There is of course a great deal of discussion – both on and off campus – over the fraudulent use of data. People are surprised, shocked and angry. And so they should be. I have the same feelings. However, this is not the time to explore the minutiae of this particular case. Besides, I have already said quite openly everything that needs to be said on this matter.
What I would like to talk about here is what I have heard and read about the background to this case, and the pressure to perform in science. Are we perhaps demanding too much from our scientists? Certainly, there is pressure to perform in the Academy. There are all kinds of research rankings. Teaching is evaluated. We are ranked in terms of our media coverage. We want our people to secure grants from national and international organizations. All of this is certainly true.
But we must not confuse the means with the end. The Academy does not come down to indicators and rankings. On the contrary, the essence of the Academy is sound knowledge, insight, practical wisdom and the ability to inspire people in the name of shared ideals.
Most of all, it is about honest science. For after all, it is science that will outlive all of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You make an interesting, yet universally accepted point. It makes sense that science should first and foremost require an honest approach, but I would argue that the practical world does not always reward those that follow the desirable path. The faculty of Humanities requires its students to perform social research with actual participants (particularly during thesis-writing-time), which are often difficult if not impossible to find. Procuring participants at this university is not a desirable situation to have to go through, particularly when upcoming deadlines are in sight.
ReplyDeleteMy fellow students are buried under the questionnaires, interviews and studies they are asked to take part in. I dare not ask how many students fill in said questionnaires truthfully.
As frequently proves the case, the practical world conflicts with its theoretical cousin. Fraud in science is as unacceptable as it is unfortunately common. I argue here that the ultimate solution to this problem is not to discourage fraud, but circumvent its need entirely; look to web 2.0 services that grant access to thousands of potential study participants to fill out questionnaires for virtual currency, or set up online networks of willing participants with partner universities for modest compensation; if one might just as easily send off a questionnaire to hundreds or thousands of participants throughout the country, one would probably not bother to make up the data themselves - and you may find fraudulent use of data decreased significantly. And, just maybe, our Times University Ranking may go up by a point or two.
Pascal