SFWRITER.COM > Futurism > Science FACTion > Fraud in Science
Fraud in Science
Copyright © 2003 by Robert J. Sawyer
All Rights Reserved.
Nebula Award-winning science-fiction writer
Robert J. Sawyer
writes and presents a weekly science column for
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's CBC Radio One.
The columns, which have the umbrella title
Science FACTION: Commentaries from the Cutting Edge of Science,
are produced by Barbara Saxberg in Toronto, and
syndicated to local CBC Radio stations across Canada.
Recorded 23 June 2003
Host: The name Jayson Blair will live in journalistic
infamy. He's the New York Times reporter who fabricated
dozens of stories for that newspaper. But such deception doesn't
just appear in newspapers and that's dangerous, says
science-fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer.
Robert J. Sawyer: It's almost beyond belief that Jayson
Blair's flagrant deception went undetected for so long,
especially at what many used to consider the finest newspaper in
the world. I mean, shouldn't there be mechanisms in place to
prevent this sort of thing from happening?
Actually, there are: big newspapers and magazines employ "fact
checkers" to minimize the number of errors that get published.
But that safety net failed woefully in case of Jayson Blair. Why?
Because fact checkers are there only to catch accidental slip
ups, not deliberate deception.
The same is true in the world of science: a process called "peer
review," in which anonymous experts read through and comment on
papers submitted to scientific journals, is supposed to catch
errors in fact and logic.
What they don't catch well, though, is deliberate deception, and,
sadly, that seems to be rampant in science these days.
Researchers make up data, lie about results, and fudge the facts.
Why? Are they crazy? No but the are desperate.
Academic tenure is awarded based in part on a scientist's
publishing record if you don't publish papers, you lose
job security. And funding bodies are biased toward giving grants
to those whose work is showing positive results: an honest
negative result may mean your money disappears; a dishonest
positive result can help keep the cheques coming in.
Things are so bad that Denmark has struck a Committee on
Scientific Dishonesty. It recently ruled that the surprise
bestselling book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Björn
Lomberg, which claimed that global warming was a myth, was
"clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice"
and accused the author of "systematic one-sidedness in the choice
of data and line of argument."
Maybe that's forgivable; we all pick and choose data to support
our positions. But what about when the data has been completely
made up? Earlier this year, Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs fired
wunderkind Hendrik Schön, whose dozens of breakthrough
papers had put him on a fast track to a Nobel Prize.
A special committee found dishonesty in 17 of Schön's 25
most-recent papers, most of which had appeared in the respected
journals Science and Nature. The thing that gave
Shön away was simply the sloppiness with which he carried
out his deceptions: he used the same graph in three different
papers to illustrate three different things, and an attentive
reader noticed. Shön's work had been in cutting-edge fields
such as nanotechnology and advanced computer circuitry; he'd
claimed to have developed a single-molecule transistor
which would have been a massive breakthrough ... except it never
Also recently fired: Victor Ninov of California's Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. There are only 92 naturally
occurring elements in nature, but Ninov claimed to have produced
two new ones, dubbed elements 116 and 118. A five-month
investigation led to the conclusion that the results were
Now, perhaps only scientists care about nanotechnology and exotic
elements. But fraud goes even further, affecting our health care.
In February 2003, a previously published paper was disowned by the
New England Journal of Medicine after it was found that
the signatures of doctors who supposedly vetted the data had been
forged. That paper had been about a risky medical procedure:
deliberately inducing a heart attack to shrink the heart's
central wall when it has become so stiff that it keeps blood from
Although stories of fraud in science don't get nearly as much
press as do cases of journalistic wrongdoing, they can be far
Simple peer-review just isn't sufficient for catching fraud; we
may have to begin requiring actual replication of experiments by
third parties before results can be published. Also, the
scientific community needs a code of ethics, and the equivalent
of disbarment for those who violate its principals.
After all, lives are at stake.
I'm Robert J. Sawyer.
More Good Reading
Other "Science FACTion" commentaries for CBC Radio
"2020 Vision" scenarios for Discovery Channel Canada
Media backgrounder on Rob Sawyer
Rob's novel Frameshift, which deals with fraud in science
HOME • MENU • TOP
Copyright © 1995-2016 by Robert J. Sawyer.