October 16, 2006
HEY DIOGENES, WE FOUND HIM
So, maybe I made most of this up, but, hey, does it really matter? (Anjana Ahuja, The Times, October 16th, 2006)
Fraud may also be good for science, according to Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. Since most scientific duplicity involves researchers “idealising†results that they probably would eventually have achieved anyway, such fact-fiddling actually oils the wheels of discovery. He even questions whether it should be labelled fraud at all.Fuller, unsurprisingly, is a voice of dissent in a discussion of whether the race to publish encourages scientists to perpetrate fraud. The discussion appears in Science & Public Affairs, the quarterly magazine of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He does, though, make an exception for drug studies, where misreporting could cause physical harm.
Another contributor, Dr Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature, insists that the pressure to publish is no excuse for unethical behaviour.Fuller offers a blunt assessment of Campbell’s view: “It’s bullshit. It’s not a case of a few bad eggs. I think most fraud goes undetected. And if it was detected, the pace of science would probably slow down.†Indeed, a recent survey by Nature found that a third of postdocs in the US admitted to research misconduct.
What matters, Fuller insists, is whether the research turns out to be any good, and whether it spurs other discoveries: “The validity of a work is proven by its consequences. If enough people get good results out of what you’ve done, then that you derived your results under false circumstances doesn’t matter.â€
As we scientists are fond of saying, you can’t build a rational enlightenment without breaking a few test tubes.
"Fake but accurate" reaches the lab. The politicization of science continues.
This guy's a *sociologist*. Why are people asking him about science?
Posted by: Ralph Phelan at October 16, 2006 2:09 PMThe rush to publish is driven by greed. Whether it is the fame that will follow the publication or the money that is awaited in the form of a grant or the profits from an invention or a patent that may result from the publication. It is all about the money. And just like in other fields, science, too, has its own criminals who let their greed guide them.
Dr. Fuller's contention that fraud's the oil that makes science runs smoothly is not different from claiming that identity theft is what keeps the financial institutions running.
Posted by: Solomon Rivlin at October 16, 2006 2:33 PMFuller offers a blunt assessment of Campbell’s view: “It’s bullshit"
Is that a new scientific term? Hadn't hear that one before.
Posted by: h-man at October 16, 2006 3:12 PM"What matters, Fuller insists, is whether the research turns out to be any good, and whether it spurs other discoveries"
It's an old story - Mendel's work with peas was probably fudged, but was correct in its outlines and contributed to the founding of genetics as a field of study. It definitely matters whether the research turns out to be any good, but does this idiot really think that the proportion of fraudulent research that is any good is significant, much less enough to offset the cost of the useless, bogus research? It can take years of painstaking work by multiple groups to undo a single fraudulent study.
Posted by: M. at October 16, 2006 3:25 PMWe have to get back to the real joke here.
It's Sociology. It doesn't matter. It's totally meaningless, and everybody knows it.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 16, 2006 4:09 PM"Most "scientists" are bottle washers and button sorters." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Posted by: jd watson at October 16, 2006 4:39 PMIt's not a scientific result until it's been checked by rival egomaniacs who can get tenure for disproving it.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at October 16, 2006 11:09 PMI guess Fuller would also endorse the research by Nazi doctors on experimental subjects in their concentration camps as long as their findings turned out to be correct.
Posted by: Solomon Rivlin at October 17, 2006 9:57 AMSolomon:
Of course he would, as would most of them. They would just dangle the prospect of future medical advances and cures before our eyes. They'd get away with it, too.
Posted by: Peter B at October 17, 2006 11:41 AMThe scientific lumpenproletariat.
Posted by: Peter B at October 17, 2006 3:31 PMPeter,
I am a scientist and a whistlblower. As in any other field, in science, too, there are dishonest and unethical scientists. Though their numbers may be on the rise, this phenomenon is probably due to bad economic times, at least in part. I can live with the fact that some of my peers are crooks; I cannot accept that the establishment i.e., university administrations and some department chairs and deans, are participating in a cover-up and disinformation as to the scope of the problem. We suppose to police ourselves, but we do not!
Posted by: Solomon Rivlin at October 18, 2006 12:06 AM