Scientific Misconduct. Overview. Types of Fraud Detecting Fraud Motives How Common is Fraud? The Stem Cell Mess Reforms. Types of Fraud. Types of Fraud. Business As Usual Bootlegging Research Rushing to Publish Withholding Data Withholding Information
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Types of Fraud
How Common is Fraud?
The Stem Cell Mess
Business As Usual
Rushing to Publish
Unfair Treatment of Post-Docs & Students
- The Most Common Allegation.
Improper Credit to Colleagues
Improper Credit to Collaborators
- Smallest Publishable Unit
Unethical Use of Peer Review
- “Cooking”: Retaining Results that Fit the Data
- Clark Milliken
- “Trimming”: Adjusting Data to Make it Look Extremely Accurate
- “Forging”: Fabricating Data or Entire Experiments
Physics, The Easiest Case
A Crisis in Physics?
Experiments are Hard!
Yale Axion (1985)
Stanford Monopole (1982)
Stanford Fractionally Charged Particles (1970s)
Los Alamos Sterile Neutrinos (1995)
17 KeV Neutrino (1990s)
Identifying Sources of Error
Between Successive Experiments
What They Teach Experimentalists
Self-Delusion vs. Self-Doubt
Getting Experiments to Work
Lowell and Mars (1890s)
Maskelyn & Kinnebrook (1796)
Finding What’s Expected
Cowen & Reines
Characterizing the Data
Double Blind Solutions
Parity Violation in the 1920s
Is Science Self-Correcting?
Time, Unpleasantness, Making Enemies
Rocking the Boat
Fear of Senior People
Reluctance to Hurt Junior People
The Role of Theory
The Undetectable Middle
Not Expected, Not Spectacular
Piltdown, Hideo Noguchi,
Beyond Physics, ctd…
Competition & Flux
Uri Geller and the Physicists
Planning for Rare Events
The Intent Problem
Do We Need a Smoking Gun?
Better That Nine Guilty Men Go Free…?
Office of Research Integrity
1 inquiry per 60 grants
1 misconduct finding per 500 grants
127 Complaints (2001)
New Scientist Survey
One-third of all scientists
were directly or indirectly
aware of cheating.
40% were caught or confessed
Only 10% of cheaters were fired.
Students & Young Faculty
Woo Suk Hwan
Jan Hendrik Schon
The Faustian Bargain
The Incentives Model
Betting on Being Right
Talking to Der Alte: Newton & Burt
The Human Urge to Hoax
Do The Data Exist?
Woo Suk Hwang
Did clone human blastocysts.
Did clone puppy.
Egg donations from lab workers
Efficiency of cloning
Creating Cell line from blastocysts
Paying team members to keep quiet?
Protecting womens’ privacy.
Stem cells were deliberately swapped…
The Fraud Unravels
Find the duplicate photos…
The US Connection – Gerald Schatten
$40K in 15 months
Lobbying Science to publish.
Becoming a co-author.
Failure to oversee manuscript.
Failure to ensure that all 25 coauthors approved.
Time and Money
Contaminating the Literature
Utility and Overhead
Expanding the Required Conspiracy
and Unacceptable Across
all Scientific and Scholarly
Office of Research Integrity:
9 month process – usually committee- based
33% report matter was not kept confidential because of inquiry’s duration and/or leaks.
Only 25% believed university did enough to restore their reputations.
Consequences to Individuals:
Short Term: loss of position (17%),
loss of promotions or salary (42%),
threatened lawsuits, additional
allegations, ostracism, reduced support,
delays in publication and grants,
pressure to admit misconduct.
Two-thirds reported that effects
continued after the investigation.
Long-Term Consequences to Individuals
39% reported long-term consequences
and/or a continuing stigma.
94% continued research
and 71% stayed at same institution.
Long-Term Consequences to Individuals
Impact on professional reputation (46%)
job mobility (30%), networking (24%),
presenting papers (39%), research (37%),
chairing sessions (30%), serving in elected
offices (28%), mental health (78%),
physical health (48%), self-esteem (46%),
self-identity (39%), relations
with spouse (37%).
Hurting The Accused
Hurting the Judges
Shifting Workers Out of Research
Suppressing Unexpected Results
Danish Committees of Scientific Discovery
Bjorn Lomborg (2003)
Anders Moller (1998-2003)
Personalities & Revenge
Missing and reconstructed data
Is an incorrect calculation fraud?