One of the most famous fraud in the history of science — "pitldaunsky man."1Many Darwinists, however, claim that this event was no exception, and is nothing like not happen. However, the list of fraud in science is not over: it also includes Archaeoraptor, and the peppered moth, and the midwife toad, and Haeckel's embryos, and ankonskie sheep, and the Indians tasaday andBathybiushaeckelii, andHesperopithecus("The Man from Nebraska") — "the missing link", turned out to be a pig.8.2Falsification was "a serious problem with deep roots," which affects a considerable number of modern scientific research, especially in the field of evolution.9Due to a number of events, scientists were forced to admit it, and now they are trying to deal with this problem.10
Most of the known cases of fraud in science these days falls on the biological sciences.11Only in the field of medical biology in 2001, the Office of Compliance Integrity in Ministry of Health of the U.S. research were uncovered 127 cases of tampering. This number has increased for the third time since 1998.12The problem is not just of academic interest: it comes to health and life.13-14At stake is more than the prestige and money — adulteration can cause human death, and medical science forgers "Game of Life".15Such cases occur worldwide. In Australia, the irregularities in the conduct of scientific papers have generated such a serious crisis, which dealt with this issue in the Parliament, and urged scientists to create an organization that monitors the academic honesty.16
One example of fraud — is widely cited immunological studies of kidney transplants performed by Zoltan Lucas (MD from Johns Hopkins University and a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). It was recently found to contain false information.17Dr. Lucas was an assistant professor and taught surgery at Stanford University. Graduate student Randall Morris discovered that Lucas wrote research reports that, as far as was known to Morris never made. Morris knew it, because he would be obliged to take part in this study! But these studies were published in reputable journals, and undoubtedly, many scientists believe their results in conducting its own research. As a result of the epidemic of modern fraud editorsNatureconcludes:
"It has long passed the days when the falsification of scientific results could be ignored on the grounds that it involved only fools who can not cause anyone harm. Regrettably long list of spurious research suggests that the forgers believe in their reported results, so do not see any threat in attempts by other researchers to repeat their work. "18
Or they believe that no one would ever think to repeat their study — at least for some time (many scientific studies are not repeated, but medical research is usually repeated several times because of their importance to human health, although the process often takes several years). The problem of fraud is so widespread that scientists are not complicit in fraud, sometimes deserve special recognition — as the Italian scientist Franco Racette: "We hear about many fraud in science and create numerous commissions and ethics committees. Racette for scientific honesty was an axiom. "19
Falsification has spread to such an extent that one of the authors of papers devoted to this problem, which is: "… science is still very little resemblance to his usual manner."20Although flawed results often do researchers working alone, she meets and group projects under the supervision of colleagues.21The defendants in the fraud — the great biologists of our time. The problem exists at Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, Baylor University and other major universities. In a review of fraud in an editorialNaturenoted that in many cases, false results are not the work of an ambitious young scientists and researchers who are experienced. The article reads:
"… A dozen cases of fraud identified in the last five years, there has been in the top research institutes in the world — Cornell University, Harvard, Yale, Sloan-Kettering Institute, and so on — and they were involved in people who have received recognition among colleagues as outstanding scientists . The requirement to publish the work can be explained by an abundance of boring scientific literature — but not fraud. "22
Methods fraud diverse — from tampering to outright rewriting large sections of other articles.Naturecomes to the conclusion that the growth of plagiarism, especially in the field of molecular biology.23To prevent a "leak", many scientists are even in the manuscripts of his articles incorrect information, making adjustments to it until just before publication.24And the forecast for the future is disappointing: the number of fraud will increase, especially in medical biology, where the scientist is required to publish a lot of work.25
Falsifiers of Darwinists
Scientific method — this is the ideal, but there are cases in which it is particularly difficult to apply. This applies in particular to the "proof" of some scientific hypotheses — for example, from the field of "science of the origin." A good example of this difficulty — the "theory of evolution [as] is another example of the theory, highly valued by scientists … but lying in a sense, too deep, so it can be directly proved or disproved."26The main problem in this issue is arrogance — as circulated in the scientific world. Some scientists believe that they know best, and only they have the right to ask questions, and if they do not ask, then no one else should do it.4
Famous case of fraud in evolutionary studies, associated with the name of the Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer, was the subject of a classic book called "The case midwife toad."6Kammerer painted ink "nuptial pads" on the feet he studied toads. And while this fraud, allegedly to testify in favor of the Lamarckian theory of evolution, was exposed for decades, it was used in the ideological evolution of Soviet science — including, Trofim Lysenko.27In another, it seems, in the case of William Summerlin 1970 faked experimental results, felt pen drawing black spots on the white experimental mice.8
But the more recent case of fraud in evolutionary studies — Archaeoraptor, 'Evolutionary discovery of the century ", supposedly to confirm the origin of birds from dinosaurs. The National Geographic Society, "declared fossil finds … true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs and birds."3Simons analyzed authenticity Archaeoraptor, which "several prominent paleontologists," called "the key to the mystery of the long-awaited evolution"3and proved that it is — a fake. Roentgenography high resolution allowed to discover the "disparate pieces, skillfully glued together."29This fraud connected29"Fanaticism and extravagance", "wreck overgrown ego," "breach of trust" and "depraved mind."3The story of the Piltdown man repeated, and Simmons adds that in this story, "one and all" participants showed themselves with the worst hand.3
Another case in which were involved Darwinists regard to "one of the world experts in the field of evolutionary biology, Anders Møller," the author of more than 450 articles and several books.30Magazine articleSciencereports that "… the government commission concluded that … Muller is responsible for the fabrication of data on an article written by him in collaboration in 1998 and subsequently received a rebuttal …. This accusation … cast a shadow on the close community of scientists who study the behavioral ecology, biology, and other features of the mating behavior of animals in nature …. Moeller reputation in this area was spotless. Muller was the chief proponent of the idea that the signs (such as the long symmetrical tails in barn swallows), attract potential mates — a manifestation of favorable genes. He also found that the stress caused by environmental factors, such as parasites can lead to the development of asymmetric body parts. "30 Paul Harvey, a specialist in evolutionary biology from the University of Oxford, is alarmed by the huge "amount of work with the new Moeller data and analysis" — now all this work is viewed with suspicion,30and this fact "makes many nervous editors. … Michael Ritchie of the University of St Andrews (UK), EditorJournal of Evolutionary Biologyand member of the scientific societies, producing magazinesEvolutionandAnimal Behaviour[Said]: "We have to think about how to decide what to do, and do it right. I think that we can not[Sic]make hasty decisions. '"30
Moeller problem first surfaced when the technician Jette Andersen said the magazine articleOikosis not based on its data, as claimed by Muller, and on fabricated data. The investigation confirmed that fact. Then suspicion touched other works. Now, scientists are concerned that many of the Moeller was rigged, and all his works are under suspicion.
The seriousness of the problem is the recent events
Unfortunately, the fraud particularly affected medicine and biology. The authors of one study found 94 in the field of oncology, "probably", contained fraudulent data.31Two years later, many of these works have not received denial authors. This confirms the conclusion that "even if the research proves incorrect, there is no mechanism to withdraw from the scientific literature the wrong information."31
One case of fraud in medicine for cardiologist John Darcy of Harvard University Medical School. Were fabricated data formed the basis of more than 100 of his publications over a period of about three years.32This case shows how a few people can create multiple fraudulent publications. After reviewing 109 articles Darcy, the researchers found they completely "abnormal" data that could not be true, numerous inconsistencies, gross internal contradictions.33Were found examples of egregious errors and inconsistencies that reviewers just had to see. The authors of the analysis concluded that the co-authors and reviewers who read this work, different gross incompetence.
Another case concerns a biological study, which, as it seemed, "turned on its head the conventional theory of signals within the cell." The article was a rebuttal by the authors of "15 months after publication. This fact has shaken cytologists, and, as noted, the review at this irrevocably ended career Kwong Siu-Chan, one of the co-authors of the article. Gary Struhl, a scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, based at Columbia University (New York), co-author and director of works published rebuttal February 6. "34In his rebuttal Struhl said Chen, "postdoktoralnoe carrying out research in his lab, made the wrong message about the results or failed to perform critical experiments described in the paper (S.-K. Chan and G. StruhlCell111, 265-280, 2002). Struhl found the problem by repeating some of the experiments of Chen. The expected results, Struhl, according to him, asked for an explanation from his former subordinate, who by then had moved to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. "Faced with this discrepancy, S.-K. She told me that most of his experiments … were either not implemented or produce results that differ from those described in the article. " Struhl wrote in rebuttal: "Because of this, I report that the article and the presentation of its conclusions are not valid." Prior to the publication of the results in October 2002, they worked on a research project for five years.
How to measure a lie
Broad and Wade argue that lie in science was not exceptional, but rathertrend— From its inception to the present day. However, it would be very useful to try to measure the scale of fraud in science — today and in the past. For example, can we say that the false information contained in the four per cent of all scientific papers over the past thirty years? Or is six percent? Or thirty? This fraction depends on what we call a lie, and we include in this category of unintentional false (for example, the experimental error). The figure of one percent may seem insignificant, and can, depending on the perspective — catastrophic. If, say, AIDS hit half a percent of the world population, it would be called an epidemic (or rather, a pandemic). Besides, even if you repeat the experiment and discovered the lack of the results published data prove that fraud will be very difficult, as evidence of dishonesty is easy to hide. If a scientist has determined that this result was obtained, the maximum that can be proved — that persistent discrepancy between the results of repeated experiments, the data of the scientist. Expose dishonesty can only be the case if some technician claimed fraud.
Why cheating has become commonplace?
The modern system of research contributes to the spread of fraud. At stake are careers — positions, grants, favorable labor contracts and in the literal sense of the word welfare scientists.35This is partly the result of the policy of "publish or dismiss" in academia. As the Broad and Wade, "grants and contracts the federal government … is running out if they are not to be immediate and ongoing success." Incentive to publish, create a name in science, to receive the prestigious award and an invitation to participate in the leadership of schools — all this creates a temptation for fraud. The authors come to the frightening conclusion: "Lies and the inherent violation of science, like any other human activity." And as emphasized Broad and Wade, the scientists "are no different from other people. Wearing a white coat at the door of the lab, they do not get rid of the passions, ambitions, and errors that accompany human life in any way. "36
Usually, when the data is not rigged to rewrite entirely. Most often, the forger slightly alters their part of the data is ignored, and part of the "corrects" the data to the extent that change is close to the expected, but not having the necessary statistical power to 95% accuracy. Understand whether deliberate falsification, very difficult. Difficult to distinguish from normal dishonesty human error, carelessness, negligence or incompetence. Scientist may, with the speculative theory, ignore the obvious facts that contradict his views. Established theory as if 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 of fraud in science — the fact that the purpose of science — the creation of a comprehensivetheories, rather than gathering facts. Sometimes it's hard to get the facts fit the theory — for example, in situations where there is a lot of anomalies. In these cases, there is a strong temptation to ignore the facts that do not agree with those theories. The desire to be recognized colleagues (and famous) from the early days of science leads to the temptation to distort or ignore the data, manipulate the facts and even go for outright lies.20
Ignore errors colleagues
Given the fact that scientific communication is primarily through print media, there is a tendency to publishonlyof the few scholars who have essentially confirm a theory, and not to publish the set of results that appear less important.37Therefore, scientists are often, consciously or not, do so: if the facts support the theory, they emphasize, if not fully confirm — that reformats, and if conflict — then ignored. But there are also more sophisticated falsification. One example — the case of Dr. Gluck:
"Only a month has passed from the time when the National Institute of Mental Health issued its verdict on the investigation of the case Broyninga and the medical community already shaken by a new scandal. For 22 years the therapist Charles Gluck climbed the ladder in science. After graduating in 1964, he has since published over 400 works at high speed — about 17 a year. For his work in the study of cholesterol and heart disease Gluck in 1980 received the prestigious Riveshla from the University of Cincinnati. Gluck was the leader of the center of the study of lipids and General Clinical Research Center at the university, making it one of the most powerful and highly paid scientists on staff. But last July, the National Institutes of Health found that the article Gluck, published in August 1986 in the journalPediatrics,contains a lot of inconsistencies and errors. Paper, according to the NIH, was frankly shoddy and its conclusions — unfounded. "38
How did Gluck managed to print paper full of "inconsistencies and errors" in the peer-reviewed journal? The practice of peer review of grant applications leads to the fact that scientists determine to whom to give the money to have a great influence on what research is to be conducted. Funded market research, and the work allegedly contrary to generally accepted theories (eg, Darwinism) have virtually no chance of getting funding. Dalton notes that, despite the generally known problem associated with peer review, "so far not offered a serious alternative to this system. "It's easy to say that the system is bad. Harder to fix it ", — says Ronald McKay, a scientist who studies stem cells at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and paralysis in Bethesda (Maryland). Case tried to correct, requiring reviewers to put their name on the review. It was assumed that if the reviewers will have to call in a review by their signature, their work becomes more open, and no one can prevent the investigation under the guise of anonymity. For this approach appears Rennie. He says, "This is the only credible standing, transparent and fair system … I turned to scientists to this call, but the majority did not support me. '"39
Numerous "flaws in the system of publishing articles" are caused mainly by the fact that the "peer review does not guarantee quality."40 One way to combat this problem — to publish the names of the reviewers, and these people have trusted. Another way — to publish a clear and rigorous criteria for the selection of articles, and if the article does not meet these criteria, the author must make to correct it for as long as it will not comply with them.
Scientific world corrects errors of individual scientists?
In a study conducted by the U.S. the Food and Drug Administration, it was felt that the scientific world corrects mistakes made by individual scientists. The authors conclude that the above matter Broyminga was "just the tip of the iceberg of fraud and violations of academic requirements. Administration analysts so often faced with questionable research, they came up with the slang terms: for example, "Dr. Shlokmeyster" — a poor scholar, and "graphite statistics" — is the data, which are created at the tip of a pencil. Administration annually inspects major research projects scientists involved in testing new drugs to get permission. "This is the last stage, after which the drugs go into production — explains Alan Lisuk, Head Inspection Administration. — You probably think that we have the science fair. " However, when in 1986 he led the statistics of its work during the last ten years, the results were shocking. Approximately 200 studies have allowed so many mistakes, that was put into question the efficacy of the drug. About 40 studies were made not just mistakes and blunders, and was made a criminal falsification of data. In those ten years, the Administration banned more than 60 scientists involved in drug trials because they falsified data, or did not fulfill the requirements of the study. Sprague says, "something is clearly wrong. '"41
Peer review was fiction. As a result, "a lot of what goes into print, not unchallenged, in fact, not true, and no one knows about it — and maybe this one and do not care."42Anderson conducted an analysis of attempts to protect the system of reviewing the work of colleagues, for example, EditorScienceDonald Donald Kennedy said that "no one ever expected that the peer review from colleagues will reveal the fraud." Kennedy believes that he could justify this kind of system of peer review, however, and inScience, andNaturepublished an article containing false data, and inconsistencies in these articles is hardly noticeable. As an example, he cites Jan Hendrik Sean, who in one of his works "used the same curve in two different graphs, and in another paper presented the results without an error. Both magazines emphasize that they select to print articles on the basis of high academic value, and reviewers — based on professionalism. Could the editors and reviewers do not notice these glaring inconsistencies? In these articles, among others, statements were made that are of great importance to industry and science. Besides Sean unmasked scientists who did not participate in the review. "43
The problem is that "science has pathogenic side" because "lust for power" or "greed", "can hit a scientist, like any other. To anyone who has worked in a lab or university, or just read about the history of science, familiar pride, envy and competition, — feelings, amazing scientists working in the same field. In an effort to "win" some scientists "cooked" his discovery: they drove real results to what they expected.44
The main problem associated with fraud, is the science itself. Scientists' see their profession in light of the spectacular ideals, by philosophers and sociologists. Like all believers, they tend to interpret what they see, in accordance with what their faith dictates. "45And, unfortunately, science — is "a complex process in which the observer can see almost anything he wants, narrowing the field of view."46For example, James Randi concluded that scientists are very easily fooled by magic tricks.47The problem of objectivity is very serious, as many scientists believe passionately in their cause, and the theory that they are trying to prove. This passion can support the scientist's efforts to achieve a result, and may affect the result, and even distort it.
Many examples show that scientists tend to self-deception is particularly strong when dealing with the facts that cast doubt on the basis of their worldview. "All persons engaged in surveillance, even a well-trained and have a tendency to see what they expect to see."48Nowhere is this more noticeable as well as a highly polemical research evolution.
Robert Rosenthal in a series of experiments, which have become classics today, the scientists studied the perception of the experimental results.49In one experiment, he suggested researchers to test the "active" and "sluggish" rats. In fact, the rats were divided into two groups randomly. None of the participants in the experiment, scientists had no experience in this test. Scientists said that the "active" rats showed better results, although in fact it was not. Experimenters have seen what they wanted (or expected) to see (Now this is called "expectancy effects") — perhaps unconsciously, perhaps, scientists stopped the stopwatch for a split second before, dealing with the "active" rats, and a split second later — with a "sluggish". Other similar experiments have yielded similar results.
Science as an instrument of oppression
One way to discredit an unpopular theory, especially when it comes to the origin of life — call it "unscientific", and the opposite theory — the "science." Sociologists for many years studied the harmful effects of such labeling. This approach has a positive impact on one of the lines, which originated from the artificial division, and negatively affects the other direction. In any scientific contradiction correct to judge each point of view on the basis of its values, using a purely scientific method.
In a study of fraud in science Broad and Wade argue that the term "science" often acts as a "shortcut", designed to hint at the truth or falsity of a statement. According to them, a commonplace view is that "science — the process is strictly logical, objective — the inalienable property of the relation to the work of the scientist, and scientific opinions are carefully checked and colleagues repeated experiments. In such a self-monitoring system errors of any kind quickly detected and corrected. "50
After that, the authors show that this view of science is false. The result of their work helps us to understand the characteristics of scientific work with a more realistic approach than common these days. They show that the allegedly "protected error" mechanisms of scientific research often do not correct the consequences of fraud, which they called the "epidemic" of modern science. The desire to be "first", the need to obtain grants, trips to exotic places at the conference, the lure of money and prestige leads many scientists to abandon the high ideals, standing in front of them at the beginning of a career.
Published literature and interviews with me at the medical school faculty, confirm the existence of the problem of fraud in science today. Among the causes of fraud — money, a job, an opportunity to receive a grant, professional rivalries and the need to prove a theory or idea. But there is another factor. It — disregard Christianity and moral values, which resulted in the crisis of the ethical foundations that held back falsification. The problem of fraud is particularly acute in the areas of science, supporting Darwinism, and it has been around a long time. The literature describes hundreds of cases of falsification of research results.9,13,20,51Unfortunately, even during repeated experiments (which is not done in all areas of science) is very difficult to detect fraud. Typically, fraud can expose only assistants and colleagues forger, but often they do not report on its fact9because it could cost them friendships and reputation. They may even be subject to retaliation. According to Roman, because of this "whistleblowers" occur "rarely".9
As a result, fraud in science, according to many, has grown into an epidemic.20Great concern in this regard cause biological sciences. It is believed that in this area allow for dishonesty more than 10% of the scientists. It follows that most of the scientists quoted in the works false or, at least, inaccurate. Meanwhile, the broad research on fraud, very little (and probably found in the course of their cases — just the tip of the iceberg of the notorious).
- Miller, R.,The Piltdown Men,St. Martins Press, New York, 1972.
- Bergman, J., Ancon sheep: just another loss mutation,Journal of Creation 17(1): 18-19, 2002.
- Simons, LM, Archaeoraptor fossil trail,National Geographic198(4): 128-132,2000.
- Hooper, J.,An Evolutionary Tale of Moths and Men: The Untold Story of Science and the Peppered Moth,WW Norton, New York, 2002.
- Wells, J., Haeckel's embryos and evolution,The American Biology Teacher 61(5) :345-349, 1999.
- Koestler, A.,The Case of the Midwife Toad,Random House, New York, 1972.
- Pennisi, E., Haeckel's embryos: fraud rediscovered,Science277:1435, 1997.
- Assmuth, J. and Hull, ER,Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries,Examiner Press, Bombay and Kenedy, London, 1915.
- Roman, M., When good scientists turn bad,Discover9(4) :50-58, 1986; p. 58.
- Abbott, A., Science comes to terms with the lessons of fraud,Nature398:13-17, 1999; p. 13.
- Campbell, P., Reflections on scientific fraud,Nature419:417, 2002.
- Check, E., Sitting in judgment,Nature419:332-333, 2002; p. 332.
- Kohn, A.,False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine,Barnes & Noble Books, New York, 1988.
- Crewdson, J.,Science Fictions; A Massive Cover-Up and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo,Little Brown, New York, 2002.
- Roman, ref. 9, p. 52.
- Dennis, C., Misconduct row fuels calls for reform,Nature427:666, 2004.
- Kohn, ref. 13, pp. 104-110.
- Campbell, ref. 11, p. 417.
- Kerwin, L., Obituary: Franco Rasetti (1901-2001),Nature415:597, 2002.
- Broad, W. and Wade. N.,Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science,Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 8, 1982.
- Roman, ref. 9, p. 53.
- Anonymous, Is science really a pack of lies?Nature303:361-362,1981; p. 361.
- Dewitt, N. and Turner, R., Bad peer reviewers,Nature413(6852): 93, 2001.
- Dalton, R., Peers under pressure,Nature413:102-104, 2001; p. 104.
- Abbott, A. and Schwarz, H., Dubious data remain in print two years after misconduct inquiry,Nature418:113, 2002.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, p. 17.
- Kohn, ref. 13, p. 47.
- Chang, K., On scientific fakery and the systems to catch it,The New York Times Science Times,15 October 2002; pp. 1, 4.
- Simons, ref. 3, p. 130.
- Vogel, G., Proffitt, F. and Stone, R., Ecologists roiled by misconduct case,Science303:606-609, 2004; p. 606.
- Abbott and Schwarz, ref. 25, p. 113.
- Stewart, WW and Feder, N., The integrity of the scientific literature,Nature325:207-216, 1987.
- Stewart and Feder, ref. 32, p. 208.
- Struhl, G.,Cell116:481, 2004.
- Dalton, ref. 24, p. 104.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, p. 19.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, p. 35.
- Roman, ref. 9, p. 57.
- Dalton, ref. 24, p. 103.
- Muir, H., Twins raise ruckus,New Scientist176(2369): 6, 2002.
- Roman, ref. 9, p. 55.
- Kohn, ref. 13, p. 205.
- Kennedy, D., More questions about research misconduct,Science297:13, 2002.
- Zabilka, IL,Scientific Malpractice; The Creation / Evolution Debate,Bristol Books, Lexington, p. 138, 1992.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, p. 79.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, pp. 217-218.
- Randi, J.,Film Flam!Prometheus, Buffalo, 1982.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, p. 114.
- Rosenthal, R.,Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research,Irvington, New York, pp. 150-164, 1976.
- Broad and Wade, ref. 20, p. 7.
- Adler, I.,Stories of Hoaxes in the Name of Science,Collier Books, New York, 1962.
By Jerry Bergman
Translated by A. Musina, May 15, 2005