What can motivate scientists to falsify. Why an epidemic of lies is raging in modern science
Photos from open sources
Falsification of truth is a common thing for 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 such crime that they would not go for the sake of the power of money. (site)
Today it is almost no secret to anyone that for the sake of this most notorious unlimited power of the world government, history is being 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
It was with such a statement that Alfred Vebr, who was once an adviser to the White House, made, and therefore knows all the ins and outs of the US government's policy of hiding scientific data firsthand. So Webr claims that in the United States, the development of, say, the same time machine has been going on for at least eighty years. During this time, in the course of numerous experiments, there were both dead and missing, however, in the end, the results were amazing, proving that you can travel both to the past and to the future.
Photos from open sources
For this reason, says Webr, 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 playing cards "Illuminati", which appeared in 1995, which depicted the crumbling twin towers of the famous New York World Trade Center. Then all this, of course, was attributed to 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 grandiose terrorist attack of the beginning of the 21st century is another question, although it is again closely related to the distortion of the truth (any).
Counterfeiting 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 is bribed today. All developments, such as "time machine", "perpetual motion machine", "zero energy and its wireless transmission" are tabo. These developments can only be carried out by a select few (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 they are successfully used by the Illuminati themselves for their own selfish, almost misanthropic purposes.
Photos from open sources
Alfred Vebr gives an example that a hundred years ago the world "elite" developed a memorandum aimed at falsification in the field of science and practically destroying it all over the world. It all began with the destruction of the fundamental disciplines for 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. Katyushchik, S. Sall and many others, who explicitly declare that today we are practically running in the opposite direction from the same zero energy (free for all mankind) and many other great discoveries, since dogmas and patterns that are contrary to common sense are imposed on society.
Instead of Mendeleev's Newtonius, Einstein's erroneous theory
For example, why is the element Newtonium, which was in the zero row and from which the table just began, is excluded from the table of D. Mendeleev? And the fact is that Newtonium corresponds to the world ether, which stores and transmits all types of energy in nature. The very theory of the ether led to unlimited 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 to get acquainted with some of the provisions of "his theory", which were openly falsified.
Photos from open sources
In fact, V. Katyuschik explains, it is not space, but a place that is curved, for example, the trajectory of photons passing by the Sun is curved, but not space. These are the basics of the scientific method, which are not taught in universities, as well as the interpretation of the first law of logic. And why? Because otherwise the students will get to the bottom of the truth and ask with surprise: what does the curvature of space 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 - the falsification of science. For example, in the "Financial Times" newspaper of that time, you can find an article "What is Science?" It said that the modern luminaries of science are far from being celestials who do everything for the good of the people. Among them are full of swindlers, crooks and falsifiers, and that for the sake of money they are ready for any meanness, up to a 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 don't even get to the bottom of the truth, who and what is to blame ...
However, as Alfred Vebr 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 it is very beneficial to the world government. In fact, there are two sciences in the world. One is true, but secret, and the other is public, but deceitful and corrupt. By the way, the same picture can be seen in education, which is why society is becoming more stupid and less educated, despite the numerous secondary and higher educational institutions. And the fact that the satirist Zadornov ridicules the USE and American education, which has already flooded the whole world, including Russia, is actually far from funny, but sad and even tragic for all mankind ...
Photos from open sources
For example, the same Rockefeller is generously paid by the so-called "science commissions", which have been created in almost all advanced countries of the world, thereby suppressing any attempts to develop and even more so to introduce into life the same alternative fuel-free technologies, drugs for the most terrible diseases of our century , means of prolonging life, disclosing the hidden potential of a person and much more, which undermines their power over the world. Thanks to these commissions, everything that is advanced is declared charlatanism, pseudoscience, obscurantism. At the same time, the world government itself, with the other hand, also generously finances its underground science, and uses the fruits of the purchased scientists to channel forbidden knowledge to further strengthen its already almost unlimited power ...
Deliberately misinterpreting something in order to obtain any benefit (for example, falsification of scientific data, data, etc.).
Falsification should be distinguished from.
There is also a place for counterfeiting in the manufacture of food products. Sometimes, to improve the organoleptic properties, various additives are used that imitate quality improvement (sweeteners, dyes, etc.)
Falsification in art
Fake things
Counterfeiting is an imitation that is usually made with the intent to maliciously misrepresent its content or origin. Word fake most often describes a counterfeit or, but may also describe such things as:, or any other product, especially when it leads to infringement or infringement of a trademark. Often, in order to avoid accusations of infringement, fake things are put on stamps that are very similar to the original names of the manufacturing companies, but with one or more letters in the name changed. The most famous cases: -, Abibas- etc.
Counterfeiting food
Counterfeiting and food counterfeiting were extremely common until the 19th century. Research into mixing practice in the early 19th century and the development of tamper detection methods in the mid-19th century led to the adoption of the first food mixing law in Great Britain in 1860 ( Food Adulteration Act). In 1906, through the efforts of a chemist, publicists (and others), with the support of the President, "" was adopted, and in 1907 it came into force: the (FDA) was created.
According to the Federal Law "On the quality and safety of food products":
Counterfeit food products, materials and products - food products, materials and products intentionally altered (fake) and (or) having hidden properties and quality, information about which is deliberately incomplete or unreliable.
Falsification of perfumery and cosmetic products
Counterfeiting of medicinal products
At the end of the 20th century, falsification became widespread. It is believed that a significant part of them are produced on the same ones that produce “normal drugs” (“unaccounted for”). Another part is made in small clandestine, in which proper production conditions cannot be provided at all, in which case the preparations may differ very much from that indicated on the label. Some of the fakes are sold through.
Control over medicines is assigned to the relevant authorities of the Ministry of Health.
Despite the widespread reflection of the problem of counterfeiting drugs in, the control authorities almost never transfer the case to, limiting themselves to the withdrawal from sale of substandard and falsified drugs. This indicates both the weakness of the regulatory authorities and the imperfection of legislation, as well as the high potential.
Falsification and counterfeiting in philately
Falsification in science
Fakes in the media
In 2017, fake news was voted the phrase of the year. This phrase was understood as sensational, but deliberately false messages. Experts from note the vague nature of the concept of fake news, which include, secretive and. Sometimes truthful messages are passed off as fakes, the headlines of which exaggerate the sensationalism. Fakes are often presented as eyewitness testimonies who send fake photos to the editorial office. As a rule, fakes are spread by the media, which themselves are delusional. Subsequently, the media can apologize for the publication of fakes. Fakes can be news that refers to "unnamed sources." In some countries () lawmakers plan to criminalize the distribution of fake news, but human rights activists warn that this could serve as a legal basis for restricting freedom of speech. The word “fake news” was used to characterize the channel.
V
As photo processing technology advances, it is increasingly common on the Internet.
Fake (fake) accounts can also be accounts, pages or sites with content similar to the main site.
see also
Notes (edit)
- "3D barcodes target counterfeit drugs and devices"
- On the quality and safety of food products (as amended on December 30, 2008) (as amended on December 26, 2009) (unspecified) . Products... CJSC Codex. Retrieved April 15, 2010. Archived February 20, 2012.
- Falsification // Philatelic Dictionary / V. Grallert, V. Grushke; Abbr. per. with him. Yu.M. Sokolov and E.P. Sashenkova. - M.: Communication, 1977. - S. 193-194. - 271 p. - 63,000 copies
One of the most famous falsifications in the history of science is the Pitldown Man. Many Darwinists, however, claim that this event was an exception, and that nothing like this can happen now. Nevertheless, the list of falsifications in science does not end there: it includes Archeoraptor, and birch moth, and midwife toad, and Haeckel's embryos, and Anconian sheep, and Tasadai Indians, and Bathybius haeckelii, and Hesperopithecus (“a man from Nebraska ") -" missing link ", in fact, turned out to be a pig. Counterfeiting has proven to be a “deeply rooted problem” that affects a fair amount of modern scientific research, especially in the field of evolution. Due to a number of events, scientists were forced to admit this, and now they are trying to fight this problem.
Most of the known cases of falsification in science today are in the biological sciences. In the field of medical biology alone, 127 cases of fraud were uncovered by the US Department of Health's Office of Research Integrity in 2001. This number has increased for the third time since 1998. The problem is not just of academic interest: it concerns the health and life of people. There is more at stake than prestige and money - falsification can cause human death, and in medical science falsifiers "play with their lives." Similar incidents occur all over the world. In Australia, scientific misconduct created a crisis so severe that the issue was considered in the country's parliament, and scientists were called upon to create an organization that monitors scientific integrity.
One example of falsification is the widely cited immunological studies on kidney transplants by Zoltan Lucas (M.D. from Johns Hopkins University and Ph.D. in biochemistry from Massachusetts Institute of Technology). They were recently discovered to 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 research reports that Morris knew had never been done. Morris knew this because he would have been obliged 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 editorial board of the journal Nature concludes:
“Long gone are the days when it was possible to ignore the falsification of scientific results on the grounds that only madmen who were not capable of causing harm to anyone were engaged in it. The regrettably long list of false studies suggests that the counterfeiters believe in the results they report, so they see no threat in the attempts of other researchers to duplicate their work. ".
Or they believe that it would never occur to anyone to repeat their research - at least for some time (many scientific studies are not repeated, but medical research, as a rule, is repeated several times due to their 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 honesty was an axiom. ".
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 often carried out by 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. In a review of the fraud in the editorial Nature, it was noted that in many cases the false results are not the work of ambitious young scientists, but sophisticated researchers. The article reads:
“... a dozen cases of fraud identified in the last five years have occurred in the best research institutes in the world - Cornell, Harvard, Yale, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, and so on - and people who have received recognition among their colleagues as outstanding scientists were involved. ... Requirements to publish works can explain the abundance of boring scientific literature - but not falsification. "
The methods of falsification are varied - from falsifying data to outright rewriting of large sections from other articles. Nature concludes that there is an increase in plagiarism, especially in the field of molecular biology. To prevent "information leakage", many scientists even present incorrect information in their manuscripts, making corrections 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 works.
Forgers among Darwinists
The scientific method is the 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 "science of origin". A good example of this difficulty is "The theory of evolution [as] is another example of a theory highly valued by scientists ... but in a sense too deep to be directly proven or disproved."... The main problem in this matter is arrogance, a quality that is common in the scientific world. Some scientists believe that they know everything better than anyone else, and only they have the right to ask questions, and if they do not ask them, then no one else should.
A famous case of falsification in evolutionary research, associated with the name of the Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer, became the subject of a classic book entitled The Case of the Midwife Toad. Kammerer drew nuptial calluses in ink on the feet of the toads he examined. And although this forgery, allegedly testifying in favor of the Lamarckian theory of evolution, was exposed, for decades it was used by the ideologists of evolution in Soviet science, including Trofim Lysenko. In another, similar case, William Summerlin faked the results of an experiment in the 1970s by drawing black spots on white experimental mice with a felt-tip pen.
And here is a very recent case of falsification in evolutionary research - Archeoraptor, "the evolutionary find of the century", allegedly confirming the origin of birds from dinosaurs. National Geographic Society "Proclaimed the find of the fossil ... the true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs and birds"... Simons analyzed the authenticity of the Archeoraptor, which "several prominent paleontologists" called "the long-awaited key to the secret of evolution," and proved that it was a falsification. 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 Piltdown Man story has repeated itself, and Simons adds that in this story, "every one" of the participants showed their worst side.
Paul Harvey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, expresses dismay at the sheer amount of "new data and analysis" in Möller's work that is now suspicious, 30 a fact that "makes many editors nervous". ... Michael Ritchie from St Andrews University (UK), magazine editor Journal of Evolutionary Biology and a member of the leadership of scientific societies that publish journals Evolution and Animal Behaviou r [stated]: “We have to think hard about what to do and do it right. I think that we cannot make hasty decisions ".
Möller's problem first surfaced when lab assistant Jette Andersen claimed that the Oikos article was not based on her data, as Möller claimed, but on fabricated data. The investigation has confirmed this fact. Then suspicions touched other works. Now scientists fear that many of Meller's work has been falsified, and all of his work is under suspicion.
Recent events indicate the seriousness of the problem
Unfortunately, medicine and biology especially suffer from falsification. One study found 94 papers in the field of oncology that were “likely” to contain manipulated data. Two years later, many of these works have not yet received the refutation of the authors. Thus, the conclusion that "Even if scientific incorrectness is proven, there is no mechanism to remove incorrect information from scientific literature".
One case of medical tampering concerns cardiologist John Darcy of Harvard University School of Medicine. The data that formed the basis of more than 100 of his publications over a period of about three years were fabricated. This case shows how just a few people can create many falsified publications. After examining 109 articles by Darcy, the researchers found in them completely "abnormal" data, which obviously could not be correct, numerous incongruities, gross internal contradictions. Examples of egregious errors and inconsistencies were found that the reviewers simply had to notice. The authors of the analysis conclude that the co-authors and reviewers who read this work were distinguished by gross incompetence.
Another case concerns a biological study that seemed to "turn the conventional theory of cell signaling upside down." 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 was the end of the career of Siu-Kwon Chen, one of the co-authors of the article. Gary Strule, a scientist at Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Columbia University, New York, co-author and supervisor of the paper, published a rebuttal on February 6th. In his rebuttal, Strule stated that Chen, "Who performed postdoctoral research in his laboratory, misreported the results or failed to perform critical experiments described in the article."(S.-K. Chan and G. Struhl Cell 111,265-280; 2002). Strule discovered the problem by repeating some of Chen's experiments. Not receiving the expected results, Strule, he said, 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 informed me that most of his experiments ... either were not carried out, or gave results different from those given in the article. "... Strule writes in a rebuttal: "As a consequence, I inform you that this article and the conclusions it contains are not valid."... Before the results were published in October 2002, they worked on a science project for five years.
How to measure a lie
Broad and Wade argue that lies in science were not at all an exclusive phenomenon, but, on the contrary, a trend - from the time of its inception to the present day. However, it would be very useful to try to measure the extent of falsification in science - now and in the past. For example, can we say that four percent of all scientific papers in the past thirty years contain false data? Or is it six percent? Or thirty? This proportion depends on what we call lying and whether we include unintentional lies (eg, experimental errors) in this category. A figure of one percent may seem insignificant, or, depending on your point of view, disastrous. For example, if AIDS affects half a percent of the world's population, it will be called an epidemic (more precisely, a pandemic). In addition, even if the experiment is repeated and its results are found to be inconsistent with the published data, it will be very difficult to prove the fact of falsification, since the evidence of dishonesty is easy to hide. If a certain scientist claims that a given result was obtained, then the maximum that can be proved is a persistent discrepancy between the results of repeated experiments with the data of this scientist. It is possible to expose dishonesty only if some laboratory assistant declares falsification.
Why has cheating become common?
The modern system of organizing scientific research contributes to the spread of falsifications. Service careers are at stake - positions, grants, lucrative employment contracts, and literally the well-being of scientists. This is partly a result of the "publish or quit" policy in academia. As Broad and Wade point out, "Grants and contracts from the federal government ... dry up quickly if not followed by immediate and ongoing success."... The incentive to publish, to make a name for himself in science, to receive prestigious awards and invitations to participate in the leadership 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 kind of human activity"... And as Brod and Wade emphasize, scientists “Are no different from other people. Putting on a white coat at the door of the laboratory, they do not get rid of passions, ambitions and mistakes that accompany a person on any path in life. ".
Usually, when falsified, the data is not completely rewritten. Most often, the forger slightly changes them, ignores some of the data obtained, and “tweaks” the data to such an extent as to change the result, which is close to the 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 deliberate. It is difficult to distinguish dishonesty from normal human error, negligence, negligence, or incompetence. A scientist can, guided by a speculative theory, close his eyes to obvious facts that contradict his ideas. Well-established 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 "untouchable" theory.
One of the reasons for falsification in science is the fact that the goal of science is to create comprehensive theories, not to collect facts. It is sometimes difficult to make facts fit theory - for example, in situations where there are many anomalies. In these cases, there is a strong temptation to ignore the facts that do not agree with these theories. The desire to gain recognition from colleagues (and to become famous) from the early days of science has led to the temptation to distort or ignore the data obtained, to manipulate the facts, and even to go for outright lies.
To ignore the mistakes of colleagues
Given the fact that scientific communication is carried out mainly through the print media, there is a tendency to publish only the work of the few scientists who have succeeded in substantively confirming a certain theory, and not to publish many results that look 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 correct, and if they contradict, they ignore it. But there is also a 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 case, and the medical community is already shaken by a new scandal. For 22 years, therapist Charles Gluck has climbed the hierarchy in science. After graduating in 1964, he has since published about 400 papers at a tremendous rate - about 17 a year. For his work on cholesterol and heart disease, Gluck received the prestigious Riveshla Prize from the University of Cincinnati in 1980. Gluck was the head of the Lipid Research Center and the Main Center for Clinical Research at the university, making him one of the most powerful and highly paid scientists in the state. However, last July, the National Institutes of Health discovered that Gluck's article, published in August 1986 in the journal Pediatrics, was full of inconsistencies and errors. The article, according to NIH, was frankly low-quality, and its conclusions were unfounded "
How did Gluck manage to get an article full of "inconsistencies and errors" out of a peer-reviewed journal? The practice of peer review of grant applications results in the scientists who determine who to give money to have a very large impact on what kind of research will be done. Market research is funded, and works that are supposedly contrary to generally accepted theories (for example, Darwinism) have little chance of getting funding. Dalton notes that, despite the well-known problem of peer review, “no significant alternative to this system has yet been proposed. “It's easy to say that 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 fix the case, requiring the reviewers to put their signatures on the reviews. It was assumed that if the reviewers were required to put their signatures under the review, their work would become more open, and no one would be able to obstruct research under the guise of anonymity. Rennie stands for this approach. He says: "This is the only trustworthy, worthwhile, transparent and honest system ... I made this appeal to scientists, but the majority did not support me."
Numerous "flaws in the article publishing system" are mainly caused by the fact that "peer review does not guarantee quality." One way to combat this problem is to publish the names of the 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 make corrections to it until it satisfies them.
Does the scientific world correct the mistakes of individual scientists?
Peer review turned out to be fiction. Eventually "A lot of what goes to press, without causing objections, is actually wrong, and no one knows about it - or maybe nobody cares about it."... Anderson analyzed attempts to defend peer review systems: for example, Science Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy says that "no one ever expected peer peer review to reveal fraud." Kennedy believes that he has partially succeeded in justifying this peer review system, but in Science, and in Nature articles containing false information were published, and inconsistencies in these articles can hardly be called imperceptible. He cites Jan Hendrik Sean as an example, who in one of his works
“Used the same curve in two different plots, 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 value, and reviewers on the basis of high professionalism. Could editors and reviewers have overlooked these glaring incongruities? In these articles, among other things, statements were made that are of great importance for industry and science. In addition, Sean was exposed by scientists who did not participate in the peer review. "
The problem is that “science has a pathogenic side,” because “lust for power” or “greed” “can hit the scientist” like anyone else. Anyone who has worked in a laboratory or university, or just read about the history of science, is familiar with pride, envy, and the spirit of competition - feelings that amaze 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 fraud is science itself. Scientists “See their profession in the light of the spectacular ideals created by philosophers and sociologists. Like any believer, they tend to interpret what they see in accordance with what their faith prompts. "... And, unfortunately, science is "A complex process in which the observer can see almost anything he wants by narrowing the field of view"... For example, James Randi concluded that scientists can be easily tricked with magic tricks. The problem of objectivity is very serious because many scientists passionately believe in their work and the theories they are trying to prove. This passion can support the scientist in his efforts to achieve the result, or it can be reflected in the result and even distort it.
Many examples show that scientists are especially prone to self-deception when dealing with facts that call into question the foundations of their worldview. "All observers, even those who are well trained, have a habit of seeing what they expect to see." Nowhere is this more noticeable than the highly controversial field of evolutionary research.
Robert Rosenthal, in a series of experiments that have become classics today, studied how scientists perceive the results of an experiment. In one of the experiments, he suggested that scientists conduct a test with "active" and "sluggish" rats. In fact, the rats were randomly divided into two groups. None of the scientists participating in the experiment had experience with this test. Scientists reported that "active" rats performed better when in fact they were not. The experimenters saw what they wanted (or expected) to see (now this phenomenon is called the "expectation 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 - with "sluggish". 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 origins of life, is to call it “unscientific” and the opposite theory “scientific”. Sociologists have studied the harmful effects of this labeling for years. This approach has a positive effect on one of the directions formed as a result of artificial separation, and negatively affects the other direction. In any scientific contradiction, it is correct to judge each point of view on the basis of its value, using a purely scientific method.
In their study of falsification in science, Broad and Wade argue that the term "science" often acts as a "label" designed to hint at the truth or falsity of a statement. According to them, the common point of view is that “science is a strictly logical process, objectivity is an inherent property of a scientist's attitude to 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. "
After that, the authors show that this view of science is wrong. The result of their work helps us understand the specifics of scientific work from a more realistic perspective than is common today. They show that ostensibly "error-proof" mechanisms of scientific research often fail to correct the consequences of the falsification they call the "epidemic" of modern science. The desire to "be first", the need to receive grants, travel to exotic locations at conferences, the lure of money and prestige forces many scientists to abandon the lofty ideals that stood before them at the beginning of their careers.
conclusions
Published literature and interviews I have with medical faculty members confirm the problem of falsification in science today. Reasons for falsification include money, positions, the opportunity to get a grant, professional rivalry, and the need to prove a theory or idea. But there is one more factor. This is a disregard for Christianity and moral values, resulting in a crisis of ethical foundations that restrained falsification. The problem of falsification is especially acute in the fields 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), it is very difficult to recognize falsification. As a rule, only assistants and colleagues of the forger can expose the falsification, but often they do not report the fact, since this can cost them friendship and reputation. They may even become the target of revenge. As Roman asserts, because of this "informers" are "rare".
As a result, falsification in science, according to many, turned into an epidemic. The biological sciences are of great concern in this sense. It is believed that more than 10% of scientists admit dishonesty in this area. It follows from this that most of the scientists cite false or, at least, inaccurate data in their works. Meanwhile, there is very little extensive research on fraud (and, probably, the cases found in their course are just the tip of the notorious iceberg).
Jerry Bergman prepares for her 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 University (Detroit), Ohio College of Medicine (Toledo), Bowling Green University. Dr. Bergman is a prolific writer; in addition, he teaches biology, chemistry, and biochemistry at Northwestern University in Archbold, Ohio.
In 1866, Ernst Haeckel concluded that in the individual development of an organism, the main stages of its evolution are, as it were, reproduced. The genealogical tree of the animal kingdom built by him, illustrations of the development of the mammalian embryo are well remembered from the school course, however, E. Haeckel's "discovery" was based on rigged data,and the forgery was quickly exposed by eminent colleagues of the biologist.But in this case, the fact of falsification is not so much important as the reaction of theE. Haeckel. The author of the "fundamental law" responded to criticism rather aggressively, continued to popularize his theory, and the circulation of his works continued to increase even after, 40 years later, E. Haeckel brought public repentance at an open university trial.
Say "incredible"! - and you will be right. But the fact is that a violation of scientific ethics by results, and most importantly by responsibility, is not at all like violations in the field of law. To characterize the problem of moral and ethical standards of scientific research, I will refer to the book of Russian scholars of science (Allakhverdyan A.G. et al. Psychology of Science. M., "Flint", 1998. 311 p.). They write the following. “A study by the New Scientist magazine showed that only 10% of scientists caught in various forms of deception were fired from their posts, and it turned out that 194 out of 201 respondents surveyed by the magazine faced such cases. About half of the forgeries were subsequently discovered: about a fifth of the offenders were "seized by the hand" and the same part independently admitted to committing them. In both situations, the detection of deception did not mean the ruin of the violators' careers and did not have any significant impact on their fate at all. But back to the falsifications.
Darwin's discovery that man and ape had a common ancestor and his claim that man descended from ape are not the same thing. But such an arbitrary interpretation of Darwinism turned out to be very tenacious, and many scientists took the trouble to confirm this "fact". Another example of falsification in science is associated with the search for the notorious "transitional link" between ape and a man (by the way, Darwin was an opponent of this idea) - the discovery in 1911 in Sussex County (Great Britain) of the remains of the "man of dawn" (Eanthrope Dawson, or Piltdown person).
The well-preserved skull of the “first Englishman”, or eanthrope, that is, the “Man of the Dawn”, was discovered by Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist who had long been interested in all sorts of fossils and was passionate about searching for the “missing link” (A. Maslov “Here someone has visited before us. Another humanity. "PHOENIX. R / D., 2006). One day he discovers what he had hoped for for so long - fragments of a skull, jawbone and teeth of a strange shape. Not being a specialist himself and realizing the weakness of his knowledge, Dawson hurried with his finds to Arthur Smith Woodward, the most famous scientist at that time, curator of the paleontology department of the British Museum.
Woodward, after a careful study of the bones, decides to give them a legal move - at a meeting of the Geological Society of London on December 18, 1912, he, relying on all his experience and authority, declares to the entire scientific world that the finds represent a hitherto unknown species of an extinct hominid, which was the missing evolutionary link between apes and early humans. The new find occupies the most important place in the science of human origins. The scientific world was so longing for this missing link that it almost immediately recognized the find.
But then some troubles began to happen. First of all, as a result of studies to establish the age of the gravel layers at Piltdown, where the "missing link" was found, carried out in 1926. It turned out that the layers are younger than previously thought. And this meant that Eanthrope could not be such an ancient ancestor of man, as most scientists thought. In 1953-1954. several groups of scientists began new studies of eanthropus. The result shocked everyone: it turned out that for decades, a frank, albeit skillfully made, forgery lay in front of the scientific world. The remains of the "Man of Dawn" were composed of a completely modern human skull (it turned out to be about 600 years old) and the jaw and teeth of an orangutan, as well as teeth, probably of a chimpanzee. Chemical tests showed that the fragments were deliberately aged.
And here is a very recent case of falsification in evolutionary research - Archeoraptor, "the evolutionary find of the century", allegedly confirming the origin of birds from dinosaurs. The National Geographic Society "hailed the fossil find ... the true missing link in the intricate chain linking dinosaurs and birds." Simons analyzed the authenticity of the Archeoraptor, which "several prominent paleontologists" called "the long-awaited key to the secret of evolution," and proved that it was a falsification. 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 Piltdown Man story has repeated itself, and Simons adds that in this story, "every one" of the participants showed their worst side.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the famous French physicist, Corresponding Member of the French Academy of Sciences Rene Blondlot was motivated by the desire to make a career, to attract attention, when he informed the general public about his discovery of amazing N-rays (Secrets of the XX century. No. 17. 2008).
The essence of his "discovery" was as follows: N-rays shine through almost all types of matter, except for growing trees, stones and, for some reason, tracing paper. Based on his "research" Blondlot wrote 26 articles and a whole book. Interestingly, almost all scientists immediately believed him and followed in his footsteps. Between 1903 and 1906, dozens of French scientists published more than three hundred scientific articles analyzing and explaining the phenomenon of N-rays. Blondlot himself bathed in the glory until he was asked to demonstrate the results of his experiments.
And here the experts had some doubts. The purpose of the apparatus that clogged the laboratory was unclear, and Blondlot himself clearly found it difficult to explain its functions. All experiments were carried out in semi-darkness - as a result, it was very difficult to see what the great discoverer of N-rays was doing there? And the most interesting thing: no one except Blondlot himself. it was not possible to repeat his experiments.
Soon, laudatory articles were replaced by devastating ones. However, until the twenties of the last century, scientists were still trying to detect incredible N-rays, until the French himself admitted to falsification. Later, in order to whitewash himself somewhat, Blondlot returned to his specialization - electrical engineering - and conducted a number of really interesting experiments and studies. This was beneficial to his career, however, for many years, scientists recalled to the cunning Frenchman his "discovery" of N-rays.
Almost no scientific work on psychology can do without references to the theories of Sigmund Freud. Even ordinary people know a lot about the father of psychoanalysis and talk freely about repressed sexual desires or Freudian slips. Against this background of universal love for Freud, the recently published book of the American scientist Eugene Mallow "Freud's Errors and Frauds" became a sensation. For many years, Professor Mallow has been collecting material concerning the life and work of the great Freud. And in the dusty archives, reading Freud's notes, I found irrefutable evidence that the famous theory of the Austrian scientist about the unconscious in human life is based, to put it mildly, on speculation and guesswork ...
Freud in his experiments studied the psyche of six patients, analyzing in detail various reasons for their actions and deeds. But, as Mallow found out, in fact, of the six patients the doctor described in his books, one visited Freud only a couple of times, and two never at all. Of the remaining three, only one told Freud about his subconscious fears. That is, the famous theory of Freud is actually based only on the study of one patient! And the doctor simply conjectured or interpreted everything else in favor of his theory ...
And the most amusing story happened with the Frenchman George Psalmanazar, who arrived in England at the beginning of the 17th century. Psalmanazar claimed that he had just arrived from the island of Formosa (Taiwan), where he had spent many years in captivity with the savages and escaped from there only by a miracle.
For many years, he told scientists and ordinary people about the outlandish customs of the natives of Formosa, about their customs and culture. The English were surprised to hear stories about how the islanders do not eat live snakes and unfaithful wives, about terrible executions and sacrifices to the gods ...
Later, Psalmanazar wrote a book "Historical and geographical description of the island of Formosa", where he spoke in detail about the aborigines, reproduced their drawings and even brought up the alphabet from memory. The book quickly became a bestseller, and Psalmanazar himself became a prominent specialist on the island of Formosa, giving lectures throughout the country.
But a few years later, a big scandal broke out ... Psalmanazar admitted that he had never been to the island of Formosa in his life and everything that he told about him was fiction from the first to the last word. The fooled Englishmen hastened to push the overly cheerful Frenchman out of the country.
A major scandal around the falsification of biomedical research took place in Norway (A. Sergeev http://elementy.ru/ 17.01.06).
In 2004, Norwegian oncologist Jon Sudb; at the Radium Hospital in Oslo received a $ 10 million grant from the National Cancer Institue from the US National Cancer Research Institute. The grant included an extensive study to investigate how a number of anti-inflammatory drugs affect the risk of oral cancer in active smokers.
In October 2005, an article was published in the prestigious medical journal Lancet, which outlined the results of the work carried out. All of the article's conclusions were based on a database of 908 study participants (half with laryngeal cancer, half healthy). The article argued that the drugs more than half reduced the risk of laryngeal cancer in smokers, but did not reduce overall mortality, as they negatively affect the cardiovascular system.
The study generated significant public interest. Suffice it to say that the American magazine Forbes reported about him. However, less than three months have passed, when it suddenly turned out that this very database, apparently, was made on a computer in approximately the same way as other careless students invent the results of laboratory work without performing real measurements. This was discovered when another Norwegian researcher decided to use the information. It was he who discovered the oddities in the database, of which the most egregious is the exact coincidence of birth dates in 250 out of 908 patients, according to the BBC.
A Radium Hospital spokesman has already admitted that the database was completely fabricated. Currently, the hospital has stopped all work carried out by Jon Sudbø's team in the Department of Medical Oncology and Radiotherapy. A commission has been appointed to find out why it was necessary to falsify the data and why other experts did not find it, in particular, the other 13 co-authors of the article in the Lancet magazine. The commission will also review the earlier work of Jon Sudbø, published by him after receiving his doctorate in 2001.
The scandal has received a particularly strong resonance in Norway due to the fact that it happened in the immediate aftermath of the scandal surrounding Korean stem cell research. In response to questions from the press, Norwegian Minister of Health Sylvia Brustad said the government would speed up work on a law that would establish liability for data falsification in medicine, Reuters reported. At present, the worst that can threaten the guilty of falsification is dismissal and a ban on practicing medicine. The new law, which has been under development since 2003, will provide for tighter supervision of research, as well as criminal liability for falsification with a sentence of imprisonment.
There has been a lot of debate over scientific fraud in recent years, but a particularly heated debate has sparked the question of whether it is just an occasional "rotten apple" or "tip of the iceberg" whose bottom does not bode well. It is clear that scientists in general and research psychologists in particular must be crystal-clear in their scientific work. Principle B of the 1992 General Code explicitly states that psychologists “must exercise integrity in science, teaching, and psychological practice” (APA, 1992). Moreover, several specific standards in the 1992 Code specifically address research fraud. This section focuses on the following questions: What is scientific fraud? How common is it? Why does it arise?
Dictionary « American Heritage Dictionary» (1971) defines fraud as “willful deception practiced with the intent of obtaining an undeserved or illegal gain” (p. 523). In science, there are two main types of fraud: 1) plagiarism- deliberate appropriation of other people's ideas and passing them off as their own, and 2) falsification of data. In the 1992 code, plagiarism is specifically condemned by standard 6.22, and falsification of data - by standard 6.21 (Table 2.4). The problem of plagiarism is inherent in all areas of human activity, and falsification of data is found only in science, so the next section will be devoted 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 will try to correct these errors by correction, refutation, correction of typing or other suitable means.
Standard 6.22. Plagiarism
Psychologists do not pass off significant portions of other people's work as their own, even if there are links to these works or data sources.
Data falsification
If there is a moral sin on science, then it is the sin of lack of crystal honesty in handling data, and the attitude to data lies at the foundation of a whole building of science. But if the foundation fails, everything else collapses, so data integrity is of paramount importance. This type of fraud can take many 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 represent the final result. The third is collecting a certain amount of data and thinking through the missing information to a complete set. Fourth, hiding the entire study if the results are not as expected. In each of these cases, the deception is deliberate and scholars appear to be “receiving an undeserved or illegal benefit” (ie, publication).
Standard 6.25.
After the publication of the research results, psychologists should not hide the data underlying the conclusions from other scientists who want to analyze it in order to verify the assertion made and intend to use the data only for this, provided that it is possible to protect the privacy of the participants and if the legal rights to patented the data does not prevent their publication.
In addition to failing to repeat the discoveries made, fraud can be detected (or at least suspected) during a standard check. When a research article is submitted to a journal or a grant application is submitted to an agency, several reviewers review it to help decide whether the article will be published or awarded a grant. Moments that look strange, perhaps, will attract the attention of at least one of the researchers. A third opportunity to detect fraud is when employees working with the researcher suspect a problem. This happened in 1980 during 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 Brüning received evidence that, in this case,
stimulant drugs may be more effective than antipsychotic drugs (Holden, 1987). However, one of his colleagues suspected that the data was tampered with. Suspicion was confirmed after three years of investigations by the National Institute of Mental Health { National Institute of Mental Health - NIMH), who funded some of Brüning's research. In court, Brüning pleaded guilty to two cases of submission to NIMH falsified data; in reply NIMH withdrew charges of perjury during the investigation (Byrne, 1988).
One of the strengths of science is self-correction through repetitive experimentation, rigorous testing, and the honesty of colleagues. Indeed, such an organization has allowed fraud to be detected many times, as, for example, in the case of Brüning. But what if the experts cannot find any trace of falsification, or if the falsified results match other, real discoveries (that is, if they can be repeated)? If the fake results agree with the true discoveries, then there is no reason to verify them and the fraud can remain unsolved for many years. Probably something similar happened in the most famous case in psychology of a suspected fraud ("suspect", since the final decision is still pending).
The case concerns one of the most famous British psychologists, Cyril Burt (1883-1971), a major contributor to the debate about the nature of intelligence. His research on twins is often cited as evidence that intelligence is predominantly inherited from a single parent. One of Burt's findings showed that identical twins have nearly the same performance. IQ, even if immediately after birth they were adopted by different parents and brought up in different conditions. For many years, no one questioned his data, and they entered the literature on the heritability of intelligence. However, attentive readers over time noticed that, describing in different publications the results obtained in the study of a different number of twins, Bert pointed out absolutely the same statistical results (the same correlation coefficient). From a mathematical point of view, obtaining such results is very unlikely. Opponents accused him of falsifying the results in order to bolster Bert's beliefs in the heritability of intelligence, and defenders objected that he had collected valid data, but over the years became forgetful and inattentive in his reports. In defense of the scientist, it was also said that if he was engaged in fraud, he would probably try to hide it (for example, he would take care of the mismatch of correlations). There is no doubt that there is something strange about Bert's data, and even his defenders admit that many of them are of no scientific value, but the question of whether deliberate fraud was committed or it was all about carelessness and / or negligence may never be resolved, in part, because after Bert's death, his housekeeper destroyed several boxes containing various documents (Kohn, 1986).
It has become very popular to deal with the Bert case (Green, 1992; Samelson, 1992), but it is important for us that incorrect data, caused by errors, inattention, or deliberate distortion, can go unnoticed if
the data are in good agreement with other discoveries (that is, if they have been reproduced by anyone). This was the case for Burt - his data were very similar to those obtained in other studies of twins (for example, Bouchard & McGue, 1981).
It should be noted that some commentators (eg Hilgartner, 1990) argue that apart from the case where falsified data duplicates “correct” data, there are two other types of reasons why falsification may not be detected. First, the large amount of research published today allows fake information to slip unnoticed, especially if it does not report major discoveries that attract widespread attention. Second, 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 completely creative and such scientists do not receive academic awards. As a consequence, some questionable studies may not be replicated.
It is also believed that the reward system is, in some sense, the cause of the emergence of fraud. This view 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). The assignment of responsibility to the academic reward system is placed somewhere in the middle of the list of reasons. Scientists who publish their research get promotions, get permanent positions, win grants, and have the opportunity to influence audiences. Sometimes the constant “die but publish” affects the researcher so strongly that it leads him (or his assistant) to think of breaking the rules. This can happen at first to a limited extent (adding a little information to get 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 fair with the data, scrupulously follow the research procedure, and never resist the temptation to falsify even a small amount of information; also never discard data from research participants unless there are clear guidelines for doing so before the experiment began (for example, when participants do not follow instructions or the investigator mismanages the experiment). In addition, it is necessary to keep the original data, or at least have a brief description of them. The best defense against accusations that your results look odd is your ability to provide data on demand.
The importance of the ethical basis of this research cannot be overemphasized, which is why this chapter is placed at the very beginning of the book. But the discussion of ethics is not limited to one chapter - in the future, you will come across this topic more than once. If you, for example, pay attention to the content, you will see that each subsequent chapter contains an insert on ethics, devoted to
on issues such as non-dissemination of information about field participants, selection of participants, responsible use of surveys, and ethical competence of experimenters. In the next chapter, however, we will look at a problem from a different circle - the development of the ideological basis of research projects.
