The Structure of Scientific Fraud: The Relationship Between Paradigms and Misconduct
This chapter argues that the level of difficulty in committing scientific fraud is a route to analysing the similarities and differences between the sciences. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn presents a paradigmatic theory of scientific change. “Paradigms”, I argue, set a limit for things that pretend to be scientific, where the possibility and potential for “fraud” is dependent upon the strength or weakness of the paradigm. For the dishonest scientist two types of expertise become useful: (a) “contributional expertise” and (b) “interactional expertise”. The weaker the paradigm is, the more these two types of expertise begin to blur; what constitutes an act of contribution becomes unclear. I highlight a criterion of “reasonableness” and “significance” as being key to “contribution”. A claim that is unreasonable or trivial will either not be taken seriously, or draw too much critical attention, both unsuitable for fraud. What is deemed “reasonable” or “significant”, however, is relative to the field of practice: in some sciences, different practitioners are allowed to hold fundamentally contradictory positions, whereas in others rejection of a widely accepted belief would be taken to signify poor practice.
KeywordsAnaesthesiology Cold fusion Contributional expertise Interactional expertise Kuhnian paradigm Scientific fraud Scientific misconduct Semi-conductor Social psychology
- Beasly, M. R., Datta, S., Kogelnik, H., Kroemer, H., & Monroe, D. (2002). Report of the investigation committee on the possibility of scientific misconduct in the work of Hendrik Schon and coauthors, APS. http://publish.aps.org/reports/lucentrep.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2016.
- Borrell, B. (2009). A medical Madoff: Anesthesiologist faked data in 21 studies. Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data. Accessed 6 Feb 2016.
- Chang, H. J. (2014). Economics: The user’s guide. London: Pelican.Google Scholar
- Cyranoski, D. (2012). Retraction record rocks community. Nature, 489(7416). http://www.nature.com/news/retraction-record-rocks-community-1.11434. Accessed 17 Feb 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dreyfus, H. (1980). Holism and hermeneutics. The Review of Metaphysics, 34, 3–23.Google Scholar
- Feynman, R. (2001). Cargo cult science: Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. In J. Robbins (Ed.), The pleasure of finding things out: The best of the short works of Richard P. Feynman (pp. 205–216). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Gattei, S. (2008). Thomas Kuhn’s “linguistic turn” and the legacy of logical empiricism: Incommensurability, rationality and the search for truth. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
- Glasser, S. P., & Duval, S. (2014). Meta-analysis, evidence-based medicine, and clinical guidelines. In S. P. Glasser (Ed.), Essentials of clinical research (pp. 203–223). London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Jolley, D. (2012). Fujii, anesthesia & research fraud. Gas Exchange. http://gasexchange.com/articles/fujii-anesthesia-research-fraud/. Accessed 26 June 2016.
- Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Afterwords. In P. Horwich (Ed.), World changes: Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science (pp. 311–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Lewan, M. (2017). Here’s the settlement – Getting the license back was Rossi’s top priority. An Impossible Invention, https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/. Accessed 22 July 2017.
- Lewin, R. (1997). The bone of contention: Controversies in the search for human origins. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
- Masterman, M. (1999). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 59–90). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Medawar, P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? The Listener, 70, 377–378.Google Scholar
- Mehra, J., & Milton, K. A. (2000). Climbing the mountain: The scientific biography of Julian Schwinger. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Morrison, C. (2008, October 21). Blacklight power bolsters its impossible claims of a new renewable energy source. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2008/10/21/21venturebeat-blacklight-power-bolsters-its-impossible-cla-99377.html. Accessed 28 Mar 2016.
- Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
- Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Reich, E. S. (2009). Plastic fantastic: How the biggest fraud in physics shook the scientific world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Ritter, S. K. (2012). Reviving cold fusion. Chemical & Engineering News, 90, 42–44.Google Scholar
- Rossi A, Leonardo Corporation v. Darden T, John T. Vaughn, Industrial Heat, LLC, IPH International and Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC. (2016). Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 1. http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Leonardosuit01-main.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016.
- Schwinger, J. (1991). Cold fusion: Does it have a future? In M. Suzuki & R. Kubo (Eds.), Evolutionary trends in the physical sciences: Proceedings of Yoshio Nishina centennial symposium, Tokyo, 5–7 December 1990. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
- Siegel, E. (2016). Is cold fusion feasible? Or is it a fraud? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/23/is-cold-fusion-feasible-or-is-it-a-fraud/#a982d057a050. Accessed 13 Dec 2016.
- Singh, S., & Ernst, E. (2008). Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about alternative medicine. London: Norton.Google Scholar
- Stapel, D. (2013). Ontsporing. Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
- Stogratz, S. (2004). Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Tallis, R. (2004). Why the mind is not a computer: A pocket lexicon of neuromythology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- The Levelt Report. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Levelt Committee, Noort Committee and Drenth Committee. https://www.commissielevelt.nl/. Accessed 10 May 2016.
- Trubody, B. (2016). The seduction of science: How paradigms can lead one astray. In C. Martins & M. J. Damásio (Eds.), Seduction in popular culture, philosophy and psychology (pp. 1–32). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Witkowski, T., & Zatonski, M. (2015). Psychology gone wrong: The dark sides of science and therapy. Boca Raton, FL: Brown Walker Press.Google Scholar