'Soft Cheating' Is More Harmful To Science Than Cases Of Outright Fraud

With the ongoing flurry of events such as the Dingell hearings in Washington and allegations that the National Science Foundation is misusing the peer review system, the public flap over misbehavior by scientists is mounting. And, no doubt, concern over cheating and fraud in science is going to intensify further before it subsides. Through it all, it’s becoming increasingly clear that there is not, nor should there be, any special place for questionable scientists to hide—any more than there should be for questionable public officials. Yet, while the scientific community should be reacting to the controversy with calm maturity, the escalating public concern about cheating and fraud continues to generate a curiously defensive reaction from scientists. Stephen Jay Gould, for instance, writes in the New York Times (July 30, 1989) that Congress confuses fraud with error. Obviously, error and its correction is integral to the progress of science, Gould observes, and we all abhor fraud. Just don’t confuse the two, he advises; there is nothing in between, and if this is understood, all will be well. My position is very different. I propose that we admit the obvious: Scientists and engineers, constituting about 1% or 2% of the population, are average humans—and they are likely to cheat and commit professional fraud to a degree consistent with the average national frequency for other professions. Isn’t it also true that average humans who are exposed to extraordinary temptations succumb more frequently than others? And today’s academic science system is a veritable pressure cooker of temptation. Indeed, the science system encountered by the practicing academic scientist today—from conception of an idea, to seeking funds, to reporting results—borders on lunacy. But criticizing the system has been made taboo by leaders of the science community because the system gives us money. We must work harder to identify the points at which the science system in the United States— which most scientists abhor but do not criticize in public—puts a strain on ethics. For example: Attributing ideas. Actual reading and honest citing of the literature is disappearing. This is partly due to the fact that there is simply too little time and too much literature. Thus, credit and research support often go to those who do not cite antecedents, and agencies end up funding work that has often been done, perhaps better, before. Seeking funds. The gross inefficiency, not dishonesty, of the’fund-disbursement sector of the system is enough to make an objective scientist weep. A typical request for proposal for university research initiatives, engineering research, or science and technology centers costs the nation several times more in the writing and review than for the actual funds available for each center. Making matters all the worse is that this costly funding process is also tainted by a built-in conflict of interest. The university scientists most likely to review a proposal are the very scientists whose pool of available money will be depleted if they give the proposal a top grade. (We could fix this with a simple rule that only industry and government scientists who do not receive funds from the same pool can review university proposal and vice versa.) Reporting results. The scrambling for “scarce” money often induces scientists to report results with advertising style hyperbole and misrepresentation, as witness the claims several months ago on neutron production in “cold fusion” experiments. While today’s system may be pushing a few scientists to commit out-and-out fraud, it is perhaps much more significant that it fosters throughout the science community the use of half-truths and exaggerations—what I call soft cheating. This acceptance of soft cheating, in my view, is doing more damage to the nation’s science community than any case of fraud. Most of all, I believe that our science will get worse in proportion to our tolerance of these half-truths, fudging, and hype. Rustum Roy is Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.

'Soft Cheating' Is More Harmful To Science Than Cases Of Outright Fraud

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of