E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Donald Kennedy More Questions About Research Misconduct Science 2002; 297: 13 [Summary] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Re: Re: Research Misconduct

Isa Kocher   (16 January 2004)

Re: Research Misconduct

Dr. BRAHAMA D. SHARMA, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life)   (15 August 2002)

Research Misconduct

C. Isa Kocher   (29 July 2002)

It's about money.

Patrick R Galloway   (29 July 2002)

Today's science: science or business?

Shobi Veleri   (22 July 2002)

Re: Re: Research Misconduct 16 January 2004
Isa Kocher, education Ministry Of Higher Education Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Re: Research Misconduct	Another reader states that I "implied" that there were no consequences. I would just like to point out that saying that the consequences are ultimately not fatal hardly implies that there are no consequences and I went on to mention some of the serious social and other consequences. It is just that ultimately truth wins.
Re: Research Misconduct 15 August 2002
Dr. BRAHAMA D. SHARMA, Ph.D.,C.Chem.,FRSC(life), Professor of Chemistry(retd) N/A Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Re: Research Misconduct	The response by Kocher seems to imply that publication of fraudulant research in the fields of science does not hurt science. The publication of fraudulent research articles in the natural sciences, by those who have gained the confidence of the scientific community, does irreparable damage to the scientific community as a whole, to the institution affiliated with the authors, to the journal in which the research was published, to the reviewers who reviewed the research article, and to the funding agencies who granted the funds.
Research Misconduct 29 July 2002
C. Isa Kocher, educator Sohar University, Oman Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Research Misconduct	Briefly, the ultimate consequences of research misconduct are not fatal to science. Piltdown Man never really changed much, never really made it into mainstream science, and remained an anomally. Bad science eventually sticks out. However, the political and social consequences of fraudulent science are very real and often permanent. Powerful political and pseudoreligious agendas exist that seek to replace science with narrow pseudoscience, such as "intelligent design." Their accusations that scientists have overriding long-term political agendas only gain credence when scientists themselves engage in fraud. We live now in a world where the most crucial political issues are scientific, whether global warming, homeland security, stem cell research, or sustainable development, etc., and fraudulent science harms everyone in immeasurable ways.
It's about money. 29 July 2002
Patrick R Galloway, researcher Respond to this E-Letter: Re: It's about money.	Kennedy misses the main question. Why cook the books? The obvious answer is to obtain more research funding. Say, after two years of experiment and $500,000 in funding, no results have been found that would result in renewal of a grant. It probably would not take much to tweak the results in such manner to convince the grant review committee that more research is warranted. The only solution is to have two or more completely independent research teams work on the same problem. This is expensive. An overseer will not be helpful because usually the research is too complex to understand unless you are directly involved. I treat everything I read in academic research journals (of all kinds) with a great deal of caution. It is difficult to know who to believe. I noticed recently that two government workers started two major forest fires. One frankly admitted that he did it to gain employment.
Today's science: science or business? 22 July 2002
Shobi Veleri, Research Fellow University of Regensburg Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Today's science: science or business?	"Science is a community venture dependent upon shared values, and trust is one of them. In the end, that's where we have to put our faith." That's how I also perceive science, and pursue a career in science. It's absolutely an endeavour set on good faith and virtues. Unfortunately I have bee confronted with data published even in some "prestigious journals" that are fraudulent and misleading. Science should take us forward, not backward. Following up on fraudulent data (unknowingly) simply takes us backward. Today's science takes the color of "business" and hence loses its honesty. Often the name of a lab and known persons can help win many articles a place in good journals even if the article is not that important. In many fields, the peer reviewers also won't encourage any ideas that question their own views. Thus, good information may stay in the background. Perhaps Science should take some initiative to overcome such professional rivalism. Would Science dare to entertain criticism of its policies?