Scientific falsifications. Falsification of scientific achievements is one of the most important problems of world science

K. Popper paid special attention to it, speaking about the relationship between theory and facts and contrasting falsification, understood as the possibility of refuting a theory, with verification; later his ideas are also recognized as relevant, despite their neo-positivist nature. However, it is not possible to use them to clarify the psychological basis of falsification. The named concept in the respect we are interested in has not been studied enough, as a result of which, to operationalize it, we have to turn to a dictionary of foreign words, where falsification means: 1) replacing something genuine with a false, imaginary one, 2) changing the quality of an object towards deterioration while maintaining the same appearance, 3) a fake, presented as a real thing.

Without differentiating these three nuances here, I will summarize: falsification is a lie, deception, an imitation of scientific validity and respectability. In the same series, concepts that are already found in publications devoted to scientific knowledge, such as doubles, understudies, simulation, slander, disinformation, are probably awaiting their concretization...

Psychologically, deception is usually considered as one of the forms of protecting and realizing the deceiver’s own interests. And since a person is not able to fully understand all interests, their protection also does not always occur consciously. Cases of obvious, deliberate deception on the part of a sociologist are the subject of discussion within the framework of the ethics of science and therefore will not be considered here. Of much greater interest are cases of unconscious falsification (as far as it can be judged by dealing only with its verbalization). Let's look at them briefly.

1) The conclusions contain flattery and slander; the conclusions do not reflect the data: the numbers are distorted, the results are rewritten - for example, the popularity indicator, the share of adherents, the number of people ready to vote “for”, etc. are overstated.

2) Imitation of conclusions by repeating the description of the results. A conclusion, as is known, is considered to be reasoning in the course of which a new one is obtained from the original judgments. In relation to empirical research, it can be assumed that a generalization concerning an abstract concept (for example, the relationship between citizens and authorities) is made on the basis of a description of empirically observed characteristics (say, the proportion of people who agree with a statement), considered in terms of the degree of reciprocity, equality, etc.) . But similar judgments of different degrees of concreteness/abstractness or novelty in relation to the previous phrases cannot be found in the following, for example, conclusions: “Continuing the study of the relationship between citizens and authorities, we also asked the question to what extent, in the opinion of Russians, the authorities are now closed from society . We completely agree..., rather agree... These data allow us to say that in the eyes of Russians, one of the components of the image (!) of the current government is its significant closedness from society.”

3) Substitution of justification for declaration, abundance of postulates in descriptions and conclusions. Without bothering himself with evidence, an enthusiastic researcher, having called the methodology he used proven, the results obtained reliable, the conclusions reliable, apparently believes that he has fulfilled his scientific duty of substantiating the applied trains of thought: “... the conclusion... has methodological significance and was mentioned at the beginning of the article: the real possibility of using data from periodic mass surveys to study fundamental changes in social institutions and structures, including the structure of a person as a social personality, has been confirmed again.”

4) The creation of the illusion of validity is greatly facilitated by the use of modal words - words denoting possibility, probability, obligation: “There is no doubt in this situation that the negative perception of the elections by Russians damages both the political image of Russia in general and the perception of democracy in particular.”

5) Substitution of concepts. If we talk about relative particulars, it is noticeable when studying the data on the sample - for example, the citizens of Saratov were stated, and people suffering from somatic disorders and in the hospital, as well as Saratov medical students, were interviewed. If we are talking about describing the results, then, say, in one sociological service, based on the change in the number of people who agree with the statement “leave everything as it was before 1985,” that is, the degree of prevalence of the opinion, a decision is made on the degree of its strength: “The idea of ​​significance. .. changes are clearly growing stronger over the years.” In another service, no less famous, the expression of agreement is presented as a degree of confidence (and at the same time something else): “In addition, Russians are largely concerned about the problem of the state’s external debts. They are completely confident that Russia is not able to pay off its external debts... They rather adhere to this opinion... They do not agree that Russia does not have the resources to pay off its debts...”

6) Substitution of the subject of analysis with the opinion about it expressed by respondents - in fact, this is a special case of the previous one, but it is worth considering specifically in view of the abundance of surveys: “3.9% of Russians often and very often drink in their free time, 2.6% travel, conduct time in theaters - 0.8%, 0.4% of respondents are engaged in the Internet." Is it possible that Russians travel only 1.5 times less often than they drink? And it’s not just about credibility. The point, obviously, is a biased selection of indicators, and we will talk about this at the end of this article.

7) Data falsified by other persons, simulating the completion of a research task, is introduced into scientific circulation. Experienced interviewers, often working in Moscow for well-respected services, have more than once told me about their own practice and the practice of colleagues, when they had to either falsify all the data by writing answers, or falsify a sample by interviewing whomever is more convenient for them, or falsify answers by writing them down. simultaneous “editing”, each in his own way.

A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF FALSIFIATION IN SCIENCE

This story took place in the USA in the laboratory of the famous bioenergetics specialist E. Racker between 1980 and 1982. At one time, E. Racker suggested that the cause of cancerous degeneration of cells could be the ineffective operation of the mechanism that pumps sodium cations out of the cytoplasm. To confirm or refute this hypothesis, it was necessary to isolate the enzyme - a special transport ATPase - and measure its activity. This work was entrusted to the young biochemist Mark Spector. He quickly and brilliantly dealt with it, establishing that in tumor cells the activity of this enzyme is reduced compared to normal ones. Then the question arose - what causes the decrease in activity? Soon M. Spector also established the reason for the decrease in the activity of transport ATPase. It turned out that its work is disrupted by another enzyme from the class of protein kinases. Further, M. Spector made a serious discovery, proving that a decrease in the activity of the transport enzyme occurs due to the cascade action of several protein kinases. Scientifically, this was a discovery close to outstanding, since it revealed the biochemical chain of transformations leading to the degeneration of normal cells into cancer cells. The results of these studies were published, and the biochemical scheme of M. Spector’s discovery was even featured on the cover of the proceedings of a major scientific conference. But, alas, a senior colleague discovered that M. Spector, when conducting a biochemical analysis, simply cheated, replacing one substance with another. During a strict re-check, M. Spector's results were not confirmed. He was expelled from the laboratory, and E. Racker was forced to publish apologetic letters in leading journals

Let us ask ourselves why this falsification was discovered, what is called hot on the heels? Firstly, M. Spector “discovered” only one substance - the enzyme protein kinase; all other substances and cell structures that appeared in his experiments actually existed and were well known. Secondly, when scientists study a real and important problem, the proposed significant solutions to it are immediately tested in independent laboratories. Moreover, one thing that is subject to verification, first of all, is one key and specific thing, since everything else is already known. Thirdly, the verification involves, first of all, specialists in this particular narrow field of science.

The consequence of the discovery of falsification is, as a rule, a loss of interest in the bankrupt method of solving the problem.

Literature:

MARTIN “SECRETS OF THE PSYCHE” PAGE 54-172

MOSCOW, June 27 - RIA Novosti, Alfiya Enikeeva. The authors of the Stanford prison experiment were suspected of staging. This threatens to cancel the results of the study, which is considered canonical by psychologists around the world. The history of science knows many falsifications. RIA Novosti recalls the loudest academic scandals and understands why scientists resort to deception.

If in the case of Zimbardo we are talking more about an incorrect interpretation of the results obtained (a special case was extended to the entire human population) and ignoring errors in the methodology, then the Japanese biologist Haruko Obokata falsified the results themselves.

In January 2014, Haruko Obokata, an employee of Harvard University (USA) and the RIKEN Scientific Institute (Japan), published in Nature a sensational report that ordinary cells can be turned into stem cells without interfering with their genetic code, simply by exposing them to acid. The Japanese woman claimed that she obtained mouse stem cells from lymph cells.

The research was groundbreaking because it opened up the prospect of creating artificial organs and tissues with a low risk of rejection. After all, stem cells can turn into any type of cell that makes up the body.

In the spring, the researcher admitted to falsifying some data, but continued to insist that she had obtained stem cells using her method more than two hundred times. She was asked to repeat the experiment in a laboratory under 24-hour video surveillance. Obokata tried to create stem cells 48 times without success.

She was fired from the institute, and the article was retracted from Nature. One of the co-authors of the work, Yoshiki Sasai, who headed the laboratory where the experiments described in the article were carried out, committed suicide.

Clones that never existed

South Korean biologist Hwang Woo Suk became famous as the scientist who was the world's first to clone human stem cells and a dog, a traditionally difficult object to copy.

In articles published in Science and Nature, he claimed that he had created a culture of embryonic stem cells (in such experiments, not individual cells are obtained, but entire cell generations - lines) from adult human cells. In addition, he used only 185 eggs for eleven cell lines. It's quite a bit. For comparison, it took 236 eggs to clone Dolly the sheep.

Some scientists refused to cooperate with Hwang Woo Suk, pointing out violations committed by him when obtaining eggs. Seoul University, where the biologist worked, initiated an independent review of all his research.

As a result, in addition to ethical violations in the acquisition of eggs (they were given by students and employees of the university), it turned out that all the results, except for the cloning of a dog, were falsified. Of the eleven cell lines, nine had identical DNA, meaning they were descendants of the same cell.

Science published a refutation. In his homeland, the scientist was sentenced to two years probation for embezzlement of public funds and was prohibited from engaging in stem cell research.

Fictional experiments

German physicist Hendrik Schön, a specialist in microelectronics, simply invented experiments, and then described the results of the experiments in accordance with his assumptions. This strategy worked well for many years, and the scientist was even considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize.

In three years (from 1998 to 2001), Shen demonstrated in organic materials almost all the electronic phenomena needed by the high-tech industry - from superconductivity to the single-molecule transistor. A new publication was published every eight days.

Other scientists were unable to reproduce his experiments. And in 2002, it turned out that several of his works used the same diagram, but with different signatures. An internal investigation was launched at Bell Labs (USA), where Shen worked. turned out to be disappointing: Shen carried out all the experiments alone, did not keep laboratory records, and destroyed samples of materials.

The physicist's scientific work was found to be falsified. He was fired and stripped of his doctorate.

Introduced Dostoevsky and Dickens

One of the most notorious scientific scandals occurred in literary criticism. British researcher Arnold Harvey wrote scientific articles under various pseudonyms for 35 years (at least seven of his alter egos are known), quoted himself and made up historical facts.

In particular, in 2002, he described a meeting between Dickens and Dostoevsky, when the English writer allegedly complained to his Russian colleague about mental illness: “Two personalities coexist in me.” To which Dostoevsky replied: “Only two?” - and winked.

© Public Domain

© Public Domain

This pseudo-meeting, which was later mentioned by all Dickens scholars, marked the beginning of a whole series of revelations. An American Slavist from the University of California at Berkeley, Eric Neumann, doubted the reliability of the information provided and tried to find the author of the publication where the conversation between famous writers was first mentioned.

Stephanie Harvey, who wrote that article, referred to the Gazette of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, but this journal could not be found. But the researcher was actively quoted and even criticized by other scientists, traces of whose existence Neumann also did not find. After an almost detective investigation, it turned out that these were all pseudonyms for Arnold Harvey.

It was impossible to fire him for violating scientific ethics; by that time he did not work anywhere. The historian himself is pleased with how much noise his hoax has caused. In an interview, he said that he wanted to demonstrate the bias of editors of scientific journals, who for several years refused to publish works signed with his real name.

​It is no secret that in Russia there has been a vicious practice of undeservedly awarding academic degrees to politicians, businessmen and various scammers who need “crusts” to advance their careers and for other purposes.

With the help of the free community of experts, researchers and reporters of Dissernet, which is engaged in countering fraud in the field of scientific and educational activities, thousands of cases of falsification of dissertations became known. While the whole country is watching the unprecedented proceedings surrounding the doctoral thesis of the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky, experts from the science festival EUREKA!FEST-2016 discussed the phenomenon of swindlers and thieves in science and proposed ways to combat them.

The discussion was moderated by a scientific journalist, founder of the popularization agency "Russell's Teapot" Irina Yakutenko, who presented her classification of those who engage in such imitation of scientific activity:

The first category is ordinary charlatans who are well aware that they are swindlers, selling snake skin, “pills” with stem cells, and dermatoglyphics tests. Other types are more difficult, since these people really work in science and sincerely believe in their work. For example, the effectiveness of irradiating water so that it supposedly changes its structure and acquires healing properties. This also includes followers of homeopathy and other movements that mainstream science does not recognize.

The next cohort of falsifiers: people who know that something is wrong with their experiments, and deliberately distort the facts and hide the truth for various reasons.

For example, six months ago I would have called surgeon Paolo Macchiarini a swindler,” says Irina Yakutenko. - This man transplanted tracheas grown from stem cells, and he was accused of fraud for a long time, because most of the patients died! But, according to the latest data, Macchiarini was acquitted: they found confirmation that he was simply not entirely correct in his work.

Yakutenko also gave examples of scientists who deliberately falsify research results to achieve profit. The most notorious was, perhaps, the case of the Japanese woman Haruko Obokata, who falsified experiments and announced the creation of so-called STAP cells. As a result of falsifications and hype in the press, Obokata's scientific director, Yoshiki Sasai, committed suicide.

Another category of swindlers are people who are not directly related to science, but use it for their own purposes, as a rule, to gain status and advance their careers. Such “scientists” buy dissertations for the sake of “crust”.

There are swindlers in any profession, but outstanding people go into science - and there are also outstanding swindlers there, noted Irina Yakutenko. - Therefore, it makes sense to find out what motivates scientific schemers?


Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, researcher at the Institute of Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, co-founder of the Dissernet movement Andrei Rostovtsev told who is involved in Dissernet cases and proposed some recipes for combating them:

Among our “clients” there are even those whose “work” on the dissertation comes down to just replacing the title page, the rest of the text is total plagiarism. Such people, as a rule, did not write or read their candidate or doctoral dissertations themselves. Basically, they didn’t even see it, everything was done by hired “specialists.” Nevertheless, in Russia there is a large mass of such qualifying work: more than six thousand examples are known today.

The situation becomes more complicated in medical dissertations, when diagnoses are replaced, but the text remains the same. For example, we found two papers with exactly the same content, only in one the psoriasis was changed to microbial eczema. And the medications were corrected: imunofan to cycloferon. All other data coincided word for word, despite the fact that these are different diseases! Unfortunately, the authors are practicing doctors,” adds Andrey Rostovtsev. - They resort to falsification, including because of the established unwritten tradition: if you want to become the head of a department, you must have a candidate’s thesis, if you want to become the head physician, then you must have a doctor’s thesis.

Another example is people whom the expert tactfully called “not entirely healthy”:

Some people collect awards, some collect photos with famous people of this world, and there are those who collect academic degrees. So we found a person who consistently defended five doctorates: in 2010 he became a doctor of sociological sciences, and in 2011 - of physico-mathematical sciences! And before that, he was already in economics and pedagogy, and at the same time he was a member of many fake academies.

"Unfortunately, the State Duma's provision on the statute of limitations for deprivation of an academic degree prevents the fight against such gross fraud, according to which all dissertations defended before January 1, 2011 are considered to be properly scientific, and no one can make a claim against them. One of the co-founders" Dissernet" Andrei Zayakin once in his article called such an innovation as senseless, "as if traffic cops confiscated only those fake driver's licenses that were issued after January 1, 2011, and everyone else who bought a license before this date could easily drive ".

Andrey Rostovtsev spoke about the attempt to introduce amendments to the controversial bill.

With the help of one deputy, we proposed in the State Duma the abolition of the statute of limitations, but the amendments did not pass. Nobody voted against the law.

Experts consider another stumbling block to be the current practice in which an application for deprivation of an academic degree is sent to the same dissertation council where the qualification was awarded. According to statistics, in 90% of cases, work whose value was questioned by experts is still recognized as correct. However, if the complaint reaches the alternative dissertation council, then in 90% of cases it is satisfied. Therefore, Rostovtsev proposed the requirement to consider complaints in an alternative dissertation council, as one of the recipes in the fight against false scientists.

A big problem is posed by companies that write scientific articles, master's and doctoral dissertations to order. This is a huge underground market. We are trying to develop another method - legal prosecution of manufacturers of scientific certification works. This is possible, but it is not yet widespread and there are practically no precedents.


Leading researcher of the SB RAS, Candidate of Biological Sciences Egor Zadereev, believes that there are several “great evils” in Russian science that need to be eradicated:

There should not be a list of scientific journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. After all, in what case will the reputation system work? When it becomes sufficiently numerous, distributed and independent. So far, there is a paradox: the stronger we build a system of protection against schemers, the more difficult it is technically for a normal young scientist to defend himself, since more formalities are involved. And the easier it is for a swindler, for whom the company does everything, to defend himself, says Zadereev. - Our science should be integrated into the world as much as possible. This is the only way we can get a large number of players. Because in some field there may be only ten specialists in Russia. And they will all, by definition, be in a conflict of interest. And when we enter the international market, the parochialism and phoniness begins to collapse.

Another participant in the discussion is Deputy Director named after. G.I. Budkera SB RAS, Dean of the Faculty of Physics of Novosibirsk State University and Corresponding Member of the RAS Alexander Bondar noted that the activities of the Dissernet project are very important, but one should not fall into euphoria:

Crooks are diverse and very inventive. They quickly adapt: ​​they not only shuffle texts more intricately, but also rewrite other people’s ideas in their own words. This is equally dangerous for science. Not only do scammers receive benefits and occupy public positions, but most importantly: this strikes a blow to the authority of honest, conscientious science. For now, I see a way out through examination. Moreover, it is necessary to check not the texts, but the scientific content of the works.


A senior researcher at the Department of Fluid Mechanics at Moscow State University, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics Andrei Tsaturyan, objected to the previous speaker that the main goal of Dissernet is not to expose swindlers, not to check all dissertations, but, above all, to consolidate the scientific community.

Professor at the State University of New York Stony Brook and SkolTech, head of the Laboratory of Computer Design of Materials at MIPT Artem Oganov noted that the fight against pseudoscientists is good, the main thing is “not to go too far”:

Often we start a witch hunt (sometimes society smells of such sentiments, it’s as if it’s hardwired into our DNA). My call is this: don’t pretend to be judges and don’t go too far! It seems to me that if the examination is anonymous, we complicate the situation and muddy the waters, which could be clear. Since this is done in most cases now, it is a very bad practice. Fixed dissenting councils too. Opponents must be selected for each specific dissertation, and this must be public. It's the same with reviewing articles. If a reviewer's name gets out there, it's a great incentive for them to be honest. What kind of transparency can we talk about if the experts are still people wearing masks?

Recorded by Marina Moskalenko

Photos from open sources

Falsification of truth is a common thing in our wretched society, where it is headed by a handful of multi-rich people, for whom unlimited power over the people is much more important than the development and prosperity of modern civilization. And there is no crime that they would not commit for the sake of the power of money. (website)

Today it is almost no secret to anyone that for the sake of this very notorious unlimited power of the world government, history is distorted, written and rewritten. However, as it became known, even more terrible for society is the falsification of science, which allows the Illuminati to keep humanity in darkness, poverty and hunger.

Photos from open sources

This is precisely the statement made by Alfred Webre, who was once a White House adviser, and therefore knows first-hand all the ins and outs of the US government’s policy of hiding scientific data. So Webre claims that in the United States, development of, say, the same time machine has been going on for at least eighty years. During this time, during numerous experiments there were both dead and missing, however, in the end, the results were amazing, proving that it is possible to travel both to the past and to the future.

Photos from open sources

For this reason, Webre says, the White House government, for example, knew in advance about the tragedy of September 11, 2001, knew in the early seventies. This is even proven by the “Illuminati” playing cards that appeared in 1995, which depicted the collapsing twin towers of the famous New York World Trade Center. Then, of course, all this was written off as a coincidence, but in fact, such decks of cards are evidence of information leakage.

Photos from open sources

But why in this case the US government did not prevent the most ambitious terrorist attack of the early 21st century is another question, although it is again closely related to the distortion of the truth (any).

Falsification and secrecy go hand in hand

The richest clans of the Earth, which are sometimes called the world government, sometimes the Illuminati, which is essentially the same thing, at the beginning of the last century classified all scientific experiments that would undermine their fabulous income from the sale of gas, oil, and other important natural resources, and therefore world science today is bribed. All developments such as “time machine”, “perpetual motion machine”, “zero energy and its wireless transmission” are tabooed. These developments can only be carried out by selected (you know who) scientists in secret laboratories under the supervision of, say, the same CIA. Therefore, the results of these studies are closed to society, but the Illuminati themselves successfully use them for their own selfish, almost misanthropic purposes.

Photos from open sources

Alfred Webre gives an example that the world “elite” a hundred years ago developed a memorandum aimed at falsification in the field of science and practically destroying it throughout the world. It all started with the destruction of the disciplines fundamental to science and education - the scientific method and logic. Thanks to this, fundamental science is practically marking time - it has reached a complete dead end. This is also confirmed by the luminaries of modern scientific thought, such as M. Kaku, V. Katyuschik, S. Sall and many others, who plainly state that today we are practically running in the opposite direction from the same zero-energy (free for all humanity) and many other great discoveries, since dogmas and patterns that contradict common sense are imposed on society.

Instead of Mendeleev's Newtonius, Einstein's erroneous theory

For example, why was the element newtonium, which was in the zero row and with which the table began, excluded from D. Mendeleev’s table? But the fact is that newtonium corresponds to the world ether, which stores and transmits all types of energy in nature. The theory of the ether itself led to limitless and practically free energy, which was not at all part of the plans of the oil and gas magnates. And then, instead of the theory of ether, Einstein’s theory of relativity was imposed on the world. Moreover, the German scientist himself would be very surprised if he became acquainted with some of the provisions of “his theory”, which were openly falsified.

Photos from open sources

In fact, it is not space that is bent, explains V. Katyushchik, but a place; for example, the trajectory of photons passing by the Sun is bent, but not space. These are the basics of the scientific method, which are not taught in universities, like the interpretation of the first law of logic. And why? Yes, because otherwise students will get to the bottom of the truth and ask in surprise: what does space curvature have to do with it?

Why and how do the richest clans in the world falsify science?

In the middle of the last century, journalists still raised this issue - about the falsification of science. For example, in the Financial Times newspaper of that time you can find the article “What is Science?” It said that modern luminaries of science are far from being celestial beings who do everything for the good of the people. Among them there are a lot of swindlers, crooks and falsifiers, and for the sake of money they are ready for any meanness, even crime. Unfortunately, the authors of that article concluded, the activities of such “prominent scientists” are recognized by society too late, sometimes when they are no longer alive. And sometimes you can’t even get to the bottom of the truth, who is to blame for what...

However, as Alfred Webre explains, journalists at that time did not understand the main reason why people from science falsify this very science, that they are simply paid for their silence, their fraud and even their crimes. Moreover, they pay well, since this is very beneficial to the world government. But in fact, there are two sciences in the world. One is true, but secret, and the second is public, but deceitful and corrupt. By the way, the same picture can be seen in education, which is why society is becoming more and more stupid and less educated, despite the numerous secondary and higher educational institutions. And the fact that the satirist Zadornov ridicules the Unified State Exam and American education, which has already captivated the whole world, including Russia, is in fact far from funny, but sad and even tragic for all humanity...

Photos from open sources

Let's say, the same Rockefeller is generously paid by the so-called “science commissions”, which have been created in almost all the advanced countries of the world, thereby suppressing any attempts to develop and even more so implement the same alternative fuel-free technologies, medicines for the most terrible diseases of our century , means of extending life, revealing the hidden potential of a person and much more that undermines their power over the world. Thanks to these commissions, everything advanced is declared charlatanism, pseudoscience, and obscurantism. At the same time, the world government itself, with the other hand, also generously finances its underground science, and uses the fruits of purchased scientists to direct forbidden knowledge to further strengthen its already almost limitless power...

Fraud in science has been a topic of frequent debate in recent years, but a particularly heated debate has been the question of whether it is simply an occasional “rotten apple” or the “tip of an iceberg” with a bottom that bodes ill. It is clear that scientists in general and research psychologists in particular must be crystal honest in their scientific activities. Principle B of the 1992 General Code explicitly states that psychologists “shall exercise integrity in research, teaching, and psychological practice” (APA, 1992). Moreover, several specific standards in the 1992 code specifically address research fraud. This section addresses the following questions: What is scientific fraud? How common is it? Why does it happen?

Dictionary « American Heritage Dictionary» (1971) defines fraud as “intentional deception practiced to obtain an undeserved or illegal advantage” (p. 523). There are two main types of fraud common in science: 1) plagiarism- deliberate appropriation of other people's ideas and passing them off as one's own and 2) falsification of data. In the 1992 code, plagiarism is specifically condemned by standard 6.22, and data falsification is specifically condemned by standard 6.21 (Table 2.4). The problem of plagiarism is characteristic of all areas of human activity, and falsification of data occurs only in science, so the next section will be devoted specifically to this issue.

Table 2.4Data falsification and plagiarism: standardsARA

Standard 6.21. Report about the results

a) Psychologists do not fabricate data or falsify research results in their publications.

b) If psychologists discover important errors in their published data, they endeavor to correct these errors by correction, retraction, typographical correction, or other appropriate means.

Standard 6.22. Plagiarism

Psychologists do not claim significant portions of other people's work as their own, even when citing that work or data sources.

Data falsification

If science has a moral sin, it is the sin of lack of crystal honesty in handling data, and the attitude towards data lies at the foundation of the entire edifice of science. But if the foundation fails, everything else fails, so data integrity is of utmost importance. This type of fraud can take various forms. The first and most extreme form is when the scientist does not collect data at all, but simply fabricates it. The second is hiding or changing part of the data to better present the final result. The third is collecting a certain amount of data and completing the missing information to a complete set. The fourth is hiding the entire study if the results are not as expected. In each of these cases, the deception is intentional and the scientists appear to be “receiving an undeserved or illegal benefit” (i.e., publication).

Standard 6.25.

Once the results of a study have been published, psychologists should not withhold the data underlying their conclusions from other scientists who wish to analyze them to test the claim made and who intend to use the data only for that purpose, provided that it is possible to protect the confidentiality of the participants and if legal rights to proprietary rights exist. the data does not prevent their publication.

In addition to failure to replicate the findings, fraud may be discovered (or at least suspected) during a standard audit. When a research paper is submitted to a journal or a grant application is submitted to an agency, several experts review it to help decide whether the paper will be published or a grant awarded. Moments that look strange will probably attract the attention of at least one of the researchers. The third opportunity to detect fraud is when employees working with the researcher suspect the problem. This happened in 1980 in one infamous study. In a series of experiments that seemed to make a breakthrough in the treatment of hyperactivity in children with developmental delays, Stephen Bruning obtained data suggesting that in this case

stimulant medications may be more effective than antipsychotics (Holden, 1987). However, one of his colleagues suspected that the data was falsified. The suspicion was confirmed after three years of investigation by the National Institute of Mental Health { National Institute of Mental Health - NIMH), who financed some of Bruening's research. In court, Bruning pleaded guilty to two counts of representation in NIMH falsified data; in reply NIMH dropped charges of perjury during the investigation (Byrne, 1988).

One of the strengths of science is self-correction through repetition of experiments, careful testing, and the honesty of colleagues. And indeed, such an organization many times made it possible to detect fraud, as, for example, in the case of Brüning. But what if the experts can't detect any evidence of falsification, or if the falsified results match other, real discoveries (that is, if they can be repeated)? If fake results are consistent with true findings, there is no reason to check them and the fraud may remain undetected for many years. Something similar probably happened in psychology's most famous case of suspected fraud ("suspected" since the final decision is still pending).

The case concerns one of the most famous British psychologists - Cyril Burt (1883-1971), a leading participant in the debate about the nature of intelligence. His studies of twins are often cited as evidence that intelligence is predominantly inherited from one parent. One of Burt's results showed that identical twins have almost the same performance IQ, even if immediately after birth they were adopted by different parents and raised in different conditions. For many years, no one questioned his findings, and they entered the literature on the heritability of intelligence. However, attentive readers over time noticed that, describing in different publications the results obtained from studying different numbers of twins, Bert indicated absolutely same statistical results (same correlation coefficient). From a mathematical point of view, obtaining such results is very unlikely. Opponents accused him of falsifying results to bolster Burt's beliefs in the heritability of intelligence, while defenders countered that he had collected valid data but had become forgetful and inattentive in his reporting over the years. In defense of the scientist, it was also said that if he had been involved in fraud, he would probably have tried to hide it (for example, he would have taken care of the mismatch of correlations). There is no doubt that there is something strange about Burt's data, and even his defenders admit that many of them have no scientific value, but the question of whether there was intentional fraud or whether it was a matter of inattention and/or negligence may never be answered. resolved, in part, because after Bert's death, his housekeeper destroyed several boxes containing various documents (Kohn, 1986).

It has become very popular to examine the Burt case (Green, 1992; Samelson, 1992), but the important point for our purposes is that irregularities in the data, whether caused by errors, inattention, or intentional distortion, may go undetected if

the data fits well with other findings (that is, if they have been replicated by anyone). This was the case for Burt; his findings were quite similar to those found in other twin studies (eg, Bouchard & McGue, 1981).

It should be noted that some commentators (e.g., Hilgartner, 1990) believe that other than when falsified data replicate “correct” data, there are two other types of reasons why falsification may not be detected. First, the large number of studies published today allows spurious information to slip through undetected, especially if it does not report major findings that attract widespread attention. Secondly, the reward system is designed in such a way that new discoveries are paid, while the work of scientists engaged in “simple” reproduction of other people’s results is not considered fully creative and such scientists do not receive academic awards. As a result, some questionable studies may not be reproducible.

It is also believed that the reward system is in some sense the reason for the emergence of fraud. This opinion brings us to the final and fundamental question - why does fraud occur? There are various explanations - from individual (weakness of character) to social (a reflection of the general moral decline of the late 20th century). Placing responsibility on the academic reward system is placed somewhere in the middle of the list of reasons. Scientists who publish their research get promoted, gain tenure, win grants, and have the opportunity to influence audiences. Sometimes the constant “die, but publish” effect on the researcher is so strong that it leads him (or his assistant) to the idea of ​​​​breaking the rules. This may happen on a small scale at first (adding small amounts of information to produce the desired results), but over time the process will grow.

What does this mean for you as research students? At the very least, this means that you need to be conscientious with the data, follow the research procedure scrupulously, and never do not give in to the temptation to falsify even a small amount of information; Also, never discard data obtained from research participants unless there are clear instructions to do so, determined before the experiment begins (for example, when participants do not follow instructions or the researcher misdirects the experiment). In addition, it is necessary to retain the original data or at least have a brief description of it. The best defense against accusations that your results look weird is your ability to provide data on demand.

The importance of the ethical basis of research cannot be overestimated, which is why this chapter is placed at the very beginning of the book. But the discussion of ethical standards is not limited to one chapter - you will come across this topic more than once in the future. If you, for example, pay attention to the content, you will see that each subsequent chapter contains an insert on ethics, dedicated to

issues such as the confidentiality of field participants, participant selection, responsible use of surveys, and the ethical competence of experimenters. In the next chapter, however, we will consider a problem from a different circle - the development of an ideological basis for research projects.