Misconduct and the inability to adhere to rules and guidelines can be observed in various aspects of life and, it can lead to severe consequences in some cases. The topic chosen for this examination is science fraud because it affects the community and perception of the general public in regards to the reliability and trustworthiness of experiments and researches. This paper aims to examine science fraud, its implications, and its connection to the social sciences.
While it is evident that fraud is not acceptable in any form, unarguably, upon close examination, it can be detected in scientific works of some authors. According to Markowitz and Hancock, the number of misconduct instances in science increased in recent years, which lead to a need for examining this issue and location-specific strategies that can help detect fraud (435). Firstly, the significant problem that distinguishes science fraud is the misleading implications of results.
Depending on a particular field and scope of the examination, this misconduct may have either minimalistic or significant effect on the overall scientific community. Grant describes his experience with an attempt to replicate outcomes of research from colleges that resulted in many efforts and resources being wasted. As it later became evident, these scientists faked their results to be able to publish their study in a respectable journal. Grant states that people who falsify the results of researchers are able to win grants and awards without having to put actual effort into work. By doing so, they obstruct others who work hard for the benefit of science.
It is especially crucial to investigate the topic from a perspective of social sciences because the field can be subjected to subjectivity, and testing the hypothesis that led to particular results may be difficult. For instance, Vermeulen and Hartmann describe an experiment in which generally accepted methods of data collection and result interpretation were applied, where “people become one-and-a-half years younger after listening to a Beatles song” (189). The aim was to illustrate that it is easy to alter data in social sciences research. Grant substantiates the argument that, in many cases, researchers have the ability to tailor the results by choosing one sample that fits their initial hypothesis or customizing the numbers.
The point of view and specific perspective from which researchers examine an issue provides room for different interpretations of results. However, LaFollette states that social science concepts can help develop practices that would eliminate fraud in research (35). Moreover, the codes of ethics that are already applied in fields such as psychology are based on these strategies. One of such approaches is offered by Markowitz and Hancock, whose examination of fraudulent publications leads to a conclusion that dishonest scientists tend to use obscure language in their texts (435). This strategy is one of the approaches that the scientific community can apply to protect itself and the general public from misconduct.
Overall, science fraud has become more evident as an issue in recent years due to an increased number of detected cases. This leads to misconceptions and loss of trust from the general public and the inability of honest scientists to receive praise for their work. Social sciences are mainly subjected to this problem. However, the concepts from this field can help develop practices that would enable the illumination of fraud in scientific research.
Works Cited
Grant, Richard. “Why Scientists Need to do More about Research Fraud.” The Guardian, 2018. Web.
LaFollette, Marcel. “The Role of the Social Sciences in the Analysis of Research Misconduct.” Fraud and Fallible Judgement: Deception in the Social and Behavioural Sciences, edited by Nathaniel Pallone and James Hennessy, Routhledge, 2017, p. 35-47.
Markowitz, David and Jeffrey Hancock. “Linguistic Obfuscation in Fraudulent Science.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 435-445.
Vermeulen, Ivar and Tilo Hartmann. “Questionable Research and Publication Practices in Communication Science.” Communication Methods and Measures, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 189-192.