Fraud is as old as humankind. Whether
it occurs in politics, business, or marriage, it often goes unnoticed compared
to fraud in science. However, the underlying principle remains the same: to
deceive others for personal gain. Until the mid-20th century, scientific fraud
was virtually unheard of. Society viewed scientists as wise and honest
individuals, dedicated solely to uncovering "the effective truth of
things" through rational and competent analysis. However, scientific
research, like any human endeavor, is susceptible to fraud, and scientists,
professors, and researchers are not exempt from dishonesty.
But what exactly constitutes
scientific fraud? According to the Dictionary
of American History, "scientific fraud" refers to the
intentional misrepresentation of methods, procedures, or results in scientific
research. This includes plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification in proposing,
conducting, reviewing, or reporting research findings.
Among the three main types of
scientific fraud, plagiarism is perhaps the most prevalent today, made easier
to detect with the advent of the internet. Plagiarism occurs when a researcher
publishes another person's work under their own name. Traditional definitions
of plagiarism do not typically include self-plagiarism—the republication of
one's own work. However, self-plagiarism is still unethical, particularly when
it infringes on a publisher’s rights.
Forgery, or data fabrication, occurs
when a researcher presents fictitious data that were never collected or
describes experiments that were never conducted. A less common but more extreme
form of fabrication involves the creation of false physical evidence, such as
manipulated photographs or images, to falsely claim a scientific discovery.
Falsification, also known as fudging
or massaging data, involves the deliberate manipulation of research records,
data, images, or statistics to support a desired conclusion. This is likely the
most common form of fraudulent conduct in science.
How, then, can readers of scientific
literature distinguish between honest experimental errors—an inherent part of
inductive science—and intentional fraud? This is no easy task. Traditionally,
errors are seen as part of the research process: they may arise from equipment
limitations, observer bias, flawed experimental design, random variability, or
simple human mistakes such as data entry errors.
Researchers working in unexplored
fields are particularly prone to errors due to their unfamiliarity with the
subject or an excess of passion (or vanity) that clouds their judgment. In most
cases, these mistakes are genuine and unintended. However, some are committed
deliberately—data are falsified or fabricated to create evidence that does not
actually exist, all for the researcher’s benefit.
Some argue that science is becoming a
cutthroat business, where accusations of fraudulent practices arise in the
competitive pursuit of useful research findings, applications, and financial
gain. Others insist that major scientific frauds are rare and that smaller
infractions are just that—minor.
It is important to recognize that
scientific fraud is not perpetrated by outsiders but by individuals embedded
within research institutions, actively conducting investigations. Combating
scientific fraud is crucial because academic credentials serve as the
foundation for evaluating personnel for promotions, grants, financial support,
and tenure. This issue therefore deserves greater research, discussion, and
attention than it has received thus far.
This is not to suggest that science is
experiencing an ethical crisis, but rather that the current academic system has
weaknesses that need to be addressed. Ultimately, a well-informed scientific
community is well-equipped to tackle these challenges. Nevertheless, fraud is
bound to be uncovered sooner or later. As Francis Bacon wisely noted,
"Truth is not the daughter of authority, but of time."
This article includes excerpts from a previously
published work: Vieira, S. (2015). Not to be mentioned but impossible to keep
quiet about. Journal of Scientific Research and Report. Available at http://sciencedomain.org/issue/1226
No comments:
Post a Comment