Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 41–54 | Cite as

Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill’s Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion

  • Marcoen J. T. F. CabboletEmail author
Original Paper


Scientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: ‘type one scientific misconduct’ is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one’s own work, while ‘type two scientific misconduct’ is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else’s work. The focus is then on the latter type, and three known issues are identified as specific forms of such scientific misconduct: biased quality assessment, smear, and officially condoning scientific misconduct. These concern the improper ways how challenges of the prevailing opinion are thwarted in the modern world. The central issue is pseudoskepticism: uttering negative conclusions about someone else’s work that are downright false. It is argued that this may be an emotional response, rather than a calculated strategic action. Recommendations for educative and punitive measures are given to prevent and to deal with these three forms of scientific misconduct.


Scientific misconduct Discourse ethics Pseudoskepticism Biased refereeing Smear Integrity committees 



The author wishes to thank Aliaksei Sedzin (NXP Semiconductors, Eindhoven, the Netherlands) for bringing the Soviet documentary “Ya i Drugiye" to his attention, and Brian Martin (University of Wollongong, Australia) for his helpful comments. This research has been facilitated by the Foundation Liberalitas (the Netherlands).


  1. Aaronson, S. (2012). I was wrong about Joy Christian. Shtetl-Optimized blog, May the 10th.Google Scholar
  2. ANP. (2008). TU/e in de fout bij herbeoordeling promotie. NRC Handelsblad, August the 29th (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  3. ANP. (2012). Eindrapport over fraude ex-hoogleraar Stapel. Volkskrant, November the 28th (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  4. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh: PA Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beeckman, T. (2009). Blijheid in overvloed. Spinoza over verlangen en macht. In: T. Beeckman (Ed.), Spinoza: Filosoof van de Blijheid (pp. 53–72). Brussels: ASP (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  6. Beenakker, C. (2008). Unpublished referee report, conclusions mentioned in: (LOWI, 2009) (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  7. Brown, C. L. (2005). Overcoming barriers to use of promising research among elite middle east policy groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 17(1), 489–544.Google Scholar
  8. Cabbolet, M. J. T. F. (2010). Elementary process theory: A formal axiomatic system with a potential application as a foundational framework for physics underlying a gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter. Annalen der Physik 522(10), 699–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabbolet, M. J. T. F. (2011). Addendum to the elementary process theory. Annalen der Physik 523(12), 990–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campanario, J. M. & Martin, B. (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(3), 421–438.Google Scholar
  11. Christian, J. (2011). What really sets the upper bound on quantum correlations? arXiv:1101.1958v1 [quant-ph].Google Scholar
  12. Consoli, L. (2006). Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 12, 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dijkgraaf, R. H. (2011). In Geschokte Robbert Dijkgraaf: Fraude Stapel veel erger dan gevreesd. Volkskrant, October the 31st (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  14. Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or bust? (p. 38). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fuller, L. L. (1981). Philosophy for the practicing lawyer. In K. I. Winston (Ed.), The principles of social order: Selected essays of Lon L. Fuller (pp. 287–290). Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik (p. 161). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag (in German).Google Scholar
  17. Lambert, F. (2008). Lemma “Marcoen Cabbolet” in Wikipedia, created by Lambert on January the 18th (in Dutch; title has changed in the meantime).Google Scholar
  18. Landau, L. D. & Lifschitz, E. M. (1976). Mechanics, 3rd ed. (p. xii). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  19. LaViolette, P. (2005). Solar cycle variations in ice acidity at the end of the last ice age: Possible marker of a climatically significant interstellar dust incursion. Planetary and Space Science, 53(4), 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Löwenstein, S. & Müller, R. (2011). Wir sind einem Betrüger aufgesessen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 February 2011 (in German).Google Scholar
  21. LOWI. (2009). LOWI-advies 2009, nr. 1 & nr. 2 (in Dutch; anonymized version publicly available).Google Scholar
  22. Martin, B. (1997). Suppression stories (pp. 84–103). Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, B. (1998). Advice for the dissident scholar. Thought & Action 14(1), 119–130.Google Scholar
  24. Martin, B. (2010). How to attack a scientific theory and get away with it (usually). Science as Culture, 19(2), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (p. 477). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Motl, L. (2012). Joy Christian, an entanglement denier. The reference frame blog, March the 24th.Google Scholar
  27. Mytelka, A. (2007). High-profile dean of admissions at MIT quits over spurious credentials. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April the 26th.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. (1982). Quantum theory and the schism in physics (p. 100). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  29. Post, R. (2008). Addition to the lemma “Marcoen Cabbolet” in Wikipedia, January the 23rd (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  30. Schweber, S. S. (1989). Some reflections on the history of particle physics in the 1950’s. In L. M. Brown, M. Dresden & L. Hoddeson (Eds), Pions to quarks (p. 681). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Schwinger, J. (1991). Cold fusion—does it have a future? In M. Suzuki & R. Kubo (Eds), Evolutionary trends in the physical sciences, springer proceedings in physics, Vol. 57 (pp. 171–175). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 't Hooft, G. (2008a). In: Nobelprijswinnaar negatief over omstreden promotie. Volkskrant, January the 17th (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  33. 't Hooft, G. (2008b). In: E. Hardeman, Iets heel erg uit de rails gelopen. Ublad 16(39), 12 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  34. 't Hooft, G. (2008c). In: Elementaire Proces-theorie allang achterhaald. Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, 76(9), 65 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  35. Truzzi, M. (1987). On pseudo-skepticism. Zetetic Scholar, 12–13, 3–4.Google Scholar
  36. Truzzi, M. (1990). Reflections on the reception of unconventional claims in science. Frontier Perspectives, 1(Fall/Winter), 13–25.Google Scholar
  37. Van Reijen, M. (2009). Spinoza’s naturalistische filosofie van de affecten. In T. Beeckman (Ed.), Spinoza: Filosoof van de Blijheid (pp. 13–30). Brussels: ASP (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  38. Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318, 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vongehr, S. (2011). Exchange with the future king of physics. alpha meme blog, June the 1st.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations