Science as a dictionary definition
means “the observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”.[1]
The natural goal of science is to “discover truth about phenomena” which is
“incongruent with the concept of fraud” (Morrison, 1990). Unfortunately, some
people who deal with science as a profession all around the world engage in tricky
activities for many reasons and in many ways.
According to Morrison, disreputable
science can be either fraud or misconduct. Fraud can be defined as “the
deliberate falsification, misrepresentation or plagiarism of data, findings, or
ideas of others”. Misconduct is very similar to fraud but it also refers to
“carelessness or bias m recording and reporting research data as well as mishandling
of the data and incomplete recording of results” (Morrison, 1990). Some
examples of disreputable science are plagiarism, falsifying data, embellishing
research reports, manipulating data, irresponsible authorship, conducting
trivial studies, releasing results to press before peer review etc. According
to Ruby S. Morrison, fraud in science can be analyzed under three headings:
personal, organizational or situational. Personally, some scientists who are
not trustworthy in order to make more publication and earn money can make
fraud. Organizationally, elitism of scientists as well as the competition among
them, may direct them to make misconduct. “Competition for promotions as well
as funding has distorted the evaluation process from quality to quantity of
publications achieved” (Morrison, 1990). Situationally, scientists in difficult
economic conditions or political pressure may have to write unscientific
research papers. Fraudulent and disreputable science decreases people’s trust
and the prestige of scientific studies. Moreover, trivial studies especially in
the science of medicine “put patients at risk” (Leinster, 2002). It is very
unfortunate to see for their academic success, some scientists play with
people’s lives.
In order to prevent fraud problem in
scientific works, there are some settled and institutionalized mechanisms.
“Peer review and replication of studies are basic ways to detect scientific
misconduct” (Morrison, 1990). These methods should be made seriously in order
to reduce the fraud rate in scientific works. Even co-authors should carefully
scrutinize the entire research project in order to prevent a big mistake.
University juries and scholars must be very careful about the works of their
students because in the case of a problem as supervisors they would be
responsible too. Journal editors and reviewers should also share this
responsibility. In addition to detecting fraud, another important mission is to
report the fraud. “Reporting fraud to journals that published the research and
to funding agencies helps detect fraud in other works by the particular
scientist and can uncover other misconduct in the institution” (Morisson, 1990).
In medicine, there are some “shared ethos and agreed standards of behavior”
codified under the name of “Hippocratic Oath” and “Declaration of Geneva”
(Leinster, 2002). However, we must be aware of the fact although we have these
prevention mechanisms, fraud in science still exists and we need new ways to
solve the problem.
In my opinion, in order to reduce
the effects of this problem, we should educate the students not only in
technique area, but we should also give them scientific ethics lessons.
Scientific honesty and the love of science must start from the primary
education and children must be informed about the sacred duty of science.
Professors and instructors should not only talk about technique matters, but
also about scientific ethos. Unethical behaviors from early age must be
detected and punished. Moreover, the socioeconomic condition of scientists is
very important for a “clean” science. Scientists must be given enough wages and
funds to conduct their researches freely and to be able to follow new
developments around the world on his or her specialized field. When scientists have
less economic problems, they will be less likely to engage in fraud. In
addition, scientists must be protected from political pressures to be able to
express themselves freely. A real scholar must be independent and scientific
works should be made freely for benevolent aims. Academics all around the world
can initiate and engage in international organizations to help their colleagues
who are subjected to political pressures in their country. Moreover, especially
in critical sciences like medicine, the density of prevention mechanisms must
be increased since here people’s lives matter.
Finally, in my opinion, being a
scientist should be to follow the way of service for humanity and truth, away
from politics and personal benefits.
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ozan
ÖRMECİ
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
Dictionary.com,
http://www.dictionary.com.
-
Leinster,
Sam (2002), “Do what I say, not what I do”, Medical
Education, Vol. 36, Issue: 2, pp. 113-114.
-
Morrison,
Ruby S. (1990), “Disreputable Science: Definition and Detection”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 15,
Issue: 8, pp. 911-913.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder