Hello. My presentation was on Warren Schmaus's article- Fraud and the Norms of Science. It was published in Science, Technology, & Human Values in 1983. Here's the link to the article- http://www.jstor.org/stable/689245
I found this article interesting because it doesn't conform to what Robert Merton says about every scientist having to engage in scientific research solely in a completely disinterested fashion. It is perfectly okay for scientists to perform research in the hopes of gaining some personal benefit, as long as they do not mess or interfere with the aims of science. This is where the whole question of fraud and negligence comes in. In their haste to attain acclaim in the scientific world, scientists often resort to publishing fabricated or incomplete data, and Merton finds this unpardonable. However, Schmaus adds to this by saying that intentional fraud is bad, but so is unintentional or constructive fraud which arises out of negligence or shoddy work. Schmaus believes that negligence too is reason enough for a scientist to face debarment. Fraud is fraud whether intended or not. Schmaus believes that if the other three norms of science are conformed to, fraud should never be a problem. Organized skepticism and peer review, as Dipali posted about, is supposed to ensure that fraudulent practices in science don't arise. Disinterestedness and organized skepticism should be methodological prescriptions instead of norms. Schamus says that it may be unjust or unfair to require that scientists be disinterested unlike the rest of us. "The pursuit of scientific knowledge is not an important moral value that
conflicts with and overrides a scientist's right to pursue his or her own career. Scientists who commit fraud thus violate not a moral rule that applies only to them and enjoins them from self-interested activity, but a moral rule that applies to everybody and requires scientists to do their duty."
This brings to my mind Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber. Notorious for his 'mail bombs', he also had the famous Unabomber Manifesto justifying his violence. How exactly do we place his activity in the light of Merton's norms?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of Fraud becomes interesting in the case of Soviet Russia. Lysenko's agricultural methods in the Soviet, which are accused of being fraudulent today are a case in point.
ReplyDeleteThe support provided to Lysenko's scientific (or unscientific?)methods by the Soviet rulers was also a result of the their promotion of proletariat members into positions of leadership. Lysenko's peasant background and his lack of formal academic training earned him the favour of the officials and brought him into a leading position. Hence, his frauds were not checked into and he was not held accountable for them.
Perhaps, this also connects to the next module, under science and State - where what kind of research is funded by the state depends on their ideology.
I read this really recent article on naturenews that said that scientists are becoming more and more reluctant to make raw data available to the public, even when they are asked to do so.
ReplyDeleteApparently, neglecting to publish microarray data is the most common offence, regardless of policies stating that they must do so. Researchers also rarely volunteer data. Sharing data "is time-consuming to do properly, the reward systems aren't there and neither is the stick".
I think that sharing and making available of raw data in science should be insisted upon, seeing as in most cases, the reluctance to do so seems to arise from a definite deviance from Merton's norm of 'disinterestedness'. You can find the article I read here- http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110914/full/news.2011.536.html