Question

What are some problems with science as a system that may actually be a) encouraging fraud, b) making fraud detection difficult or discouraging it? Mention 3 of each a) and b).

Answer 1

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. The term "scientific fraud" is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research. Behavior characterized as scientific fraud includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scientific research, or in reporting research results. Scientific fraud is unethical and often illegal. When discovered and proven, fraud can end the scientific careers of researchers who engage in scientific frauds The substantial financial and reputational rewards that can accrue to scientists who produce novel and important re-search or who obtain certain desired results have induced some scientists to engage in scientific fraud.

to further elobrate this fraud Fabrication is making up results and recording or reporting them. ... Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. while fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results by making up data, such as that reported in a journal article. ... Sometimes referred to as "drylabbing".

POLICING OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD: Prominent scientists testified that fraud in science was rare; that individual allegations were best investigated on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis; and that government intrusion into the evaluation of scientific fraud would place bureaucrats in charge of declaring scientific truth. testified that many cases of scientific fraud had likely gone undetected; that the scientific system of self-policing responded inadequately to fraud; and that the government's substantial financial investment in basic scientific research necessitated undertaking measures to ensure the integrity of the scientific enterprise Therefore in.1981 the journlists , researchers, following press reports of a "crime wave" of scientific fraud, the U.S. House of Representatives conducted the first-ever congressional hearings on the subject.

b) Fraud and deceit in medical research corrupts the scientific record and leads to false conclusions. It leads to a loss in public trust in medical research and doctors. Fraud in medical research affects all grades of investigator

.The most famous case in Britain was that of Malcolm Pearce, a senior lecturer at St George's Hospital Medical School and Geoffrey Chamberlain, Professor and head of the department. In 1994 they published a paper in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, of which Pearce was assistant editor and Chamberlain editor. The paper claimed success in re-implanting an ectopic pregnancy. In the same issue, Pearce had published a randomised controlled trial. A few months later, a junior researcher in their department alerted authorities that the re-implantation case was a work of fiction and that the patients randomised in the trial did not exist. The affair led to Chamberlain resigning and Pearce being struck off the medical register., The fraud and deceit in medical research has a ‘pathogenesis’ and manifests itself in a number of ways. In this paper the nature and causes of fraud and deceit in medical research are examined as well as potential solutions to the problem.It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of fraud and deceit in the medical literature directly, but an indirect insight can be gained from questionnaire surveys.

MISUSE OF STATISCAL TECHNIQUES :Owing to the complexity of statistical analysis and the difficulty many researchers have with it, fraud and deceit can creep in unwittingly. With the ready availability of menu driven statistical software and lack of understanding of associated hypotheses and assumptions, improper techniques may be employed leading to misleading research.

WHISTLE BLOWING :Most fraud is probably detected by the suspicions of a colleague in the relevant department. In the context of witnessing fraudulent behaviour by a colleague, one should first try to assess whether this is likely to be deliberate or accidental. In the latter case, all that would be necessary would be to inform the colleague involved.

COPE has five main aims :(1) to advise on cases brought by editors; (2) to hold meetings and publish an annual report in which its members discuss current issues of publication ethics and describe cases brought to its attention; (3) to produce guidance on good practice; (4) to encourage research; (5) to offer teaching & training. It does not have a legal standing but aims to cause change by shaming the British establishment into mounting a proper response to inappropriate behaviour.

Fraud, whether intentional or accidental, is deceitful and concealed so it will be difficult to predict whether the new guidelines and regulatory bodies will be effective; as in so many other area of life, the trust extended to authors will always be open to abuse.