Science and integrity?

[abathur]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3220950

Hrmph. I suppose that still probably results in low amounts of people commiting any given offense, but still...

[Spartan26]

Boy, is there any aspect of society that's immune to this? We are such a results-driven society. Too impatient as well. I suppose selfishness could be counted as another contributing factor.

Is there any type of backlash against cheaters? I mean, I know the motto in medical science is "it's more important to be first than it is to be right," but is there any lasting disdain for those who are first to run an idea up the flagpole and then it's proven later they got it all wrong?

In the entertainment industry, a negative current can quickly flow against artists who sell out. Denying the truth of their material to please others. Generally for monetary gain or the pressure outside money inflicts. Albeit, resultant backlash could be w/out teeth.

I wonder if in the world of science do those who have a their intergrity intact and are able to criticize the behavior of the cheaters have as little power and influence as those artists in the field of entertainment who can chastize those artists who gave up their intergrity? Without establishing a policing-type body or emperical guidelines of internal control, I think things will go from mildly disturbing to festering corruption in lightning time.

[Serotonin]

I wonder if in the world of science do those who have a their intergrity intact and are able to criticize the behavior of the cheaters have as little power and influence as those artists in the field of entertainment who can chastize those artists who gave up their intergrity? Without establishing a policing-type body or emperical guidelines of internal control, I think things will go from mildly disturbing to festering corruption in lightning time.

There was a prominent scientist who ran a publicly funded lab in a university in Aus who recently got caught fabricating results. The rest of the scientific community wagged their fingers, but it was the university administration, deans etc, who got behind him and denied that he had done it, to protect the image of the uni.
I think often it's not the scientists themselves who fabricate results, but the people who are paying or representing them (e.g. drug company bigwigs) that either threaten them with the sack if they don't produce results that are in line with the company's profits, or they simply withhold results that, for example, point to serious side effects of a drug. Seems that Eli Lilly might be in a bit of hot water over this at the moment over Prozac.

[Crazy]

This isn't new. The Church has had a problem with sciences ethics for generations.

There are always men and women who will shirk the ethics for money. Of course, the more one stands to gain from it, the more inclined they are to cheat. Therefore, I would think it was the bigwigs who "persuade" the scientists to fudge it a bit. Also, a scientist who is discredited in some scam looses credibility. A scientist with no credibility will have a hard time finding a respectable career, and will not be taken very seriously anymore, even if the scientist is right about what he is saying.

[jimkopelli]

I wonder what amount of that number was from those who cheat because they can, and how many cheat because they're forced to. Corporations and such, who won't take "there's no way that'll work" for an answer. Change results, and go job hunting again...