Fraud in Science Article
In the Economist dated June 6 to 12, 2009
Liar! Liar

Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh published a Meta- analysis in the Public Library of Science in which he pooled the the results of 18 surveys of scientitst he found on the internet that dealt with reporting fraud. He found basically that 2% of the scientists questioned were willing to admit to having falsified or modified data to improve the outcome of experiments at least once during their scientific careers. About 10% of those questioned admitted to questionable practices such as "dropping data points based on a gut feeling" or "failing to present data that contradicted ones previous research. " These numbers went up when scientists were asked about the activities of other colleagues, suggesting that 14% of researchers had seen their collegues fabricate, falsify, alter, or modify data. If asked in more general terms, 46% of the scientists reported that other collegues ran experiments with deficient methods, or failed to report deficiencies or misrepresented data. Apparently, only half of those scientists who new about such behavior actually went ahead and tried to do anything about this misconduct.

This type of low level fraud is worrying since it can misdirect researchers to follow paths in their work that can lead to nowhere. At the same time it can discourgage research into areas that are important. The most visible cases in recent years were the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk who falsely claimed that he had developed a method for making human embryonic stems cells by cloning, and the physicist Jan Schön who fabricated results in the fields of semiconductors and super conductors. These examples however were so high profile that it was only a matter time until the fraudulent nature of these claims were discovered. Low level fraud appears to be much more common and seems to reflect the pressures and competiton of the modern scientific enterprise "publish or persish."

Apparently some successful and famous scientists also committed low level fraud such as Robert Millikan the scientist who first measured the charge of the electron. He was reported to have discarded results that didn't match his expectations but still managed to win the Nobel prize because he was right in his gut feeling about the data. Another example is Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, whose results it has been claimed are far too accurate compared with what would be expected when applying the methods of modern statistics.
So it seems that scientists, being human, are more willing to see fault in others than in their own ethical behavior. This in my opinion shows the importance of ethical oversight at universities research centers, and industry and the need for open channels to address fraud in science in a discretionary but effective manner.

Scientists and religion

Views of some prominent scientists on God and religion

From Broca’s Brain by Carl Sagan, 1979, Ballantine Books, New York pages 329-41

Sagan believes that religion should be subject to skepticism just like theories of UFOs or other superstitions. He believes that any belief system should be able to withstand critical scrutiny, testing and skepticism. Religion he believes should not be immune from this and any belief system that cannot withstand such scrutiny should be discarded. He recognized that doctrinal religions might feel threatened by the pursuit of knowledge (e.g. Moslems feeling threatened after the first moon landings since the moon has a very special place in their religion). People inherit their religion and do not necessarily think too deeply or critically about their religion. Searching questions can make them feel uncomfortable.

Sagan quotes Christainus Huygens who, in a book written in 1670, speculated about other planets in the solar system. Huygens warned his contemporaries, who found such speculation objectionable, that they presume too much responsibility in presuming to know the limits God has set for man’s search for knowledge and how men should choose to pursue this search. Such people should not presume to know what God has chosen to be revealed to man and what is not to be revealed. Had man limited his pursuit of knowledge, said Huygens, we might never have found out about the nature of the Earth and of the existence of the continent of America.

Sagan mentions that our universe is not benignly quiet and that cataclysmic phenomena occur almost constantly. He describes that, for instance, an explosion of a quasar in the universe could likely destroy millions of worlds including countless life forms (maybe some even intelligent). The very scale of the universe ( e.g. more than a hundred billion galaxies, each containing a hundred billion stars) shows us how inconsequential human events on our planet can be seem in the cosmic context. What kind of God does such a universe require (Western or eastern?) Is a God even required? Sagan believes that the pursuit of knowledge is consistent for both science and religion. If there is a God then we are using our God given gifts to pursue knowledge. If there is no God, then our gifts of curiosity and intelligence are our tools to manage our (man’s) survival.

Sagan describes Einstein's belief in "Spinoza's" God who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in the God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men.

From Human Instinct by Robert Winston, 2003, Bantam Books, London, pages 372-392

Winston mentions that our ethical attitudes can only be as good as our understanding of the world around us (e.g the observation in 1694 by Hartsoeker of a homunculus in human sperm leading a rabbi (Rabbi Elijah ben Meir) to write in 1790 to say that destruction of the sperm was equivalent to murder). He draws a parallel between the outdated and cruel and morally outdated Code of Hammurabi and religious or ethical views that are based on false premises, faulty observation or flawed data; both being valueless and misleading. He mentions however that misguided scientists are no better (e.g. eugenics).

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins wrote in the Guardian after the Sep 11 2001 attack and destruction of the World Trade Center in N.Y. and the Penatagon in Washington D.C. that the cause of the attacks was religion of the “Abrahamic kind.” Winston takes issue with this by answering that all of the moral and ethical values we all hold dearly today are based on these religions and that there were other causes, not purely religious, for the attacks (as are Hamas terrorists attacking Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv being more a political then religious attacks).

Richard Dawkins is is very outspoken against both organized and disorganized religion. In a Devil’s Chaplain (under the chapter “Infected Minds.”). Dawkins, as a scientist, is against strongly accepting any belief without proof.. Religious beliefs are not tested with the same rigor as are scientific theories.

Summaries of books I have read

Whose view of life? By Jane Maienschein Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass London, England 2003

Main points of the book

1) Setting the boundaries for the beginning of life has strong implications for the regulation of human embryo research

How to decide at what point to count an embryo as being alive?

Absolutists define this as being at the point of conception (sperm fertilization of the egg. Any disruption of the development process is immoral. They favour prohibiting all human embryonic cell research and making this kind of research illegal.

· Alternative supporters believe that from conception life goes through different stages some of which may be considered life and deserving of protection and other stages that are too early to be considered as life. These stages include:

Ø the blastocyst stage (4 to 5 days after conception)

Ø implantation of the embryo in the uterus in the uterus

Ø at the gastrula stage (14 to 15 days after conception) with formation of the “primitive streak” (the primitive streak has been show to react to external stimulation)

Ø According to the Jewish religion “ensoulment” of the embryo begins 40 days after conception

2) Reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning, human embryonic stem cell research call into question how life is to be defined and defended

· The concept that life arises gradually in stages is the basis for the legalization of abortion

· Fertility clinics allow the mixing of sperm and egg in a Petri dish, allowing the fertilized egg to divide, followed by implantation in the mother. Eggs must be collected from mothers to do this. Eggs can be stored by freezing after fertilization and at freezing, they may also be destroyed.

Is the potential to manipulate embryos a distortion of human life itself?

Should society fear the consequences that can arise in the future as a result of false decisions? Can our political and social processes lead us to the right moral judgements decisions or should this technology be banned across the board?

Preformationists: “there is a moment when life begins and from that point the individual is already formed and begins to grow”

Epigenetic: life is a “gradual and emergent process with form and new life arising gradually and progressively over time.”

Epigeniticists believe that a life and living processes occur through the course of development and there is no decisive moment for the beginning of life but rather an ongoing process, and indeed that is why there is a prolonged course of gestation and development.

Usefulness of the historical analysis of the debate:

· One can see that competing points of view are long standing concerning this issue and that they draw on similar arguments. One can possibly diffuse the arguments of current claims of moral truth by showing the arguer that the current debate has had a long history

· Perhaps something can be learned from past responses to hard questions. We can also see how the past controversies have shaped and constrained our current state of belief and the current debate. The epigenetic versus preformationist debate still goes on today e.g. church institutions versus pro-choice advocates.

The historical perspective can help to give guidance on how to resolve the current controversies around cloning, and embryonic stem cell research by enabling us to come to the realization that rapid advances in science have always led to predictions of impending doom that never took place. Because of these we must realize that we are not on the brink of some type of danger that we have never encountered before.

· Respect for the rights and interests of the parties involved

· Balance duties and obligations to all

· Avoid doing harm

· Protect minorities

· Seek justice consistent with democratic principles

These decisions must be informed by the best available science knowledge. But science alone cannot define at what stage in the sequence of development is the point at which society wants to call a life.

4) Core of controversy

Are all stages of human embryonic development equivalent to the beginnings of life? Bioethicist theologians consider early stage embryos as being potential persons as meriting the same moral consideration as fully formed fetuses. They are considered to be potential persons. These arguments need to be demonstrated.

Such arguments fail to take into account the vast amount of evidence showing significant biological differences between potential and actual life. Bioethicists choose to discount these differences as not decisive in their argumentation. This discounting of the differences during embryonic development, however should be based on fact and not on misinformation or ignorance of biological phenomena and pretending not to discount these differences during development and maintaining that all stages of development are equivalent.

How science works:

· Accumulating knowledge

· Revising interpretations in light of new evidence

· Moving through a consensus of the scientific community about what is established and what is hypothetical and in need of further testing

5) Questions

• Who decides what counts as good science?
• What is the role of science in society?
• Who decides what is true and good for society?
• What are the responsibilities of scientists?

6) Biopolicy decision policy should be based on:

· Promotion better public understanding of science

· Scientists, bioethicists, and theologians must learn humility and tolerance for each others points of view. Biopolicy must be based on the best available scientific the best moral thinking (this is important because there have been many views of life and many definitions of life throughout history and ethical thinking has changed with new knowledge)

· Learning from history that even though new scientific innovations seem to threaten or even destroy life as we know it, society has learned to manage the risks and later found the it was good to have the new technology.

·

References

Scientific literacy

1. Mainshein et al.. Scientific literacy. Science 1998;281:917
2. Mainshein et al.. Commentary: To the future; Arguments. Science Communication 1998;21:75-87
3. Zoloth L. The Ethics of the Eighth Day: Jewish Bioethics and Research on Human Embryonic stem Cells in The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. Holland, Lebacqz, and Zoloth eds.):95-111
4. McGee G and Caplan A. What’s in the Dish? Hastings Center Report 1999;29:36-8
   
5. Caplan A. Attack of the Ant-Cloners [Comment]. Nation June 17, 2002
6. Caplan A. Half a loaf is not good enough. Scientist Sept 17, 2001:6