The Plague Of Plagiarism Persists In Modern Science

Keen insight into the problem of plagiarism in modern science can be gained from a late-1960s report by Anatol Rapoport, a mathematical biologist. Rapoport, then on the faculty of the University of Michigan, chaired the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Study Committee on Ethics and Responsibilities of Scientists. Under Rapoport's supervision, the committee had conducted a landmark questionnaire study relating to science ethics. The questionnaire was sent to 5,000 AAAS members and drew 2,500 responses. Remarkably enough, Rapoport's subsequent analysis of these responses--entitled "A Study of Scientists' Views on Ethics and Responsibilities, A Report of the Survey 1967"--was never published, although it carefully tabulated and summarized a rich yield of results. Indeed, the report has been cited only once, with Rapoport's permission, by this writer in a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article (24:39, 1968) that featured the results of the AAAS study. Of the 22 wide-ranging questions in the survey, the following involved plagiarism: "Should there be established procedures to deal with cases of alleged plagiarism or utilization of the work of others without credit given?" Among the total respondents, 59.7 percent said yes, 19.2 percent said no, 16.5 percent said they didn't know, and 4.5 declined to answer. This sampling is the best quantification we have of scientists' views on plagiarism. It may also be the best indication we have of the incidence of plagiarism if we speculate that the 60-40 split on the desire for accountability for plagiarism is at least roughly the split between those responding who are self-perceived victims or potential victims of plagiarism, and those who would rather not be called to account for their own plagiaristic acts. If all 2,500 of those who did not respond to the questionnaire had been naysayers, the split might well have gone the other way, with 70 percent opposed and only 30 percent in favor of accountability. Such a division is likely to be closer to the true division, since for every victim there is likely to be more than one perpetrator of plagiarism. Considering the unique value of the Rapoport study, and the fact that it was funded and authorized by AAAS, its neglect by that organization is so conspicuous that one is tempted to wonder whether AAAS is one of the problems of ethics in science rather than part of their solution. It is pertinent to record that this writer vigorously protested the decision not to publish the report, and drew a reply in 1968 from anthropologist Margaret Mead, then chairwoman of the AAAS Committee on Science in the Promotion of Human Welfare, who explained away the situation by stating merely that there had been no request by AAAS officials to publish it. To this observer, Mead's response raises the same kind of question about motive that is prompted by looking at the AAAS figures for those opposed to accountability for plagiarism. When Mead gave that reply, she already knew that her most important scientific work, Coming of Age in Samoa (New York, W. Morrow and Co., 1928), was under intensely critical scrutiny by the well-known, highly qualified Australian anthropologist Derek Freeman. In 1983, Freeman published a devastating critique, Margaret Mead and Samoa, The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (Harvard University Press), that would have made anyone tremble at the prospect of being called to account for myth-making of any sort--and this can include plagiarism--in the name of science. The Rapoport report not only presented the aforementioned data on the desire for procedures to deal with plagiarism, but also recorded various opinions voiced by the opposition. For example, the procedures might be complex and costly to implement, given the wide range of offenses that might be construed as plagiarism. Or, the procedures would entail legal consequences--someone accused of plagiarism might sue for libel and slander. In my opinion, there also may be motives unspecified in the Rapoport study that would cause opposition to corrective procedures--the fear, for example, that Congress, upon which considerable financial support for research is dependent, might be dismayed by the airing of dirty scientific linen in public. Moreover, if we reckon that perpetrators of plagiarism probably outnumber victims, it follows that bringing violators to account would not be a widely popular move. Nevertheless, one suspects that sooner or later, public pressure will force greater ethical accountability on the scientific community, just as in the past the public has demanded it of doctors, lawyers, and numerous other professional groups that vitally affect the public interest. To be sure, plagiarism is a problem internal to science rather than one that impinges directly on the public interest. But it is obvious that if scientists allow cheating on their colleagues, they will undermine public respect for science and the public trust in it. If a science medal or prize is awarded to the wrong person, the victim is the public and science, not just the individual who has been denied proper recognition. In considering remedies, I have suggested that a partial remedy would be to adopt more widely the practice in botany and zoology of attaching the name of a discoverer to his or her discovery. Once such a naming has occurred, particularly if it is done formally and under official auspices, the risk of misattribution or neglect must be much reduced. This remedy has been proposed to the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, but that organization will not consider such a measure until it has the sponsorship of the National Academy of Sciences. The academy now has a committee under the chairmanship of Edward K. David, a former presidential science adviser, that is grappling with ethical issues and will soon report its findings. The foregoing discussion of plagiarism in science would be incomplete if we did not recognize some fundamental distinctions between long-familiar literary plagiarism and plagiarism as it operates under contemporary conditions of science. Plagiarism is as old as literature, but its occurrence in the realm of contemporary research is, in my view, far more dangerous than is its occurrence in a novel, say, or a poem. The literary worker deals primarily in words and word patterns, and he or she works primarily alone. The scientist deals primarily in ideas, and works in a social setting with colleagues and students. It must be very difficult, if not impossible, to build a substantial literary reputation on the basis of plagiarized literary work: A budding literary plagiarist, after all, is far too likely to be nipped in the bud as soon as his or her work achieves some visibility. But the same may not be true in science, a field in which ideas, not words, are what matter, and thefts of ideas stolen or borrowed from private conversations or correspondence, or from unacknowledged prior publication or from peer reviews, are not so readily exposed. The danger of plagiarism in science is not just that it cheats an original worker of recognition, but also that ideas stolen or improperly credited (which is the same thing), can create false reputations. This, in turn, can place second-raters in positions of undeserved influence. And when second-rate people and ideas supplant first-rate people and ideas in areas of concern to public health and safety, plagiarism can become a life-and-death issue, a situation that is hardly imaginable in literary plagiarism. While all of this may be clearly evident to a thoughtful observer, a major question remains: How often does plagiarism have substantial and even dangerous ramifications for the public interest, as well as damage for the interests of aggrieved parties? That is a question that can be answered only by detailed study on a case-by-case basis, and can be answered convincingly only by systematic investigations by a quasijudicial body with suitable scope and powers. Today our laws and our courts are very poorly empowered to deal with plagiarism in science, despite long experience with cases of literary plagiarism. What is needed is an extension to science of the procedures of the U.S. Patent Office, which routinely resolves conflicting priority claims of inventors by so-called Interference Actions. We can hope that one or more scientific bodies will set up a forum with proper procedures and staff to address the complex issues of plagiarism in science. Until that happens, plagiarism is one of the unknown dimensions of modern science, whose magnitude and effects are bones of contention among its practitioners, sponsors, and observers. Lawrence Cranberg is a consulting physicist based in Austin, Texas.

The Plague Of Plagiarism Persists In Modern Science

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of