Two seemingly disparate problems appear on the current research menu. One is the growing number of retired scientists whose mental acuity belies their chronological age; the other is that aspect of scientific fraud involving publications that have somehow slipped the scientific barriers of peer review.
As the story on page 19 points out, there is an increasing population of scientists who either have sought retirement or have had retirement thrust upon them and are still interested in their particular areas of expertise. They keep up with the literature in their fields and are capable of acute and insightful judgment. They represent a resource awaiting discovery.
Meanwhile, a recent article by Michigan State physiologist Robert Scott Root-Bernstein (The Sciences, Nov./Dec. 8-11, 1989) points out that the most common way in which fraud is committed is by fulfilling expectations or supporting current views and/or prejudices with manufactured data. Why isn't this picked ...
