i One Setting the Stage - Princeton Universityassets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9148.pdf · Setting the Stage Fraud in science is, in essence, a violation of the scientific method

Copyrighted Material

i One Setting the Stage

Fraudinscience is, inessence,aviolationofthescientificmethod.Itisfearedanddenigratedbyallscientists.Let’slookatafewrealcasesthathavecomeupinthepast.

PiltdownMan,ahumancraniumandapejawfoundinagravelpitinEnglandaround1910,isperhapsthemostfamouscase.Initiallyhailedastheauthenticremnantsofoneofourmoredistantancestors,theinterspeciesskeletalremainswereexposedasafraudbymoderndatingmethodsin1954.Tothisdaynooneknowswhoperpetratedthedeceptionorwhy.Onepopulartheoryisthattheperpetratorwasonlytryingtohelpalongwhatwasthoughttobethetruth.PrehistorichominidremainshadbeendiscoveredinFranceandGermany,andtherewereevenrumorsoffindingsinAfrica.Surelyhumanitycouldnothaveoriginatedinthoseuncivilizedplaces.BettertohavehumanlifebeginingoodoldEngland!

Asitturnedout,theartifactwasrejectedbythebodyofsci-entificknowledgelongbeforemoderndatingmethodsshowedittobeahoax.GrowingevidencethatourancientforebearslookednothinglikePiltdownManmadethediscoveryanem-barrassmentatthefringesofanthropology.Theapplicationofmoderndatingmethodsconfirmedthatbothartifactswerenotmucholderthantheirdiscoverydate.

1


SirCyrilBurtwasafamousBritishpsychologistwhostud-iedtheheritabilityofintelligencebymeansofidenticaltwinswhohadbeenseparatedatbirth.Unfortunatelythereseemnottohavebeenenoughsuchconvenientsubjectstostudy,soheapparentlyinventedthirty-threeadditionalpairs,andbecausethatgavehimmoreworkthanhecouldhandle,healsoinventedtwoassistantstotakecareofthem.Hisduplicitywasuncoveredin1974,somethreeyearsafterhisdeath.

Thatsameyear,WilliamSummerlin,aresearcherattheSloan-KetteringInstituteforCancerResearchinNewYorkCity,conductedaseriesofexperimentsaimedatinducinghealthyblackskingraftstogrowonawhitemouse.Evidently,naturewasn’tsufficientlycooperative,forhewascaughtred-handedtryingtohelpheroutwithablackfelt-tippedpen.

JohnDarseewasaprodigiousyoungresearcheratHarvardMedicalSchool,turningoutaresearchpaperaboutonceeveryeightdays.Thatlastedacoupleofyearsuntil1981,whenhewascaughtfabricatingdataoutofwholecloth.

StephenBreuningwasapsychologistattheUniversityofPittsburghstudyingtheeffectsofdrugssuchasRitalinonpa-tients.In1987itwasdeterminedthathehadfabricateddata.Hiscasewasparticularlybad,becauseprotocolsfortreatingpatientshadbeenbasedonhisspuriousresults.

Scienceisself-correcting,inthesensethatafalsehoodinjectedintothebodyofscientificknowledgewilleventuallybediscoveredandrejected.Butthatfactdoesnotprotectthescientificenterpriseagainstfraud,becauseinjectingfalsehoodsintothebodyofsci-enceisrarely,ifever,thepurposeofthosewhoperpetratefraud.Theyalmostalwaysbelievethattheyareinjectingatruthintothescientificrecord,asinthecasesabove,butwithoutgoingthroughallthetroublethattherealscientificmethoddemands.

one | Setting the Stage 2


That’swhyscienceneedsactivemeasurestoprotectit.Fraud,ormisconduct,meansdishonestprofessionalbehavior,charac-terizedbytheintenttodeceive—theveryantithesisofethicalbehaviorinscience.Whenyoureadascientificpaper,youarefreetoagreeordisagreewithitsconclusions,butyoumustalwaysbeconfidentthatyoucantrustitsaccountoftheproceduresthatwereusedandtheresultsproducedbythoseprocedures.

Foryearsitwasthoughtthatscientificfraudwasalmostalwaysrestrictedtobiomedicineandcloselyrelatedsciences,andalthoughthereareexceptions,mostinstancesdosurfaceinthesefields.Thereareundoubtedlymanyreasonsforthiscuriousstateofaffairs.Forexample,manymisconductcasesinvolvemedicaldoctorsratherthanscientistswithPh.D.s(whoaretrainedtodoresearch).Toadoctor,thewelfareofhisorherpatientmaybemoreimportantthanscientifictruth.Inacasethatcameupinthe1980s,forexample,aphysicianinMontrealwasfoundtohavefalsifiedtherecordsofparticipantsinalarge-scalebreast-cancerstudy.Askedwhyhedidit,hesaiditwasinordertogetbettermedicalcareforhispatients.However,thegreaternumberofcasesarisesfrommoreself-interestedmotives.Althoughtheperpetratorsusuallythinkthatthey’redoingtherightthing,theyalsoknowthatthey’recommittingfraud.

Inrecentcasesofscientificfraud,threemotives,orriskfactors, have always been present. In nearly all cases, theperpetrators

1. wereundercareerpressure;2. knew,orthoughttheyknew,whattheanswertothe

problemtheywereconsideringwouldturnouttobeiftheywenttoallthetroubleofdoingtheworkproperly;and

3


3.wereworkinginafieldwhereindividualexperimentsarenotexpectedtobepreciselyreproducible.

Itisbynomeanstruethatfraudalwaysariseswhenthesethreefactorsarepresent.Infact,justtheoppositeistrue:Thesefactorsareoftenpresent,andfraudisquiterare.Buttheydoseemtobepresentwheneverfraudoccurs.Letusconsiderthemoneatatime.

Career pressure. Thisisclearlyamotivatingfactor,butitdoesnotofferusanyspecialinsightsintowhyasmallnumberofscientistsstrayprofessionallywhenmostdonot.Allscientists,atalllevels,fromfametoobscurity,areprettymuchalwaysundercareerpressure.Ontheotherhand,simplemonetarygainisseldomifeverafactorinscientificfraud.

Knowing the answer. Scientificfraudisalmostalwaysatrans-gressionagainstthemethodsofscience,notpurposelyagainstthebodyofknowledge.Perpetratorsthinktheyknowhowtheexperimentwouldcomeoutifitweredoneproperly,andtheydecidethatitisnotnecessarytogotoallthetroubleofdoingitproperly.

Reproducibility. Inreality,experimentsareseldomrepeatedbyothersinscience.Nevertheless,thebeliefthatsomeoneelsecanrepeatanexperimentandget—ornot—thesameresultcanbeapowerfuldeterrenttocheating.Hereapertinentdistinctionarisesbetweenbiologyandtheothersciences,inthatbiologicalvariabilitymayprovideapparentcoverforabiologistwhoistemptedtocheat.Sufficientvariabilityexistsamongorganismsthatthesameprocedure,performedontwotestsubjectsasnearlyidenticalaspossible,isnotexpectedtogiveexactlythe



sameresult.Iftwovirtuallyidenticalratsaretreatedwiththesamecarcinogen,theyarenotexpectedtodevelopthesametumorinthesameplaceatthesametime.Thislastpointcer-tainlyhelpstoexplainwhyscientificfraudisfoundmainlyinthebiomedicalarea.(Twocasesinphysicsofferaninterestingtestofthishypothesis.Theyareaddressedinmoredetaillaterinthisvolume.)

Nohumanactivitycanstanduptotheglareofrelentless,absolutehonesty.Webuildlittlehypocrisiesandmisrepresen-tationsintowhatwedotomakeourlivesalittleeasier,andscience,averyhumanenterprise,isnoexception.Forexample,everyscientificpaperiswrittenasiftheparticularinvestigationitdescribeswereatriumphantprogressionfromonetruthtothenext.Allscientistswhoperformresearch,however,knowthateveryscientificexperimentischaotic—likewar.Youneverknowwhat’sgoingon;youcannotusuallyunderstandwhatthedatamean.Butintheendyoufigureoutwhatitwasallabout,andthen,withhindsight,youwriteitupasoneclearandcertainstepafteranother.Thisisakindofhypocrisy,butonethatisdeeplyembeddedinthewaywedoscience.Wearesoaccus-tomedtoitthatwedon’tevenregarditasamisrepresentation.Coursesarenotofferedintherulesofmisrepresentationinscientificpapers,buttheapprenticeshipthatonegoesthroughtobecomeascientistdoesinvolvelearningthem.

Thesameapprenticeship,however,alsoinculcatesadeeprespectfortheinviolabilityofscientificdataandinstructstheneophytescientistintheironcladdistinctionbetweenharm-lessfudgingandrealfraud.Forexample,itmaybemarginallyacceptable,inwritingupyourexperiment,topresentyourbestdataandcasuallyrefertothemastypical(becauseyoumean

5


typicalofthephenomenon,nottypicalofyourdata),butitisnotacceptabletomoveonedatapointjustalittlebittomakethedatalookbetter.Allscientistswouldagreethattodosoisfraud.Thatisbecauseexperimentsmustdealwithphysicalreality,amajorpointthatcanonlybeassuredbyanhonestpresentationofallthedata.

Inordertodefineaspreciselyaspossiblewhatconstitutesscientificmisconductorfraud,weneedfirsttohavetheclearestpossibleunderstandingofhowscienceactuallyworks.Oth-erwise,itisalltooeasytoformulateplausible-soundingethi-calprinciplesthatwouldbeunworkableorevendamagingtothescientificenterpriseiftheywereactuallyputintopractice.Here,forexample,isaplausiblebutunworkablesetofsuchprecepts.

1.Ascientistshouldneverbemotivatedtodoscienceforpersonalgain,advancement,orotherrewards.

2. Scientistsshouldalwaysbeobjectiveandimpartialwhengatheringdata.

3.Everyobservationorexperimentmustbedesignedtofalsifyahypothesis.

4.Whenanexperimentoranobservationgivesaresultcontrarytothepredictionofacertaintheory,allethicalscientistsmustabandonthattheory.

5.Scientistsmustneverbelievedogmaticallyinanideaoruserhetoricalexaggerationinpromotingit.

6.Scientistsmust“bendoverbackwards”(inthewordsoficonicphysicistRichardFeynman)1topointoutevi-dencethatiscontrarytotheirownhypothesisorthatmightweakenacceptanceoftheirexperimentalresults.



7.Conductthatseriouslydepartsfromcommonlyacceptedbehaviorinthescientificcommunityisunethical.

8.Scientistsmustreportwhattheyhavedonesofullythatanyotherscientistcanreproducetheexperimentorcal-culation.Sciencemustbeanopenbook,notanacquiredskill.

9.Scientistsshouldneverpermittheirjudgmentstobeaf-fectedbyauthority.Forexample,thereputationofthescientistmakingagivenclaimisirrelevanttothevalidityoftheclaim.

10.Eachauthorofamulti-authorpaperisresponsibleforeverypartofthepaper.

11.Thechoiceandorderofauthorsonamulti-authorpapermuststrictlyreflectthecontributionsoftheauthorstotheworkinquestion.

12.Financialsupportfordoingscienceandaccesstoscientificfacilitiesshouldbeshareddemocratically,notconcen-tratedinthehandsofafavoredfew.

13. Therecanneverbetoomanyscientistsintheworld.14.Nomisleadingordeceptivestatementshouldeverappear

inascientificpaper.15.Decisionsaboutthedistributionofscientificresources

andpublicationofexperimentalresultsmustbeguidedbythejudgmentofscientificpeerswhoareprotectedbyanonymity.

Let’snowlookateachofourdiktats inturn,beginningwithprinciple1.Inaparallelcaseineconomiclife,well-intentionedattemptstoeliminatetheroleofgreedorspeculationcanhavedisastrousconsequences.Infact,seeminglybadbehaviorsuchas

7


theaggressivepursuitofself-interestcan,inaproperlyfunction-ingsystem,produceresultsthataregenerallybeneficial.

Principles2and3derivefromthefollowingarguments.AccordingtoFrancisBacon,whosetdowntheseideasintheseventeenthcentury,sciencebeginswiththecarefulrecord-ingofobservations.2 Theseshouldbe,insofarasishumanlypossible,uninfluencedbyanypriorprejudiceortheoreticalpreconception.Whenalargeenoughbodyofobservationsispresent,onegeneralizesfromthesetoatheoryorhypothesisbyaprocessofinduction—thatis,workingfromthespecifictothegeneral.

Historians,philosophers,andthosescientistswillingtoventureintosuchphilosophicwatersarevirtuallyunanimousinrejectingBaconianinductivismasageneralcharacterizationof

Figure 1.1 engraved portrait of english philosopher and essayist Sir Francis Bacon, by Dutch engraver Jacobus Houbraken (1698–1780), Amsterdam, dated 1738, possibly after a portrait painting done circa 1731 by John vanderbank (1694–1735). Courtesy of California institute of Technology Archives.



goodscientificmethod(adieu,principle2).Youcannotrecordallthatyouobserve;someprincipleofrelevanceisrequired.Butdecisionsaboutwhatisrelevantdependonbackgroundassump-tionsthatarehighlytheoretical.Thisissometimesexpressedbysayingthatallobservationinscienceis“theory-laden”andthata“theoreticallyneutral”languageforrecordingobserva-tionsisimpossible.

Theideathatscienceproceedsonlyandalwaysbymeansofinductivegeneralizationisalsomisguided.Theoriesinmanypartsofsciencehavetodowiththingsthatcan’tbedirectlyobservedatall:forces,fields,subatomicparticles,proteins,andsoon.Forthisandmanyotherreasons,noonehasbeenabletoformulateadefensibletheoryofBaconianinductivistscience.Althoughfewscientistsbelieveininductivism,manyhavebeeninfluencedbythefalsifiabilityideasofthetwentieth-centuryphi-losopherKarlPopper.3Accordingtotheseideas,weassessthevalidityofahypothesisbyextractingfromitatestablepredic-tion.Ifthetestprovesthepredictiontobefalse,thehypothesisisalsobydefinitionfalseandmustberejected.Thekeypointtoappreciatehereisthatnomatterhowmanyobservationsagreewiththeprediction,theywillneversufficetoprovethatthepredictionistrue,orverified,orevenmoreprobablethanitwasbefore.Themostthatweareallowedtosayisthatthetheoryhasbeentestedandnotyetfalsified.ThusanimportantasymmetryinformsthePopperianmodelofverificationandfalsification.Wecanshowconclusivelythatahypothesisisfalse,butwecanneverdemonstrateconclusivelythatitistrue.Inthisview,sci-enceproceedsentirelybyshowingthatseeminglysoundideasarewrong,sothattheymustbereplacedbybetterideas.

Inductivistsplacemuchemphasisonavoidanceoferror.Bycontrast,falsifiabilityadvocatesbelievethatnotheorycan

9


ultimatelybeprovedright,soouraimshouldbetodetecterrorsandlearnfromthemasefficientlyaspossible.Thus,alaudablecorollaryofthePopperianviewisthatifscienceistoprogress,scientistsmustbefreetobewrong.

Butfalsifiabilityalsohasseriousdeficiencies.Testingagivenhypothesis,H,involvesderivingfromitsomeobservablecon-sequence,O.Butinpractice,Omaydependonotherassump-tions,A(auxiliaryassumptions,philosopherscallthem).SoifHisfalse,itmaybethatOisfalse,butitmayalsobethatOistrueandAisfalse.

Oneimmediateconsequenceofthissimplelogicalfactisthattheasymmetrybetweenfalsifiabilityandverificationvan-ishes.Wemaynotbeabletoconclusivelyverifyahypothesis,butwecan’tfalsifyiteither.Thusitmaybeagoodstrategytohangontoahypothesisevenwhenanobservationseemstoimplythatit’sfalse.Thehistoryofscienceisfullofexamplesofthissortofanti-PopperianstrategysucceedingwhereapurelyPop-perianstrategywouldhavefailed.PerhapstheclassicexampleisAlbertEinstein’sseeminglyabsurdconjecturethatthespeedoflightmustbethesameforallobservers,regardlessoftheirownspeed.Manyobservationshadshownthattheapparentspeedofanobjectdependsonthespeedoftheobserver.Butthoseobservationswerenottrueforlight,andtheresultwasthespecialtheoryofrelativity(somuchforprinciple3).

Bothinductivismandfalsifiabilityenvisionthescientistencounteringnatureallalone.Butscienceiscarriedoutbyacommunityofinvestigators.Supposeascientistwhohasde-votedagreatdealoftimeandenergydevelopingatheoryisfacedwithadecisionaboutwhethertoholdontoitinthefaceofsomecontraryevidence.GoodPopperianbehaviorwouldbetogiveitup,butthecommunalnatureofsciencesuggests



anotherpossibility.Supposeourscientisthasarivalwhohasinvestedtimeandenergydevelopinganalternativetheory.ThenwecanexpecttherivaltoactasaseverePopperiancriticofthetheory.Aslongasothersarewillingtodothejob,ourscientistneednottakeonthepsychologicallydauntingtaskofplayinghisowndevil’sadvocate.Infact,scientists,likeotherpeople,finditdifficulttocommittoanarduouslong-termprojectiftheyspendtoomuchtimecontemplatingthevariouswaysinwhichtheprojectmightbeunsuccessful(principle4).

Acertaintendencytoexaggeratethemeritsofone’sownapproachandtoplaydowncontraryevidencemaybeneces-sary,particularlyduringtheearlystagesofaproject.Moreover,scientistsliketoberightandgetrecognitionforbeingright.Thesatisfactionofdemolishingatheoryonehaslaboriouslyconstructedmaybesmallincomparisonwiththesatisfactionofseeingitvindicated.Allthingsconsidered,it’sextremelyhardformostpeopletoadoptaconsistentlyPopperianattitudetowardtheirownwork.Infact,partoftheintellectualresponsibilityofascientististoprovidethebestpossiblecaseforimportantideas,leavingittootherstopublicizetheirdefectsandlimitations.Thatisjustwhatmostscientistsdo(principle5).

InacommencementaddressatCaltechsomeyearsago,RichardFeynmanendorsedthePopperianoutlookbyremark-ing,“It’sakindofscientificintegrity,aprincipleofscientificthoughtthatcorrespondstoakindofutterhonesty—akindofleaningoverbackwards.Forexample,ifyou’redoinganex-periment,youshouldreporteverythingthatyouthinkmightmakeitinvalid—notonlywhatyouthinkisrightaboutit;othercausesthatcouldpossiblyexplainyourresults;andthingsyou’vethoughtofthatyou’veeliminatedbysomeotherexperiment,andhowtheyworked—tomakesuretheotherfellowcantell

11


Figure 1.2 richard Feynman, Caltech commencement, 1974. Courtesy of Floyd Clark, California institute of Technology Archives.

they’vebeeneliminated.”4 Thatisahigh-mindedandlaudableattitudetohave,butitisfarbeyondthecapacityofmostscien-tists.Mostscientistsarecontenttopresenttheirresultswithoutcallingattentiontoallthewaystheycouldbewrong(principle6).Nevertheless,it’simportantforscientiststobecarefultopointoutwhatcouldbewrongiftheyknowit.

Itmaybethatmerelyverifyingahypothesishaslittlein-trinsicvalue,butitisstrikingthatthedistributionofcreditinsciencereflectsadecidedlydifferentview.ScientistswinNobelPrizesandothercovetedaccoladesfordetectingneweffectsorforpredictingeffectsthataresubsequentlyverified.Itisonlywhenatheoryhasbecomeverywellestablishedthatonereceivessignificantcreditforrefutingit,andwhilesuchanachievementmayburnishascientist’sreputation,itrarely,ifever,resultsinthetypeofrewardsassociatedwithanaffirma-



tivebreakthrough.Unquestionably,rewardingconfirmationsoverrefutationsprovidesscientistswithincentivestoconfirmtheoriesratherthantorefutethem,butaswehavebeenarguing,thatisnotnecessarilybadforscience.

Conventionalaccountsofthescientificmethodsharetheassumptionthatallscientistsshouldadoptthesamestrategies.Infact,governmentagenciesusedtodefinescientificmiscon-ductas“practicesthatseriouslydeviatefromthosethatarecommonlyacceptedwithinthescientificcommunity”(principle7).5Butrapidprogresswillbemorelikelyifdifferentinvestiga-torshavedifferentattitudestowardappropriatemethods.Asnotedabove,oneimportantconsequenceofthewinner-take-(nearly)-all-the-creditsystemisthatitencouragesavarietyofperspectives,programs,andapproaches.Thus,attemptstodefinemisconductintermsofdeviationsfromcommonlyacceptedpracticesaredoublymisguided:Notonlywillsuchcommonlyacceptedpracticesfailtoexistinmanycases,butalsoitwillbeundesirabletoenforcetheconformitythatsuchaprinciplewouldrequire.Moregenerally,wecanseewhyat-temptstodiscover“the”scientificmethodfail.Therearedeep,systematicreasonswhyallscientistsshouldnotfollowsomesingle,uniformmethod.

Butthatdoesn’tmeanthat“anythinggoes.”Thescientificcommunitydrawsanimportantdistinctionbetweenclaimsthatareopentopublicassessmentandthosethatarenot,andascientistwhofabricatesdatawillbejudgedfarmoreharshlythanonewhomerelyextrapolatesbeyondtherecordeddata.Thedifferenceisthatwherethereisnofabrication,nothingex-iststoobstructthecriticalscrutinyoftheworkbypeers.Sincescientistsmustbeabletotrustthatthedatatheyarecritiqu-ingresultedfromalegitimateexperiment,fabricationofdata

13


isafarmoreseriousviolationofthescientificmethodthanextrapolation.

Conductinganexperimentinawaythatproducesreliableresultsisnotjustamatteroffollowingrules.Experimenters,somemoresothanothers,possessskillsthatallowthemtogettheirexperimentstowork,oftenwithoutevenknowingwhatthoseskillsare.Assessingwhetheraparticularexperimenterhasproducedreliableresultsmayrequireajudgmentbasedonwhethersheorhehasproduceddependableresultsinthepast.Theoftenessentialbuthardtoquantifyroleofcraftsman-shipindesigningandcarryingoutsuccessfulexperimentsisanotherreasonwhygeneralrulesofmethodhaveprovedsoelusive(principle8).

Thesefactsaboutspecialization,skill,andauthorityhaveanumberofconsequencesforunderstandingwhatconstitutesproperscientificconduct.Forexample,behaviorthatstrikesanoutsiderasexhibitingirrationaldeferencetoauthoritymayhaveaseriousrationale.Whenascientistdiscardscertaindataonthebasisofsubtlecluesinthebehavioroftheapparatus,andotherscientistsaccepthisorherjudgment,thisshouldnotbeattrib-utedtotheoperationofpowerrelationships(principle9).

Anotherconsequencehastodowiththeextenttowhichscientistsareresponsibleformisconductorsloppyresearchonthepartoftheircollaborators(principle10).Itispreciselythepointofmanycollaborationstobringtogetherpeoplefromdif-ferentspecializations,withtheimplicitunderstandingthattheirdifferentbackgroundsanddiverseabilitiesmeanthattheymaynotalwaysbeinthebestpositiontoaccuratelyjudgethequalityofoneanother’swork.Settingupapolicyofholdingscientistsresponsibleforthemisconductofcoauthorsandcoworkerswoulddiscourageagreatdealofvaluablecollaboration.



Credittendstogotothosewhoarefamousattheexpenseofthosewhoarenot.ApapersignedbyNobody,Nobody,andSomebodywillalmostinvariablybereferredtoas“workdoneinSomebody’slab.”Therearesomanypapersinsomanyjour-nalsthatfewscientistshavetimetoreadmorethanafractionofthoserelevanttotheirwork.Famousnamestendtoidentifythoseworksthatareworthnoticing.Incertainfields,particularlybiomedicalfields,ithasbecomecustomarytoincludetheheadofthelabasanauthor,evenwhentheheadofthelabdidn’tparticipateintheresearch.Somepeoplerefertothispracticeas“guestauthorship”andregarditasunethical(principle11).However,thepracticemaybefunctionallyusefulandinvolvelittledeception,sinceitwillbewellknowntoallparticipantsinafield.Physicsisnotsuchafield.Mostphysicistsrecoilatthethoughtofguestauthorship.

ThisbringsustoaviewofsciencecalledtheOrtegahy-pothesis.ItisnamedaftertheSpanishphilosopherJoséOrtegayGasset,whowroteinhis1930classic,The Revolt of the Masses, that“experimentalsciencehasprogressedthanksingreatparttotheworkofmenastoundinglymediocre,andevenlessthanmediocre.Thatistosay,modernscience,therootandsymbolofouractualcivilization,findsaplacefortheintellectuallycom-monplacemanandallowshimtoworkthereinwithsuccess.”

Ortega’sassertion(principle12)isprobablybasedontheempiricalobservationthatthereare,ineveryfieldofscience,manypractitionersdoingmoreorlessroutinework.Lessem-pirically,itisalsosupportedbytheideathatknowledgeoftheuniverseisakindoflimitlesswildernesstobeconqueredbytheactionofmanyhandsrelentlesslyhackingawayattheunder-brush.Anideasupportedbybothobservationandtheoryhasaveryfirmbasisinscience.

15


TheOrtegahypothesiswasnamedbytwosociologists,JonathanR.ColeofColumbiaUniversityandStephenColeofSUNY–StonyBrook,whentheysetouttodemolishitina1972articleinScience.Theywrote:

Itseems,rather,thatarelativelysmallnumberofphysi-cistsproduceworkthatbecomesthebasisforfuturediscoveriesinphysics.Wehavefoundthatevenpapersofrelativelyminorsignificancehaveusedtoadispropor-tionatedegreetheworkoftheeminentscientists.6

Inotherwords,accordingtotheauthors,asmallnumberofelitescientistsareresponsibleforthevastmajorityofscientificprogress.(Theauthorsbasetheseconclusionsontheirobserva-tionsofthephysicscommunity,whilecontendingthattheyarevalidforallbranchesofscience.)Seeninthislight,therewardsysteminscienceisamechanismthathasevolvedforpromotingandrewardingthestarperformers.

IftheOrtegahypothesisiscorrect,scienceisbestservedbyproducingasmanyscientistsaspossible,eveniftheyarenotofthehighestquality(principle13).However,iftheelitistviewisright,itisbesttorestrictproductiontofewerandbetterscientists.Inanycasethequestioninvolvesethicalissues(Whatisbestforthecommongood?)aswellaspolicyissues(Whatisthebestroutetothedesiredgoal?).

Scientificpapersoftenmisrepresentwhatactuallyhappenedinthecourseoftheinvestigation(s)theydescribe.Misunder-standings,blindalleys,andmistakesofvarioussortswillfailtoappearinthefinalwrittenaccount.Nevertheless,theprac-ticeisnearlyuniversal,becauseitisamoreefficientmeansoftransmittingresultsthananaccuratehistoricalaccountwouldbe.Contrarytonormalbelief(principle14),thistypeofmis-



representationiscondonedandacceptedinscientificpublica-tions,whereasothertransgressionsareharshlycondemned.Thispracticemaynotbeideal,butitisaninherentwayinwhichscienceisdone.

Peerreviewhasanalmostmysticalsignificanceinthecom-munityofscientists.Publishedresultsareconsidereddepend-ablebecausethey’vebeenpeerreviewed,andunpublisheddataarenotdependablebecausetheyhavenotbeen.(Thelastdecadehasseenagrowingnumberofpapers“published”inpre-pressontheWeb,withouttheadvantageofpeerreview.Thesearenaturallyregardedaslessreliablebymostscientists.)Manyconsiderpeerreviewtheethicalfulcrumofthewholescien-tificenterprise.Formostsmallprojectsandnearlyalljournalarticles,peerreviewisaccomplishedbysendingthemanuscriptorproposaltorefereeswhoseidentitywillnotberevealedtotheauthors.

Thepeer-reviewprocessisverygoodatseparatingrealsci-encefromnonsense.Refereesknowthecurrentthinkinginafieldandareawareofitsrulesandconventions.Butitisnotatallgoodatdetectingfraud,asthecasesofcompromisedpapersthathavesuccessfullypassedthroughpeerreviewamplydem-onstrate(principle15).

i IthasbecomefashionableinrecentdecadesforscholarsfromthesocialsciencesandotherdisciplinestovisittheexoticcontinentofScienceandsendbackreportsoftheirobserva-tionsofthebehaviorandritualsofthenatives.Theresultingdialogueshavenotalwaysbeenentirelyamicableandhave,infact,sometimesbeenreferredtoas“thesciencewars.”Letusextendanolivebranchbyofferinganentirelyunjaded,unbiasedinsider’sviewofthiscuriousterrain.

17


Thereareundoubtedlymanyreasonswhypeoplechoosetobecomescientists.Simplegreed,however,isnothighonthelist.Thereasonisthattherewardsforsuccessinsciencearenotprimarilymonetary(althoughacertaindegreeofmaterialwell-beingdoesoftenfollowintheirwake).Ifyouareascientist,eachsuccessisrewardedbytheintoxicatingglowthatcomesfromknowingorbelievingthatyouhavewonatleastonesmallroundintheendlessquestforknowledge.Thatglowfadesquickly,however,unlessitbringswithittheadmirationandesteemofyourpeersandcolleagues(whoare,afterall,theonescapableofunderstandingmostfullywhatyouhavedoneandarefrequentlytheonlyoneswhocare).Thevariousmeansbywhichscientistsexpresstheiradmirationandesteemfortheircolleaguesaresosubtleandcomplexthattheybeggartheetiquetteofamedievalroyalcourt.WewillcallthesemeanscollectivelytheRewardSystemofscience.

CloselylinkedtotheRewardSystemisasecondorganiza-tionthatwemaycalltheAuthorityStructure.TheAuthorityStructureguidesandcontrolstheRewardSystem.Moreover,certainpositionswithintheAuthorityStructureareamongthemostcovetedfruitsoftheRewardSystem.Neverthelessthetwoarenotidentical.ThepinnacleoftheRewardSystemisscientificglory,fame,andimmortality.ThegoalofthoseintheAuthorityStructureispowerandinfluence.Scientistsdistinguishsharplybetweenthetwo.Theywillsitaroundthefacultyloungeorthelunchtablelamentingthefateofadistinguishedcolleaguewhohasbecomethepresidentofafamousuniversity.“Hewasstillcapableofgoodwork,”theywillsay,soundingmuchlikesaddenedwarriorsgrievingthefateofafallencomrade.TheuniversitypresidentisakingpinoftheAuthorityStructurebutadropoutfromthescientificRewardSystem.



TheRewardSystemandtheAuthorityStructurearebothrootedintheinstitutionsofscience.Theseinstitutionsvarysome-whatfromonedisciplinetoanotherandfromonecountrytoanother,butthebroadoutlineswillberecognizabletoall.OurdiscussionismostinfluencedbythephysicalsciencesastheyarepracticedintheUnitedStates,butitwillapplybroadlytoallscience,inallcountries.

Scientificresearchisperformedinuniversities,andtoalesserextentincollegesthatdonotgrantdoctoraldegrees.Itisalsoperformedinnationallaboratoriesandinindustriallaboratories.Theuniversitiesandcollegesmaybepublicorprivate.Thena-tionallaboratoriesmayberundirectlybygovernmentagenciesormanagedforthegovernmentbyuniversitiesorconsortiaofuniversities.Industriallaboratoriesareusually,butnotalways,operatedbyasinglecompany.

Scientificsocieties,suchastheAmericanPhysicalSocietyortheAmericanChemicalSociety,havemembersfromalloftheabovetypesofscientificinstitutions.Thesocietiesorganizenationalandregionalscientificmeetings,publishjournals,andadministertheawardingofcertainprizesandhonors.Theyareprivateorganizations,whoseofficersareelectedbytheirmembersandwhosecostsarepaidbytheduesoftheirmembersandbyotherrelatedsourcesofincome.Thereareafewscientificsocie-ties(suchastheAmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience)thatarenottiedtoaparticularscientificdisciplinebutstillholdmeetingsandpublishjournals.

Therearealsopurelyhonorarysocieties,typifiedbytheNationalAcademyofSciences(NAS).TheNASholdsmeetings,publishesajournal,andservescertainneedsofthegovernmentthroughitsresearchandconsultingarm,theNationalResearchCouncil.However,byfarthemostimportantthingtheNAS

19


doesistoelectitsownmembers.ElectiontotheNASisoneofthehighestrungsontheRewardSystemladder.

Thesearetheelementsoftheinstitutionsofscience.Wehaveleftoutafewcrucialitems,suchastheScandinavianbu-reaucracy(theRoyalSwedishAcademyofSciencesandtheRoyalCarolineInstitute)thatawardsNobelPrizes,andtheinscrutablecollegeofhistoriansandjournaliststhatsomehowdecideswhichscientistsshallbecomefamousoutsideofscienceitself.However,evenwithintheelementsdescribed,thereareinfinitelysubtlelayersofinfluenceandprestige.

Behindacarefullycultivatedveneerofcordiality,collegesanduniversitieswageafierce,endlessstruggleoftitanicpro-portionsforpositionsofhonorinapeculiarcontest.Nooneisquitesurewho’skeepingscore,buteveryoneknowsroughlywhatthescoreis.Thecontestrankseachuniversityagainstoth-ers,eachcollegeagainstothers,andwithinasinglediscipline,departmentsagainstoneanother.(Similarrivalriesexistamongnationallaboratories,industriallaboratories,andevenfederalfundingagencies.)

Totheaspiringacademicscientist,thestepsontheperilousladdertofameandglorylooksomethinglikethis:

1.Beadmittedtoaprestigiousundergraduatecollegeoruniversity(usefulbutnotessential).

2. GraduatewithaB.S.degree(essential).3.Beadmittedtoaprestigiousgraduatedepartment(very

important).4. GraduatewithaPh.D.(essential).5.Getapostdoctoralappointmentorfellowshipatanother

prestigiousuniversity(thisalmostalwaysrankslowerin



theinvisiblehierarchythantheuniversitywhereyoudidyourgraduatework).

6.Getapositionasassistantprofessor.Thecaliberoftheuniversityanddepartmentiscrucial,sinceyouareun-likelyevertomoveupfromthereintheinvisiblerank-ings.Nationalandindustriallaboratoriesalsohaveposi-tionsanalogoustoassistantprofessor,andsomepeopleprefertheriskycourseofstartinginanindustriallabwiththehopeofbeingsuccessfulenoughtobecalledtoauni-versitylater.

7.Bringinoutsideresearchsupport(mostlyfromfederalagencies),attractgraduatestudentsofyourown,getpa-perspublishedinthebestjournals(thatusuallymeanstheonespublishedbytheprofessionalsocieties—butthereareexceptions,suchasNature,whichisprivatelypublished),getinvitedtospeakatnationalor(evenbet-ter)internationalmeetingssponsoredbyprofessionalsocieties,andgenerallybecomevisibleamongactivescientistsinyourfieldoutsideyourowninstitution.Itisuseful,butnotessentialatthisstageofyourcareer,toteachwellandtoparticipateinacademiccommitteesandthelike.Allofthesedemandingandchallengingstepsaretobetakenhonestly,withouttheremotesthintofscien-tificmisconductorfraud.

8. Gettenure(asaresultofdoingnumber7verywell).9. Getpromotedtofullprofessor.

10.Yourcolleaguesdarklysuspectthatyouwillnowrestonyourlaurels,andyoumustprovethemwrong.Getmorefunding;expandthesizeofyourresearchgroup(gradu-atestudents,postdocs,technicians,etc.).Getyourself

21


appointedtonationalboards,panels,andcommittees,securemoreinvitationstospeakatmoremeetings,andsoon.Ifatallpossible,getsomething(adiscovery,atechnique,aprogram,andapieceofhardwareareallac-ceptableoptions)namedafteryourself.Thisisthemosteffectivewayofgettingnoticed,butit’salsotricky,sincesomeoneelsemustdoitforyou,andthenithastocatchonamongworkersinthefield.Onceagain,theremustbenottheslightestwhiffofscientificmisconducthere.Youmightdoallofthesethingsmotivatedpurelybythethrillofdiscovery,butdothemyoumust.

11.Thefollowingarenowavailableifyouworkhardenoughtogetthemandmanagetohavealittleluckinyourresearch:

Awardsandprizesfromyourprofessionalsociety,Anamedprofessorship,MembershipinaNationalAcademy,Majornationalandinternationalprizesuptothe

Nobelitself,andImmortality.

Ateachofthesevarioussteps,youhavefacedgatekeepersfromtheAuthorityStructureofscience.Theyaregenerallypeoplewhohaveascendedafewrungsabovethatlevelbutthensteppedoutofthecompetition(remembertheuniver-sitypresidentmentionedearlier).Forexample,thefacultyofanundergraduatecollege(whereyoumaychoosetoattemptsteps1and2)willgenerallyhavereachedstep4(aPh.D.),andperhaps5(apostdoc),butoptedoutoftheresearchcompeti-tionatstep6(bytakingapositioninacollegeratherthanaresearchuniversity).Theymayverywellneverhaveintended



toclimbanyhigherthannecessarytoreachtheirpositionsascollegefaculty,butitwouldhavebeenunwiseforthemtoadmitasmuchwhiletheywereclimbing.Eachofthegatekeeperstheyfacedprobablyhadtobeconvincedthattheywereaspiringtotheverypinnacle.Thesearethepeoplewhowillnowdecideyourfate.Theyaremostlikelytobeimpressediftheybelieveyouareaspiringtothatsamepinnacle.

Atthegraduateschoollevel,yourPh.D.thesisadvisor,averyimportantpersoninyourlife,willprobably(hadbetterbe)stillclimbingandmayverywellhaveclimbedquitehighalready,butdecisionsaboutyouwillbemadealsobydepartmentchairs,deans,andotherswhohavetradedtheirplacesontheladderforpositionsintheAuthorityStructureofscience.

OnceyoupassthePh.D.hurdle,therulesforscalingsuc-cessivestepsbecomeincreasinglylesswelldefined.Therulesareoftenunwritten,andthepeopleyoumustimpressarefurtherafield.Eachpromotionwillrequireconfidentiallettersofrecom-mendationfrompeopleoutsideyourowninstitution,solicitednotbyyoubutbythechairofacommittee.Youwillthusbeexpectedtobeknownbypeopleyouhavenotmet,merelybecauseofyourgrowingscientificreputation.Yourreputationwillbebasedonpublishedpaperswhosefatewillbeinthehandsofjournaleditorsandanonymousrefereeschosenbythem.Theresearchreportedinthosepaperswillbepossibleonlyifyoucanwinfinancialsup-portonthebasisofresearchproposalssubmittedtothegrantingagencies.Yourproposalswillbehandledbyprojectofficers(eitherpermanentortemporaryrefugeesfromtheraceuptheresearchladder)andjudgedonceagainbyanonymousrefereesorapanelofactivescientists.Finally,evenifyoumanagetofinanceandpublishyourwork,itwillbelittlenoticedunlessyoumanagetogetinvitedtospeakatnationalmeetingsorganizedbyyourprofes-

23


sionalsociety.Thestaffofthesocietywillgenerallyhavedroppedoutoftherace,butdecisionsaboutwhospeakswillmostlikelybemadebycommitteesofactivescientists.

Noticethatateachpointofdecision,theretendtobetwokindsofgatekeepers.Onekindisanadministrator(departmentchairordean,journaleditor,projectofficer,professionalsocietystaff)andtheotherkindanactivescientist(writeroflettersofrecommen-dation,anonymousreferee,memberofpanelsandcommittees).Thefirstkindofgatekeeperhasoftensteppedoutoftherace(thepositionitselfisgenerallytherewardforhavingreachedacertainlevel),whiletheotherisstillverymuchintherace.Thepeopleinthislattergrouparenotonlyyourjudges,theyarealsoyourcom-petition.Furthermore,youhavebecomeoneofthem.Peopleintheothergroup,iftheyarenolongerincompetitionwithyou,haveoftenforgottenthefiercestruggleyouface,andmoreovertheytendtohavethecuriousviewthatyouareworkingforthem.

Itshouldbeclearfromthisdiscussionthatscientificscore-keepingisnosimplematter.Theissueofwhowillemergeassuccessfulandfamousinsciencedependsinlargemeasureonwhohasthebestideasandwhoworksthehardest.Inthatsense,scienceisatruemeritocracy.However,thereareveryclearlyotherelementsatplayhere.Oneofthemostimportantisbeingintherightplaceattherighttime.Forexample,thediscoveryofquantummechanicsearlyinthetwentiethcenturysweptawholegenerationoftheoreticalphysiciststofameandglory.Theverybestmadetrulyfundamentalcontributions,buteventhoseofmoremodesttalentfounduntouchedproblemsreadytobesolvedwiththenewtheory.AnotherexampleissuppliedbyWorldWarII’smega–scienceprojects,chiefamongthemtheManhattanProjectandMIT’sRadiationLab,whichsweptyetanothergenerationofphysiciststopowerandinfluence.



Inadditiontothefactorswehavejustoutlined,thereareothersthathavebeenobservedanddocumented,thatariseoutofthebehaviorandcustomsofscientistsasagroup.ThelatesociologistRobertK.MertoncalledoneofthemtheMattheweffect,followingthispassageintheGospelaccordingtoMat-thew:“Foruntoeveryonethathathshallbegiven,andheshallhaveabundance:butfromhimthathathnotshallbetakenawayeventhatwhichhehath.”7

TheMattheweffectinscienceistheobservationthatcredittendstogotothosewhoarealreadyfamous,attheexpenseofthosewhoarenot.Forexample,ifapaperiswrittenbyateamofresearchers,onlyoneofwhomiswellknowninthefield,readerswilltendtorefertothearticlebythealphascientist’snameevenifitisfarbackintheauthorialpack.

TherootsofthisscientificRewardSystemandtheAuthor-ityStructuredatebacktotheseventeenthcentury,almosttothebirthofmodernscienceitself.ItisprobablyfairtosaythatexperimentalphysicswasinventedbyGalileoGalilei(1564–1642),whodiscoveredthelawoffallingbodiesandthelawofinertiabymeansofexperimentsusingingeniouslycraftedinstruments.Thescientificresearchlaboratorywasfirstcreatednotmuchlater,byEnglishchemistRobertBoyle,whosetupateamofassistants,specialists,technicians,andapprenticestocarryoutsystematicchemicalinvestigations.BothGalileoandBoylebelongedtoscientificsocietiesthatstillexist(L’Accademia dei Lincei andtheRoyalSociety,respectively).Boylesupportedhisresearchbymeansofhisownwealth,butGalileospentmuchofhistimeandenergyseekingwhatwewouldtodaycallgov-ernmentandprivatesponsorship.(ItisnotfornothingthatthediscovererofthemoonsofJupiternamedthemtheSidera Medicea—the“Mediceanstars.”PatronagebytheMedicino

25


Figure 1.3 Galileo Galilei. Photo reproduction of robert Hart’s stipple engraving published by Charles Knight of London in 1834, after a 1757 oil on canvas portrait done by Scottish portrait painter Allan ramsay (1713–84) and presented to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1759, where it hangs in the Master’s Lodge; ramsay was inspired by Flemish portraitist Justus Sustermans’s (1597–1681) oil on canvas portrait of Galileo painted circa 1640, which hangs in the Pitti Gallery in Florence. Courtesy of California institute of Technology Archives.

longerbeingwhatitoncewas,theyaretodaymorecommonlycalledtheGalileansatellites.)BothGalileoandBoylealsoen-gagedinfiercestruggleswithothersoverpriorityforscientificdiscoveries.Inotherwords,thebasicoutlinesofthesocialorga-nizationofscienceemergedalmostassoonassciencedid,anditwasfirmlyinplacebythetimeIsaacNewton(whobecameanamedprofessoratCambridgeandthefirstpresidentofGreatBritain’sRoyalSociety)wrotehisPrincipia.Itisdifficulttoavoidtheconclusionthatsciencecannotexist—andcertainlycan-notflourish—withouttheRewardSystemandtheAuthorityStructure.

Ofcourse,professionalsocieties,prizes,andawards,tosaynothingofdepartmentchairsanddeans,arebynomeanslimitedtothesciences.OnecandetectthebasicelementsoftheRewardSystemandtheAuthorityStructureinvirtuallyevery



academicdiscipline.Nevertheless,itseemsbetterdevelopedandmorehighlyorganizedinthesciencesthanelsewhere.Thereasonisundoubtedlytobefoundbothinthenatureofsci-enceandinhumannature,sinceitiswehumanswhomustpursuescience.Scienceisbasicallyacollaborativeenterprisetodiscoverimportanttruthsabouttheworld,carriedoutbyindividualswhoaregenerallymorestronglymotivatedbytheirownintereststhanbythecollectivegood.TheRewardSystemandtheAuthorityStructureservetoregulateandchannelthiscollaboration-cum-competitiontoproduceusefulresults.Solongasitsucceedsindoingso,thissystemofoursseemslikelytoremainfirmlyinplace.

Inallofthis,scientificmisconductplaysaperipheralrole,lurkingquietlyintheshadows:atemptation,perhaps,forsomeateachstage,butneveracentralpoint.Themountainsdescribedheremustbescaledwithoutahintthatanyuntowardactivityhascontributedtotheascent.Anythingelseisutterlyunaccept-able—but,asweareabouttodiscover,notalwaysunthinkable.Withthatinmind,weturntosomeilluminatingepisodesinthehistoryofmodernscience.

27

Documents

i One Setting the Stage - Princeton Universityassets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9148.pdf · Setting the Stage Fraud in science is, in essence, a violation of the scientific method