Scientific fraud, plagiarism and ghost writing are increasingly being reported in the news media, creating the impression that misconduct has become a widespread and omnipresent evil in scientific research. However, these reports are more an example of sensationalist media latching on to a hot topic than a true account of the deterioration of scientific values.
Far from being the norm in scientific research, fraud and cheating are rare exceptions and are usually quickly identified by other scientists. And the public seems to understand this. Indeed, trust and confidence in scientific research have not been seriously undermined by reports of misconduct. Nor have these rare incidents curtailed scientific progress, which is so valuable to humankind.
To be sure, even a few cases of scientific misconduct are too many. Scientists are expected to be beacons of hope in the search for knowledge — and clever enough not to try to get away with cheating. Preventive mechanisms are in place to hold responsible the few who take the gamble. Still, while the scientific community — including academic and professional institutions, agency heads, managers, and editors — is often reluctant to handle cases of misconduct rigorously, the reputation of science as a whole is at stake, not just that of a person, institution, journal or national science entity.
Ironically, those who are caught often blame their misconduct on competition, pressure to publish, and recognition and prizes — the very practices and incentives that the scientific community introduced and fostered. Indeed, while the menace of misconduct has been exaggerated, we have to rethink how we conduct science — its values, virtues, and shortcomings.
Scientists must follow a path that is not scientifically predefined, and that requires decisions at every step. Whether they are right or wrong becomes clear in retrospect, which is why errors are unavoidable (though they should not be left uncorrected for long). Science means constantly walking a tightrope between blind faith and curiosity; between expertise and creativity; between bias and openness; between experience and epiphany; between ambition and passion; between arrogance and conviction — in short, between an old today and a new tomorrow.
However, nowadays, research increasingly is misdirected toward lucrative prizes, professional recognition, and financial gains — rewards that are suffocating the creativity and passion that scientific progress demands.
As T.S. Eliot put it: “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”
In the “hard” sciences, such as mathematics and physics, the truth can be established more transparently, making these fields less prone to scientific misconduct. However, branches like medicine, humanities, philosophy, economics, and other social sciences, which rely more heavily on openness and imagination, can be manipulated more easily to suit the goals of bureaucrats.
Indeed, today, too many areas that are being called “science” — for example, collecting biased statistics in order to make a politician’s (or corporation’s) point, or publishing a variation of existing knowledge — fall far short of scientific standards of originality and the quest for basic insight.
And yet, while bureaucratization of science has fueled concerns about its attractiveness to talented thinkers, we should not be overly pessimistic. To be sure, many people have lamented the loss of brilliant minds to the financial sector over the past few decades. However, perhaps we should consider it a stroke of luck that these geniuses created their mess somewhere else.
Moreover, we underestimate the younger generation of scientists. Like the previous generation, many gifted young researchers know that they must work hard to meet monumental challenges and make valuable contributions to society.
We must be careful not to corrupt their work with the questionable practices that the scientific community has adopted in recent years. The new generation of researchers must be given the skills and values — not just scientific ideals, but also awareness of human weaknesses — that will enable it to correct its forebears’ mistakes.
Heinrich Rohrer received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986. The above contribution is based on a lecture Rohrer gave in April in Stockholm, which will appear in the conference proceedings Trust, Confidence, and Scientific Research, edited by Goran Hermeren, Kerstin Sahlin and Nils-Eric Sahlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry