Science and Fraud: Is Self-Correction of Scientific Fraud the Answer?

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.