We must remember that science is not an end in itself, and not the meaning of life. This is one of the tools, albeit a very important one, in understanding the world. Misunderstanding science is no different from religious faith with your dogmas. It is not for nothing that one of the most totalitarian sects of our world is called the Church of Scientology (scientology from the English science - science), and in philosophy there is even a belief system called scientism, the adherents of which affirm the fundamental role of science as a source of knowledge and judgments about the world.

So, speaking essentially, the main “failures” of science include:
1. Unintentional errors.
2. Deliberate falsifications.

We are all human, and people make mistakes. Of course, it’s a stretch to call ancient people scientists (they didn’t have microscopes and scientific degrees with Nobel Prizes), but, nevertheless, the desire to understand the world around him has been manifested in people since ancient times. Therefore, mistakes and erroneous ideas about the world and laws arose actually from the very history of mankind.

Planet Earth in the form of a flat pancake, the continualism of Greek natural philosophy, ideas about the four principles (earth, water, air and fire.) of matter, attempts to transform base metals into gold - all these are components of history modern science. Humanity had to go through this path of knowledge, no matter how absurd it may seem now.

Moreover, here we must understand that mistakes and ignorance of the causes of phenomena are the lot of not only antiquity and the Middle Ages. Back in the 19th century, scientists believed that heat was transferred from one object to another using a special weightless substance, caloric, which was present in every body. Only at the end of the 19th century was radiation discovered, and ignorance of its consequences led to tragic results: Marie Skłodowska Curie, who conducted the experiments, subsequently died of leukemia. In the 20th century, fierce debate raged around the model of atomic structure. And even now science still doesn’t know much. When talking about science, it is important to be aware of its weaknesses in order to avoid mistakes.

For example, we love to look at beautiful drawings of dinosaurs or ancient people, but we rarely think that an important role in reconstructing the external appearance of fossils is played by the personal opinion of scientists, who, as we know, can make mistakes. So, examining the remains of the iguanodon, scientists announced that it had a horn on its nose. However, subsequent studies revealed that he did not have any horn, but had spines on his front paws...

It is important to understand that true knowledge is not always where it is confidently spoken in the name of science. Therefore, summing up the above, we can say that scientists, of course, cannot be accused of random errors, with the exception of such cases about which one can say with the words “oh, there is no need to deceive me, I am happy to be deceived myself.” The most striking example of such errors is our unforgettable, unshakable and painfully familiar Theory of Evolution. The tenacity with which many scientists cling to it can only be explained by the fact that they actually cannot offer anything else besides it. Does this theory have a right to exist? Of course, because it meets the minimum requirement for a theory, namely predictability.

The trouble begins when this theory is presented as an absolutely proven fact, which is not true. And if the scientists themselves know about this, then simple people leave school with the firm conviction that we are all, roughly speaking, descendants of monkeys. But the word Theory itself speaks of the unprovenness of this statement, because theory is precisely what needs to be proven. What does not need to be proven, as is known, is called an axiom.

Unfortunately, some scientists, unable to prove the truth of their research and discoveries, resort to falsification.

There are different types of falsifications. Sometimes scientists are driven by greed, sometimes by ambition. But for us, the greatest interest is in the falsifications and errors that were constructed for the purpose of war against religion.

As we have already said, the desire to present the theory of evolution as a fact forced some scientists to outright falsify. One of the weakest points in TE is the absence of fossil transitional species. Hence, the desire of scientists to fill this gap is understandable. And the bones of various animals and good quality glue were good helpers in this.

In December 1912, the Royal Geological Society officially announced the discovery in Piltdown of the remains of an intermediate species between ape and man - Eoanthropus. Subsequently, a monument was even erected to the Pittledown man at the site of his discovery. However, already at the end of the forties, doubts began to arise about the truth of the find. Research has shown that the eoanthropus is a fake. The skull fragments belonged to a human, and the lower jaw belonged to a chimpanzee. The teeth of the unlucky contender for the transitional laurels were simply filed down.

Another recent example of falsification is Archaeoraptor, which, according to inventive scientists, was supposed to be an intermediate step between dinosaurs and birds. In November 1999, National Geographic magazine published an article about the discovery of an archaeoraptor, but a year later, using X-ray tomography, it was proven that this specimen was a skillfully glued craft made from the bones of birds and a small dinosaur, Microraptor.

Another falsification: Haeckel's embryos. This enterprising scientist published pictures in 1986 that supposedly showed fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit and human embryos at three stages of development. This proved that the human embryo, during the first months of its development, briefly repeats the various stages of evolution: having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, and so on. And since Ernst Haeckel had no evidence, the resourceful scientist... simply changed the drawings of the embryos. As early as 1874, Haeckel's falsification was exposed by Professor Heath. However, the locomotive of evolutionary propaganda was at full speed at that time and any doubts were hushed up and obscured. And only at the end of the 20th century, Michael Richardson, an embryologist at the London Medical School of St. George in London, the question of falsification was raised again. A group created to study this problem collected embryos from 39 representatives of the animal kingdom and found that the embryos of different animals differ significantly. Richardson himself described it this way: “This is one of the worst cases of scientific falsification. It is shocking when you discover that someone considered a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It infuriates me ... What he (Haeckel) did was take a human embryo and copy it , claiming that the salamander and the pig and everyone else look exactly the same at the same stage of development. No, they don’t... They’re fakes.” (1)

History is also known for falsifications aimed at proving the variability of the body under the influence of external factors. For this purpose, markers and pens came in handy. Remembering their childhood, the scientists enthusiastically began to play coloring games: Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer painted “mating calluses” on the feet of toads. William Summerlin used a felt-tip pen to draw black spots on white experimental mice.

In addition, falsifications were identified in the works of one of the world's experts in the field of evolutionary biology, Anders Möller, who is the author of more than 450 articles and several books. After laboratory assistant Jette Andersen refuted Möller's claim that the article in the journal Oikos was based on of her data, an investigation was carried out which confirmed the rightness of the laboratory assistant. Now the rest of the scientist’s work is under suspicion. Those who like to bury rarities and then find them have done a disservice to archeology. We have already told about the Pitladunovsky man. Alas, this is not the case. the only case falsifications in archaeology.

In Japan, at one time, the archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura, nicknamed “the hand of God,” was very popular, who, since 1981, periodically dug up sensational finds tens of thousands of years old. In 2000, Fujimura reached the peak of his fame by finding a pebble with an artificially hollowed out hole, 600,000 years old (!!). And everything would be fine, but these paparazzi just can’t stay at home. One of these seekers spied on the scandals and filmed a descendant of the samurai burying objects in a hole that he himself was to find by chance. Involuntarily I remember the bearded saying about a piano that accidentally ended up in the bushes. Pressed against the wall by irrefutable evidence, the archaeologist was forced to admit to his falsifications.

Many scientists are driven by the desire to become famous, especially among their colleagues, and to leave their name in history. To their great delight, their undertakings are boldly picked up by the media: “after all, this is so interesting, and in the end, you have to write about something.” News agencies periodically release sensational news about supposedly found vaccines against AIDS or cancer, about the successful teleportation of substances, about the copulation of algae, about the creation of transistors the size of one molecule, etc., etc.. No one is surprised by statements even from reputable scientists about the miraculous properties of the pyramids, about the unique property of water to record information and about contacts with extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, not very well-known scientists are interested in such theories, because here, as they say, the niche is still free and there is a chance to make themselves known. For example, the until recently unknown archaeologist Harald Kresson became famous after his “discovery” in 1884 in Delaware of a sea shell depicting a mammoth. From this it was concluded that mammoths moved to America and survived almost to the present day, although neither before nor to this day have any fossil mammoths been found on the territory of the American continent. However, in 1988, James Griffin proved that this image is a copy of a similar image found earlier in Europe. Even nuclear physics was not without falsifications. In 1999, at the National Laboratory. Lawrence Berkeley, the discovery of superheavy elements 116 and 118 was announced. However, repeated experiments carried out in Darmstadt, Japan, and three times again in Berkeley gave negative results: a new genetic family could not be discovered. "We discovered that some of the data had been grossly manipulated," said Lee Schroeder, director of Berkeley's nuclear physics department. And of course, another reason for the occurrence of falsifications is man’s eternal love for the golden calf. After all, a scientist is also a person - he also needs to feed his children, and sponsors often stop funding research if they do not see any benefit in it. So scientists have to show miracles of resourcefulness according to the saying: “if you want to live, know how to spin.” For example, the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk was accused of misappropriating public and private funds ($6.5 million), which the scientist received for allegedly successful experiments on cloning.

Norwegian scientist Jona Destiny has received a $10 million grant from the US National Cancer Research Institute to study the effect of anti-inflammatory drugs on the risk of laryngeal cancer in smokers. In October 2005, the Lancet published research results that showed that when taking anti-inflammatory drugs, the risk of laryngeal cancer is reduced by 2.5 times. However, later it turned out by chance that the database of patients on whom the research was supposedly carried out turned out to be fake...

Stefan Willich, director of the Berlin Institute of Social Medicine, falsified clinical data to prove that loud noise contributes to heart disease. So, without in any way rejecting science, it is necessary to note that lies in the scientific world, alas, are not such an impossible phenomenon. Moreover, we see, perhaps, only the tip of the iceberg, because it is not always easy to detect falsification. Scientists often act very carefully, because through simple combinations it is possible, even if the deception is revealed, to attribute everything to the human factor. Usually, when falsifying, the data is not entirely made up. The scientist changes some data, ignores others, and gets quite acceptable results. Unfortunately, the scientific community itself does not always react adequately to controversial research, supporting the situation.

One of the most famous falsifications in the history of science is the “Pittledown Man.” Many Darwinists, however, claim that this event was an exception and nothing like this could happen now. However, the list of falsifications in science does not end there: it includes Archaeoraptor, and the birch moth, and the midwife toad, and Haeckel’s embryos, and Ancona sheep, and the Tasaday Indians, and Bathybius haeckelii, and Hesperopithecus (“man from Nebraska") - the “missing link”, which turned out to be a pig. Falsification has proven to be a "serious, deep-rooted problem" that impacts much of modern scientific research, especially in the field of evolution. Due to a series of events, scientists have been forced to admit this, and now they are trying to combat this problem.

Most of the known cases of falsification in science these days are in the biological sciences. In the field of medical biology alone, in 2001, the US Department of Health's Office of Research Integrity uncovered 127 cases of falsification. This number has increased for the third time since 1998. The problem is not just of academic interest: it concerns the health and lives of people. There is more at stake than prestige and money - falsification can cause human death, and in medical science, falsifiers are “playing with lives.” Similar cases occur all over the world. In Australia, scientific misconduct has created such a crisis that the issue has been taken up in the country's parliament, and scientists have been called upon to create an organization to monitor scientific integrity.

One example of falsification is the widely cited immunological studies on kidney transplantation performed by Zoltan Lukas (MD from Johns Hopkins University and PhD in biochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Recently it was discovered that they contain false information. Dr. Lucas was an assistant professor and taught surgery at Stanford University. His graduate student, Randall Morris, discovered that Lucas was writing reports on research that, as far as Morris knew, had never been done. Morris knew this because he would be obligated to take part in such a study! And these works were published in reputable journals and, undoubtedly, many scientists relied on their results when conducting their own research. As a result of this epidemic of modern falsifications, the editors of the magazine Nature concludes:

“The days are long gone when falsification of scientific results could be ignored on the grounds that it was carried out only by madmen who were not capable of harming anyone. The woefully long list of false studies suggests that falsifiers believe in the results they report, so they see no threat in other researchers trying to replicate their work.”.

Or they believe that no one would think of repeating their research, at least not for some time (many scientific studies are not repeated, but medical research is usually repeated several times because of its importance to human health, although this process often takes several years). The problem of falsification is so widespread that scientists who are not involved in falsification sometimes deserve special recognition - like the Italian scientist Franco Rasetti: “Today we hear about a lot of falsifications in science and create numerous commissions and ethics committees. For Rasetti, scientific integrity was an axiom.".

The falsification has spread to such an extent that the authors of one of the works devoted to this problem conclude: “...science retains very little resemblance to its usual image”. Although falsification of results is more common among researchers working alone, it also occurs in group projects under the supervision of colleagues. Among those accused of falsification are the great biologists of our time. The problem exists at Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, Baylor University and other major universities. A review of falsifications in a Nature editorial noted that in many cases, false results are the work not of ambitious young scientists, but of sophisticated researchers. The article reads:

“...a good dozen cases of falsification revealed in the last five years occurred at the best research institutions in the world - Cornell, Harvard, Yale, the Sloan-Kettering Institute and so on - and they involved people who were recognized among their peers as outstanding scientists . Requirements to publish work can explain the abundance of boring scientific literature - but not falsification."

Methods of falsification are varied - from falsifying data to outright rewriting of large sections from other articles. Nature finds that plagiarism is on the rise, especially in the field of molecular biology. To prevent information leaks, many scientists even present incorrect information in the manuscripts of their articles, making adjustments to it only immediately before publication. And the forecast for the future is disappointing: the number of falsifications will increase, especially in medical biology, where a scientist is required to publish a lot of work.

Falsifiers among Darwinists

The scientific method is an ideal, but there are cases in which it is especially difficult to apply. This applies in particular to the “proof” of certain scientific hypotheses – for example, from the field of “origin science”. A good example of this difficulty is "the theory of evolution [as] another example of a theory highly valued by scientists... but lying in a certain sense too deep to be directly proven or disproved". the main problem in this matter lies arrogance, a quality common in the scientific world. Some scientists believe that they know everything best and only they have the right to ask questions, and if they don't ask them, then no one else should either.

A famous case of falsification in evolutionary research involving the Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer was the subject of a classic book called The Case of the Midwife. Kammerer drew “nuptial calluses” in ink on the feet of the toads he studied. And although this forgery, which supposedly testified in favor of the Lamarckian theory of evolution, was exposed, for decades it was used by ideologists of evolution in Soviet science, including Trofim Lysenko. In another, similar case, William Summerlin falsified the results of an experiment in the 1970s by drawing black spots on white experimental mice with a felt-tip pen.

But a very recent case of falsification in evolutionary research is Archaeoraptor, the “evolutionary find of the century”, which allegedly confirmed the origin of birds from dinosaurs. National Geographic Society "hailed the fossil find... as the true missing link in the complex chain connecting dinosaurs and birds". Simons analyzed the authenticity of Archaeoraptor, which "several eminent paleontologists" called "the long-awaited key to the mystery of evolution," and proved that it was a hoax. High-resolution X-ray tomography revealed “scattered fragments skillfully glued together.” This falsification combined “fanaticism and extravagance,” “the collapse of an overgrown ego,” “abuse of trust,” and “vicious thought.” The story of the Piltdown Man repeated itself, and Simons adds that in this story, “every single” participant showed their worst side.

Paul Harvey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, expresses dismay at Möller's “massive body of work with new data and analysis”—all of which are now suspect,30 and a fact that “makes many editors nervous.” ...Michael Ritchie from the University of St. Andrews (UK), magazine editor Journal of Evolutionary Biology and member of the leadership of scientific societies publishing journals Evolution and Animal Behavior r [stated]: “We have to think carefully about what we are going to do and do it right. I think we shouldn’t make hasty decisions.”.

Möller's problem first surfaced when laboratory assistant Jette Andersen claimed that the Oikos journal article was not based on her data, as Möller claimed, but on fabricated data. The investigation confirmed this fact. Then suspicions affected other works. Scientists now fear that much of Möller's work was falsified, and all of his work is under suspicion.

Recent events indicate the seriousness of the problem

Unfortunately, medicine and biology especially suffer from falsifications. The authors of one study found 94 papers in the field of oncology that “probably” contained falsified data. Two years later, many of these works have yet to be rebutted by their authors. Thus, the conclusion is confirmed that “even if scientific incorrectness is proven, there is no mechanism to remove incorrect information from scientific literature”.

One case of falsification in medicine concerns cardiologist John Darcy of Harvard Medical School. The data that formed the basis of more than 100 of his publications over a period of about three years was fabricated. This case shows how just a few people can create many fraudulent publications. Having studied 109 articles by Darcy, researchers found in them completely “abnormal” data that obviously could not be true, numerous inconsistencies, and gross internal contradictions. There were examples of glaring errors and inconsistencies that the reviewers simply had to notice. The authors of the analysis conclude that the co-authors and reviewers who read this work were grossly incompetent.

Another case involved a biological study that seemed to “turn the generally accepted theory of cell signaling on its head.” The article received a refutation by the authors only “15 months after publication. This fact shocked cytologists, and, as the authors of the review note, this irrevocably ended the career of Siu-Kwon Chen, one of the co-authors of the article. Gary Struhl, a scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Columbia University (New York), co-author of the article and leader of the work, published a refutation on February 6.” In his rebuttal, Struhl stated that Chen, "performing postdoctoral research in his laboratory misreported results or failed to perform critical experiments described in the article"(S.-K. Chan and G. Struhl Cell 111, 265-280; 2002). Struhl discovered the problem by repeating some of Chen's experiments. Having not received the expected results, Struhl, according to him, asked for an explanation from his former subordinate, who by that time had moved to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. “Faced with this discrepancy, S.-K. Chen told me that most of his experiments... either were not performed or gave results different from those given in the article.". Struhl writes in the rebuttal: “Consequently, I declare that this article and its conclusions are invalid.”. They worked on the research project for five years before the results were published in October 2002.

How to measure a lie

Broad and Wade argue that lying in science has not been an exceptional phenomenon, but, on the contrary, a trend - from its origins to the present day. However, it would be very useful to try to measure the extent of falsification in science - currently and in the past. For example, is it possible to say that four percent of all scientific papers over the past thirty years contain false data? Or is it six percent? Or thirty? This proportion depends on what we call lying and whether we include unintentional lies (such as experimental errors) in this category. A figure of one percent may seem insignificant or, depending on your point of view, catastrophic. Let's say, if AIDS affects half a percent of the world's population, it will be called an epidemic (or rather, a pandemic). In addition, even if the experiment is repeated and the results are found to be inconsistent with the published data, it will be very difficult to prove the fact of falsification, since evidence of dishonesty is easy to hide. If a certain scientist claims that a given result has been obtained, then the maximum that can be proven is a consistent discrepancy between the results of repeated experiments and the data of this scientist. Dishonesty can only be exposed if some laboratory technician calls out the falsification.

Why has deception become common?

Modern system the organization of scientific research contributes to the spread of falsifications. Careers are at stake - positions, grants, lucrative employment contracts, and literally words welfare of scientists. This is partly a result of the “publish or quit” policy in academic institutions. As Broad and Wade note, “Grants and contracts from the federal government... quickly dry up unless they are followed by immediate and continued success.”. The incentive to publish, create a name for oneself in science, receive prestigious awards and invitations to participate in the management of educational institutions - all this creates a temptation for fraud. The authors come to a frightening conclusion: “Lies and violation of norms are inherent in science, like no other type of human activity”. And as Broad and Wade point out, scholars “They are no different from other people. Putting on a white coat at the door of the laboratory, they do not get rid of the passions, ambitions and mistakes that accompany a person on any path in life.”.

Typically, when falsified, the data is not completely rewritten. Most often, the falsifier slightly changes them, ignores some of the received data, and “corrects” some of the data to such an extent as to change a result that is close to expected, but does not have the required statistical reliability, to the level of 95% confidence. It is very difficult to understand whether the falsification was intentional. It is difficult to distinguish dishonesty from normal human error, carelessness, negligence or incompetence. A scientist can, guided by a speculative theory, turn a blind eye to obvious facts that contradict his ideas. Generally accepted theories seem to be carved in stone: they are not so easy to refute, even if there is a huge amount of new information that contradicts this “sacred” theory.

One of the reasons for falsification in science is the fact that the purpose of science is to create comprehensive theories, not to collect facts. Sometimes it is difficult to make the facts fit the theory - for example, in situations where there are many anomalies. In these cases, there is a strong temptation to ignore facts that do not agree with these theories. From the earliest days of science, the desire to gain recognition from colleagues (and become famous) led to the temptation to distort or ignore the data obtained, manipulate the facts, and even commit outright lies.

Don't notice your colleagues' mistakes

Given the fact that scientific communication is carried out primarily through printed publications, there is a tendency to publish only the work of those few scientists who have been able to significantly confirm a certain theory, and not to publish many results that appear to be less significant. Therefore, scientists often, consciously or not, do this: if the facts confirm the theory, then they are emphasized, if they do not fully confirm, then they are corrected, and if they contradict, then they are ignored. But there is also more sophisticated falsification. One example is the case of Dr. Gluck:

“Only a month has passed since the National Institute of Psychiatry issued a verdict on the Breuning investigation, and the medical community is already shocked by a new scandal. For 22 years, physician Charles Gluck rose through the ranks of science. Having received higher education in 1964, he has since published about 400 papers at a tremendous rate of about 17 per year. For his work on cholesterol and heart disease, Gluck received the prestigious Riveschl Prize from the University of Cincinnati in 1980. Gluck was the director of the Lipid Research Center and the Chief Clinical Research Center at the university, making him one of the most powerful and highly paid scientists in the state. Last July, however, the National Institutes of Health discovered that Gluck's paper, published in August 1986 in the journal Pediatrics, contained numerous inconsistencies and errors. The article, according to the NIH, was frankly shoddy, and its conclusions were unfounded.”

How did Gluck manage to get an article full of “inconsistencies and errors” published in a peer-reviewed journal? The practice of peer reviewing grant applications means that the scientists who decide who gets the money have a great deal of influence on what kind of research gets done. Opportunistic research is funded, and work that supposedly contradicts generally accepted theories (for example, Darwinism) has virtually no chance of receiving funding. Dalton notes that despite the well-known problem with peer review, “no serious alternative to this system has yet been proposed. “It's easy to say the system is bad. It's harder to fix it,” says Ronald McKay, a stem cell scientist at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Paralysis in Bethesda, Maryland. They tried to improve the matter by requiring reviewers to sign their names on reviews. It was assumed that if reviewers were required to sign a review, their work would become more open, and no one would be able to obstruct the research under the guise of anonymity. Rennie advocates this approach. He says: “This is the only system that is trustworthy, worthwhile, transparent and honest... I made this appeal to scientists, but the majority did not support me.”

The many “flaws in the article publishing system” are mainly due to the fact that “peer review does not guarantee quality.” One way to combat this problem is to publish the names of reviewers; these people must be trusted. Another way is to publish clear and strict criteria for selecting articles, and if an article does not meet these criteria, the author must revise it until it does.

Does the scientific world correct the mistakes of individual scientists?

Peer review turned out to be a sham. Eventually “much of what goes into print without causing any objection is in fact incorrect, and no one knows about it - or maybe no one cares about it”. Anderson has analyzed attempts to defend the peer review system: e.g. Chief Editor Science Donald magazine Donald Kennedy states that “no one ever expected that peer review would reveal falsifications.” Kennedy believes that he partially succeeded in justifying this system of review, but also Science, and in Nature Articles containing false data have been published, and the inconsistencies in these articles can hardly be called invisible. As an example, he cites Jan Hendrik Schon, who in one of his works

“used the same curve in two different graphs, and in another article gave the results without error values. Both journals emphasize that they select articles for publication on the basis of high scientific merit and reviewers on the basis of excellence. Could editors and reviewers have failed to notice these glaring inconsistencies? In these articles, among other things, statements were made that were of great importance for industry and science. In addition, Sean was exposed by scientists who were not involved in the review."

The problem is that “science has a pathogenic side,” since “lust for power” or “greed” “can afflict a scientist” just like anyone else. Anyone who has worked in a laboratory or university, or even read about the history of science, is familiar with the pride, envy, and competitive spirit that afflicts scientists working in the same field. In an effort to “win,” some scientists “concocted” discoveries for themselves: they adjusted the actual results to what they expected to get.

The main problem with falsification is science itself. Scientists “see their profession in the light of spectacular ideals created by philosophers and sociologists. Like any believer, they tend to interpret what they see in accordance with what their faith dictates.". And, unfortunately, science is "a complex process in which the observer can see almost anything he wants by narrowing his field of view". For example, James Randi concluded that scientists are very easy to deceive using magic tricks. The problem of objectivity is very serious because many scientists believe passionately in their work and the theories they are trying to prove. This passion can support a scientist in his efforts to achieve a result, or it can affect the result and even distort it.

Many examples show that scientists are especially prone to self-deception in cases where they are dealing with facts that call into question the foundations of their worldview. “All people making observations, even well-trained ones, tend to see what they expect to see.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the highly controversial field of evolutionary research.

Robert Rosenthal, in a series of experiments that have now become classics, studied scientists' perceptions of experimental results. In one of the experiments, he suggested that scientists conduct a test with “active” and “sluggish” rats. In reality, the rats were randomly divided into two groups. None of the scientists participating in the experiment had experience conducting this test. The scientists reported that the "active" rats performed better, although in fact this was not the case. The experimenters saw what they wanted (or expected) to see (now called the “expectancy effect”) - perhaps unconsciously; The scientists probably stopped the stopwatch a fraction of a second earlier when dealing with “active” rats, and a fraction of a second later when dealing with “sluggish” ones. Other similar experiments have yielded similar results.

Science as a weapon of suppression

One way to discredit an unpopular theory, especially when it comes to the origin of life, is to call it “unscientific” and the opposing theory “scientific.” Sociologists have studied the harmful effects of such labeling for years. This approach has a positive effect on one of the directions formed due to artificial separation, and a negative effect on the other direction. In any scientific controversy, the correct thing to do is to judge each point of view on its merits, using the purely scientific method.

In a study of falsifications in science, Broad and Wade argue that the term "science" often acts as a "label" intended to imply the truth or falsity of a statement. According to them, the conventional wisdom is that “science is a strictly logical process, objectivity is an integral part of the scientist’s attitude toward his work, and scientific opinions are carefully tested by colleagues and repeated experiments. In such a self-monitoring system, errors of any kind are quickly identified and corrected.”

The authors then show that this view of science is incorrect. The result of their work helps us understand the features of scientific work from a more realistic perspective than is common today. They show that the supposedly “error-proof” mechanisms of scientific research often fail to correct the consequences of falsification, which they call the “epidemic” of modern science. The desire to “be first,” the need to receive grants, trips to exotic places for conferences, and the temptation of money and prestige force many scientists to abandon the high ideals they had at the beginning of their careers.

conclusions

Published literature and interviews I conducted with medical school faculty confirm that there is a problem with falsification in science today. Reasons for falsification include money, positions, grant opportunities, professional competition, and the need to prove a theory or idea. But there is another factor. This is a disregard for Christianity and moral values, which resulted in a crisis of the ethical foundations that restrained falsification. The problem of falsification is especially acute in areas of science that support Darwinism, and it has been around for a long time. The literature describes hundreds of cases of falsification of scientific results. Unfortunately, even with repeated experiments (which is not done in all areas of science), falsification is very difficult to recognize. As a rule, only the assistants and colleagues of the falsifier can expose the falsification, but often they do not report its fact, since it can cost them friendships and reputation. They may even become the target of revenge. According to Roman, because of this, “informers” are “rare.”

As a result, falsification in science, according to many, has grown into an epidemic. The biological sciences are of great concern in this regard. It is believed that more than 10% of scientists are dishonest in this area. It follows that most scientists cite false or at least inaccurate data in their works. Meanwhile, there are very few extensive studies on falsifications (and, probably, the cases found in their course are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg).

Jerry Bergman is preparing to receive the ninth academic degree. The main areas of his scientific interests are biology, chemistry, psychology, scientific and technical research. Bergman graduated from a number of educational institutions, including Wayne State University (Detroit), Medical College of Ohio (Toledo), and Bowling Green University. Dr. Bergman is a prolific writer; In addition, he teaches biology, chemistry, and biochemistry at Northwestern University in Archbold, Ohio.

Knowingly misinterpreting something for the purpose of obtaining some benefit (for example, falsifying scientific data, data, etc.).

Falsification should be distinguished from.

There is also a place for adulteration in food production. Sometimes, to improve organoleptic properties, various additives are used that imitate quality improvement (sweeteners, dyes, etc.)

Falsification in art

Fake things

Counterfeit is an imitation that is usually made with the intent to maliciously misrepresent its content or origin. Word fake most often describes counterfeit or , but may also describe things such as: , or any other product, especially when it results in infringement or infringement of a trademark. Often, in order to avoid accusations of violation, counterfeit items are marked with brands that are very similar to the original names of the manufacturing companies, but with one or more letters in the name changed. The most famous cases: -, Abibas- etc.

Food adulteration

Food adulteration was extremely common until the 19th century. Research on mixing practices conducted in early XIX century, and the development of methods for detecting adulteration in the mid-19th century led to the adoption of the first food adulteration law in Great Britain in 1860 ( Food Adulteration Act). In 1906, through the efforts of a chemist, publicists (, and others) with the support of the president, “” was adopted, and in 1907 it came into force: the FDA was created.

According to the Federal Law “On Food Quality and Safety”:

Counterfeit food products, materials and products - food products, materials and products that have been deliberately altered (counterfeit) and (or) have hidden properties and quality, information about which is deliberately incomplete or unreliable.

Counterfeiting of perfumery and cosmetic products

Counterfeiting of medicines

At the end of the 20th century, falsification became widespread. It is believed that a significant part of them is produced in the same plants where “normal drugs” (“unregistered”) are produced. The other part is manufactured in small clandestine production facilities, in which proper production conditions cannot be ensured at all; in this case, the drugs may differ greatly from what is indicated on the label. Some fakes are sold through.

Control over medicines is assigned to the relevant authorities of the Ministry of Health.

Despite the wide coverage of the problem of falsification medicines in , control authorities almost never transfer the case to, limiting themselves to the removal from sale of low-quality and falsified drugs. This indicates both the weakness of regulatory authorities and imperfect legislation, and high potential.

Falsification and forgery in philately

Falsification in science

Fakes in the media

In 2017, the phrase “fake news” was recognized as the phrase of the year. This phrase meant sensational, but deliberately false reports. Experts from note the vague nature of the concept of fake news, which can include, secretive and. Sometimes true reports are presented as fakes, the headlines of which exaggerate the sensationalism. Fakes are often passed off as eyewitness accounts who send fake photos to the editor. As a rule, fakes are spread by media that themselves are in error. Subsequently, the media may apologize for publishing fake news. Fake news can be news that refers to “unnamed sources.” In some countries () legislators are planning to introduce criminal liability for disseminating fake news, but human rights activists warn that this could serve as a legal basis for restricting freedom of speech. The word “fake news” was used to describe the channel.

IN

As photo processing technology advances, images are becoming more and more common on the Internet.

Fake (fake) accounts can also be accounts, pages or sites with content similar to the main site.

see also

Notes

1. "3D barcodes target counterfeit drugs and devices"
2. On the quality and safety of food products (as amended as of December 30, 2008) (version effective from December 26, 2009) (undefined) . Products. JSC "Kodeks" Retrieved April 15, 2010. Archived February 20, 2012.
3. Falsification // Philatelic Dictionary / V. Grallert, V. Grushke; Abbr. lane with him. Yu. M. Sokolova and E. P. Sashenkova. - M.: Communication, 1977. - P. 193-194. — 271 p. — 63,000 copies.

He is studying for a PhD at UCLA and is at the center of one of the biggest scientific scandals ever. last years: LaCour falsified a political science study purporting to demonstrate that gay campaigners could change voters' opinions about same-sex marriage in brief conversations. After it was revealed that he had fabricated data and had never even worked with the polling company whose services he allegedly used, Science magazine.

“How could this happen?” the New York Times editorial board asked this week. Their answer is that fraud is largely the fault of deceitful or overambitious rule-breakers and researchers who do not properly check the raw data on which scientific work is based. The title of the article is “Cheating Scientists.”

But to focus on academic fraud is to miss the larger problem. It’s not just the “black sheep” who are to blame. The scientific process itself has serious structural flaws that make it difficult to expose fraudsters and, in some cases, even encourage the inaction of responsible researchers.

Most studies are not repeated - it is not profitable for scientists to do this

Let's take the problem of replication. One of the principles of the scientific method is that scientists should try to verify previous findings by repeating experiments. This is how Lacour's deception was discovered: another scientist, David Bruckman, tried to repeat the study and realized that it was impossible.

The problem, however, is that this kind of work is done very rarely. “The vast majority of scientific articles do not receive any development,” explains Harvard University scientist Sheila Yasanoff. Attempts by scientists to replicate the work of others are often discouraged because they are considered less important or worthy than discovering something new.

It is significant that others in the scientific community tried to dissuade Bruckman from checking Lacour's work. He was encouraged to build a career on new research, rather than on refuting the work of others. Jesse Singal observed in his stunning methodical analysis of the situation for New York Magazine:

“Throughout the entire trial, until the very last moment when irrefutable evidence finally began to emerge, Bruckman was repeatedly advised by friends and advisers to remain silent about his doubts, lest he earn a reputation as a troublemaker, or, worse, as someone who simply repeats and explores the work of others instead of discovering something himself.”

This is problem. This makes it not only more difficult for scientists to detect deception, but also more difficult to weed out low-quality work. As the scientific community began to take replication seriously, it turned out that much of the cutting-edge research could not actually be tested by replication.

They are all right. Science is carried out by people and it will inevitably be imperfect. Sometimes people will cheat and cheat, or simply push low-quality and incorrect research through the publication mechanism. We know that replicability can help correct some of these shortcomings. We know that increased attention to the influence of hierarchy can also help. Instead of talking about unscrupulous scientists over and over again, we must adjust the system of science to weed out the errors and deceptions that we know will continue to come between us and the truth.

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 unlawful 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 strengths science is self-correction due to 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 save the original data or at least have it short description. 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.