3 ms·

my assumption is that scientific fraud is rarely premeditated. perpetrators are not setting out to lie or cheat. they start honestly, pick their field like anyo

my assumption is that scientific fraud is rarely premeditated. perpetrators are not setting out to lie or cheat. they start honestly, pick their field like anyone else would, then more like with N-rays[1], they start to believe their own false - or even valid but difficult to reproduce - results. then I suspect that, in competitive fields like Alzheimer’s or superconductors, the pressure to get results is such that the temptation for some to cheat just a little to “get the paper over the line” is too high it’s understandable really. if you’re working with extremely unreplicable results, as they are here, and you genuinely believe in your results, then it’s only a small step. it’s still inexcusable of course, but it’s easy to see the thought process this is not the same as what you’re describing, which is setting out to cheat from the beginning, which is almost certainly much rarer and undoubtedly harder to get away with, even in obscure cul-de-sacs [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-ray https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-ray

Optimal_Persona 4y ago
I think there is also a lot of pressure from funders to be the first to provide proof of a paradigm-breaking discovery, and tout it as a breakthrough before the claims can be verified. By chance, about a decade ago I met the lead researcher of a NASA group that in 2010 made a shocking claim of arsenic being incorporated into bacteria's DNA in place of phosphorus at Mono Lake, CA. They later had to retract the statement after others were unable to replicate. But the research I did into the follow up indicated that NASA, who employed the scientist, did not have its astrobiologists follow basic standard microbiology protocols against sample contamination, and pushed the arsenic hypothesis as a game-changing breakthrough before it had been subjected to peer review.

Optimal_Persona 4y ago

I think there is also a lot of pressure from funders to be the first to provide proof of a paradigm-breaking discovery, and tout it as a breakthrough before the claims can be verified. By chance, about a decade ago I met the lead researcher of a NASA group that in 2010 made a shocking claim of arsenic being incorporated into bacteria's DNA in place of phosphorus at Mono Lake, CA. They later had to retract the statement after others were unable to replicate. But the research I did into the follow up indicated that NASA, who employed the scientist, did not have its astrobiologists follow basic standard microbiology protocols against sample contamination, and pushed the arsenic hypothesis as a game-changing breakthrough before it had been subjected to peer review.