Dan L. Burk, law professor at Seton Hall University, wrote ("Legal Process Presented In Ryan Report Requires Reconsideration," The Scientist, Sept. 16, 1996, page 9), "To that end, the major focus of misconduct inquiry by the scientific community will be to determine the empirical demonstrability of a researcher's claims, to purge the record of fabricated or incorrect data, and to discourage future conduct that would tend to corrupt the acquisition of certified knowledge" (emphasis added). The

Science is like a professional sport. Both are played by young people and managed by older people no longer capable of playing. In sport the inability of older people to play is so obvious that they do not expect or try to do so. Someone entering pro sports knows that his or her high-paying career will be short. A few will stay on as managers or lower-status, non-playing auxiliaries, but most will leave the sport entirely. Scientists are now being involuntarily retired at about the same age as

I have studied the lubrication of animal joints since 1959. Between then and 1975 there were, by my count, two major discoveries. Then the government, principally the National Institutes of Health, greatly increased funding for the discipline. There have been no major discoveries since. Government support must have been misdirected-but why? At the National Science Foundation, program managers decide whom to support, and for this they get specialist advice. But reviewers who understand a scient

The Scientist, July 25, 1994, page 1) says that "many of the attendees [at the 'Convocation on Scientific Conduct'] note with some dismay that active research scientists were largely absent from among the approximately 250 people [in the audience]." Did they really think that many would come? Displaying an interest in misconduct is not a path to advancement in science. Remember what happened to Walter Stewart and Ned Feder. Only sci

The Scientist, July 25, 1994, page 1) says that "many of the attendees [at the 'Convocation on Scientific Conduct'] note with some dismay that active research scientists were largely absent from among the approximately 250 people [in the audience]." Did they really think that many would come? Displaying an interest in misconduct is not a path to advancement in science. Remember what happened to Walter Stewart and Ned Feder. Only sci

From my window in the University of Pennsylvania's research administration offices, I can see a small but rapidly changing slice of our campus. Three blocks away, a new biomedical building is being adorned with a brick and limestone facing. Behind the library directly across the street, a huge construction crane towers over the site of the latest addition to our hospital. The block-square parking lot next door is the future location of what many consider a critically needed campus center to hou

The fight over Walter Stewart and Ned Feder (Franklin Hoke, The Scientist, May 17, 1993, page 1) is not about plagiarism by a historian, nor about scientific fraud. It is about power. Since World War II, the United States government has given money to biomedical science and let the scientists carve it up among themselves. The system rewards favor-trading, so politicians arose, the skilled ones achieving great influence over funding. Influence and fear permeate our profession. Disagree with

"To be an uncited scientist is no cause for shame." It needed to be said, and Eugene Garfield was the right person to say it [The Scientist, March 18, 1991, page 12]. When the news on uncited papers first came out, I immediately thought of the people it would hurt. Science now demands speedy, measurable success, and being uncited can be disastrous to one's career. Guilt should not be added to worry. An uncited paper may contribute to science. Someone thinks of idea n. Idea n+1 comes along even