the scientists participating in the experiment had experience conducting this test. The scientists reported that the "active" rats performed better, although in fact this was not the case. The experimenters saw what they wanted (or expected) to see (now called the “expectancy effect”) - perhaps unconsciously; The scientists probably stopped the stopwatch a fraction of a second earlier when dealing with “active” rats, and a fraction of a second later when dealing with “sluggish” ones. Other similar experiments have yielded similar results.
Science as a weapon of suppression
One way to discredit an unpopular theory, especially when it comes to the origin of life, is to call it “unscientific” and the opposing theory “scientific.” Sociologists have studied the harmful effects of such labeling for years. This approach has a positive effect on one of the directions formed due to artificial separation, and a negative effect on the other direction. In any scientific controversy, the correct thing to do is to judge each point of view on its merits, using the purely scientific method.
In a study of falsifications in science, Broad and Wade argue that the term "science" often acts as a "label" intended to imply the truth or falsity of a statement. According to them, the conventional wisdom is that “science is a strictly logical process, objectivity is an integral part of the scientist’s attitude toward his work, and scientific opinions are carefully tested by colleagues and repeated experiments. In such a self-monitoring system, errors of any kind are quickly identified and corrected.”
The authors then show that this view of science is incorrect. The result of their work helps us understand the features of scientific work from a more realistic perspective than is common today. They show that the supposedly “error-proof” mechanisms of scientific research often fail to correct the consequences of falsification, which they call the “epidemic” of modern science. The desire to “be first,” the need to receive grants, trips to exotic places for conferences, and the temptation of money and prestige force many scientists to abandon the high ideals they had at the beginning of their careers.
conclusions
Published literature and interviews I conducted with medical school faculty confirm that there is a problem with falsification in science today. Reasons for falsification include money, positions, grant opportunities, professional competition, and the need to prove a theory or idea. But there is another factor. This is a disregard for Christianity and moral values, which resulted in a crisis of the ethical foundations that restrained falsification. The problem of falsification is especially acute in areas of science that support Darwinism, and it has been around for a long time. The literature describes hundreds of cases of falsification of scientific results. Unfortunately, even with repeated experiments (which is not done in all areas of science), falsification is very difficult to recognize. As a rule, only the assistants and colleagues of the falsifier can expose the falsification, but often they do not report its fact, since it can cost them friendships and reputation. They may even become the target of revenge. According to Roman, because of this, “informers” are “rare.”
As a result, falsification in science, according to many, has grown into an epidemic. The biological sciences are of great concern in this regard. It is believed that more than 10% of scientists are dishonest in this area. It follows that most scientists cite false or at least inaccurate data in their works. Meanwhile, there are very few extensive studies on falsifications (and, probably, the cases found in their course are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg).
Jerry Bergman is preparing to receive the ninth academic degree. The main areas of his scientific interests are biology, chemistry, psychology, scientific and technical research. Bergman graduated from a number of educational institutions, including Wayne State University (Detroit), Medical College of Ohio (Toledo), and Bowling Green University. Dr. Bergman is a prolific writer; In addition, he teaches biology, chemistry, and biochemistry at Northwestern University in Archbold, Ohio.
