There are cases in the history of scientific inquiry that are marred by instances of fraud. Robert Bell's The Impure Science offers several case studies in questionable scientific activity; Bernard Rollin touches on a few more cases in the final chapter of Science and Ethics, and the chapter "Deceit in History" offers an account of possible fraud by some of science's largest historical figures. What is strange about these accounts is that the integrity of the scientific discipline remains unaffected despite these instances of fraud. The central question of this brief analysis is to ask if science can sufficiently control its internal fraud. Science's self-policing techniques are peer review for research proposals, referee system for the review of manuscripts, and the ability to replicate scientific results (Rollin ).
Peer Review:
The notion of peer review for research proposals is noble at the surface level. First, if scientists had to make their research proposals to those outside of the scientific community there is concern that the reviewers would be uneducated on the topic. Part of the research and publication process is to be an expert in a field, know all of the relevant literature, and to know what a contribution to the field would be. Obtaining this level of expertise in a given area takes a great deal of time and effort. Now consider all of the research proposals that are sent out for funding by scientists each year. The topics and areas of research are vastly varied and typically highly specific. It only seems plausible to have other experts review research proposals as they are the only ones truly qualified to determine if a project is a contribution to the field. However, this may pose a problem for the process.
...
... middle of paper ...
...owever, the difficulty of removing oneself from the hermeneutic position undermines the effectiveness of these methods. Additionally, the most effective self-policing method, replication of scientific results, is just not practical for detecting fraud across the entire field. The only other solution appears to be external forces that check scientific research for fraud, but over regulation may hinder scientific progress. Determining a proper balance between oversight and internal regulation may be the best solution albeit a difficult one to obtain.
Works Cited:
Bell, Robert. Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise and Political Influence in Scientific Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1992. Print.
Broad, W. and N. Wade. "Deceit in History" from Betrayers of the Truth.
Rollin, Bernard. Science and Ethics. New York: Cambridge UP. 2006. Print.
Opportunistic scientists, the most hypocritical deviants of the modern age, revolve around the scientific method, or at least they used to. The scientific method once involved formulating a hypothesis from a problem posed, experimenting, and forming a conclusion that best explained the data collected. Yet today, those who are willing to critique the work of their peers are themselves performing the scientific method out of sequence. I propose that scientists, or the "treasure hunters" of that field, are no longer interested in permanent solutions, achieved through proper use of the scientific method, and rather are more interested in solutions that guarantee fame and fortune.
For a student trustful of today's scientific prowess, the realization that science cannot prove anything came as a surprise to me in high school science class last year. Indeed, a skepticist would say that finding real truth is never possible given the chaotic nature of our world. Such a worldview is among the several interconnected themes in Jonathan Coe's The Winshaw Legacy.
To remedy this we can not say that “all” criticisms should be taken into account, but that “all criticisms that are credible and not intended for political gain” are the ones that should be listened too. It’s also important that one does not ignore just for the sake that it does not agree with either your conclusion or what you hope to achieve from your research. If all of these rules are followed, criticism will go a long way in making science as objective as
This final example exhibits scientific credibility issues that affected the outlook on the scientific community within the public's eye. Louis Pasteur is one of the legendary figures in history. He lied about his research by stealing ideas from a competitor in a way that
One of the biggest incentives to perform scientific research is the acclaim that comes from making novel discoveries. For some, this is the driving force behind their work and can cause a conflict of interest that sometimes overrides the needs of the patient in cases with unethical actors. This is most relevant to case of John Darsee. To get data for his publications he would often falsify results and would perform experimental stent procedures on unknowing patients. Darsee’s ambitions were put above the health and wellness of the patients he had taken an oath to protect.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
...ould try to falsify instead of using them for progress. Therefore induction is imperative for scientific advancement. Bibliography
Most scientists want to be able to share their data. Scientists are autonomous by nature. Begelman (1968) refutes an argument made by I. L. Horowitz who is a scientist that believes that the government is in “gross violations of the autonomous nature of science”. B...
In the 1980s, the hitherto-dominant normative-prescriptive conception of philosophy of science became the subject of a debate which continues to the present time. Some philosophers of science suggested that the proper aim of the discipline is the description of scientific evaluative practice.
Science is supposed, to tell the truth, but because humans are the ones performing the experiments sometimes there are flaws. For instance, Andre Wakefield in
Fictional writers often portray science in a negative light, feeding on the fears of the masses, exemplifying the worst possible outcomes. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” suggests there is something monstrous about science, something to be feared. But is it ...
The Effect of the Social Context of Scientific Work on the Methods and Findings of Science
The history of medical research in the twentieth century provides abundant evidence which shows how easy it is to exploit individuals, especially the sick, the weak, and the vulnerable, when the only moral guide for science is a naive utilitarian dedication to the greatest good for the greatest number. Locally administered internal review boards were thought to be a solution to the need for ethical safeguards to protect the human guinea pig. However, with problems surrounding informed consent, the differentiation between experimentation and treatment, and the new advances within medicine, internal review boards were found to be inadequate for the job. This led to the establishment of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission by President Bill Clinton in the hopes of setting clear ethical standards for human research.
In his article entitled "Enemies of Promise," J. Michael Bishop attempts to defend the creditability of science. As a scientist, Bishop believes that science has "solved many of nature's puzzles and greatly enlarged human knowledge" (237) as well as "vastly improved human welfare" (237). Despite these benefits, Bishop points out that some critics are skeptical and have generally mistrusted the field. Bishop believes that "the source of these dissatisfactions appears to be an exaggerated view of what science can do" (239). In the defense of science, Bishop argues that this problem is not due to science rather, it results from a lack of resources. "When scientists fail to meet unrealistic expectations, they are condemned by critics who do not recognize the limits of science" (240).
In the natural sciences there are always ethical norms that limit how knowledge can be produced. In the natural sciences, experimentation is an important method of producing knowledge but ethical judgments can limit the use of this method. There are areas that are considered unethical ...