The Many Faces of Scientific Fraud - excerpt adapted from "Fraud in the Lab"

[Sly Saint]

Concentrates on lab research.

Is every scientific article a fraud? This question may seem puzzling to those outside the scientific community. After all, anyone who took a philosophy course in college is likely to think of laboratory work as eminently rational. The assumption is that a researcher faced with an enigma posed by nature formulates a hypothesis, then conceives an experiment to test its validity. The archetypal presentation of articles in the life sciences follows this fine intellectual form: After explaining why a particular question could be asked (introduction) and describing how he or she intends to proceed to answer it (materials and methods), the researcher describes the content of the experiments (results), then interprets them (discussion).

https://quillette.com/2019/12/21/the-many-faces-of-scientific-fraud/

another RT from MS, expert on the subject

 

[chrisb]

A few months ago when reading up on Willy Burgdorfer I was quite struck by this portion of his official NIH biography

DB: Did your colleagues help you write the American style?

WB: Yes. I think I still have the first manuscript I submitted to my colleagues and they took every word apart.

DB: And so did you put it back together the way that made it a successful article?

WB: Yeah.

DB: And I take it this got easier and easier the more you did it?

WB: Of course. The more you are writing, the more experience you get. I often refer to the "red line" running through the subject you are writing about. Stick to the red line, you will produce a good paper. Deviate from it, and you will lose the reader's attention.

Whilst I am all in favour of literary style, it should not obscure the relevant nuances of the "scientific" process.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

I read that as

The Many Faces of Sigmund Freud - excerpt adapted from "Freud in the Lab"

.......must have been a Fraudian slip.

 

[Saz94]

I read that as

The Many Faces of Sigmund Freud - excerpt adapted from "Freud in the Lab"

.......must have been a Fraudian slip.

Me too.

 

[chrisb]

Apologies in advance for returning to the dread subject. Fraud is a strong word and will sometimes be applicable. However there may be other cases in which it is better to think in terms of "ex post facto" reasoning justifying preconceived ideas.

At what would you assess the probability of McEvedy and Beard coming to the conclusions which they did prior to "discovery" of their documentary evidence? Does anyone doubt that the conclusions were reached in advance of study of the evidence, or that the evidence was selected to support the conclusions?