In a previous post, I examined the murky world of 'Academia' and discussed some of the issues that undermine the higher education system as a whole (Refer to post, 'The Problem With Academia Part I'). In today's post, I intend to take a different tack. I would like to address a topic rarely/barely broached and that is the problem of 'Academic Fraud'.
Generally, the folks who are attracted to a career in science are not driven by expectations of becoming wealthy. Smart individuals would be better served financially if they pursued a career in law, finance, medicine or politics. There is a common conception that folk who become scientists do so because of a deep underlying curiosity to seek out new knowledge and expand their area of study for the good of mankind. Scientists are represented as being idealistic, unselfish, unworldly individuals. Perhaps unkempt and socially awkward loners with a penchant for deep intellectual thought and deep insight. Scientists hanker after a world-shaking discovery. A breakthrough in their field of study that will rewrite the history books and propel mankind into a new epoch of scientific endeavour. Enough of the histrionics, Flaxen. Let's look at the truth.
The Reality
Scientists are no different from anyone else. As a professional scientist, I can attest to the average scientist's commonplace and banal character. As a group, they are prone to the same foibles and weaknesses that are universal. Don't believe the dominant media and societal conception of the typical scientist as 'head in the air', bookish, and socially inept. Scientists differ little from other educated, professional folk in their society. In other words, and on the whole, they are a boring lot.
Enter at your own risk- there be Dragons
Introductory Bit
Part of the problem is the 'System' itself. Anyone dreaming of an academic career faces numerous, sometimes overwhelming, challenges and hurdles. Regardless, there will always be students who are prepared to undergo the perils of higher education in the hope that they can carve out a career as a bona fide academic. Tis a perilous journey, and many will fall by the wayside in their pursuit of sublime academic repose.
First, the enterprising student must obtain the necessary academic credentials. What follows relates specifically to the UK. Obviously, a bachelor's degree is just the start, then a master's degree and finally, the much-coveted doctor of philosophy degree (PhD). Usually, to obtain the necessary competitive funding for your PhD, you will be required to achieve a First or Upper Second Honours. There are exceptions to this rule. Having a father who is an esteemed professor in the field is a help.
The Dream. The Problem
You are now prepared for the journey. To begin that journey, the bright-eyed and suitably educated candidate must attain a post-doctoral research position at a suitable academic institution. These positions are of a fixed term and usually no more than three years in duration. The funding is obtained from a government grant or from a commercial source. Obviously, there is a limited amount of funds available for disbursement, and thus, competition is fierce. Once suitably ensconced, the pressure to write scientific papers and publish in prestigious journals is intense. Your professorial supervisor wants publishable results. Every paper you publish sports the name of the supervisor, thus enhancing his/her professional prestige/ranking, hopefully leading to the attraction of more research gelt. And, thus, there is an incentive to produce good quality research that is worthy of publication. Sadly, not all research is sexy or productive, especially in the short term. I can personally attest to this issue. After three years of research endeavour, I was unable to produce a corpus worthy of publication- nuff said. By its nature, research seeks to expand into the unknown, trying to tease out true, verifiable knowledge. Most work is slow and tedious, with many blind ends. The poor post-doc is under the strain and burden of producing publishable work. Inevitably, there is a strong push for bulk publishing. Perhaps work that would have constituted a single paper fifty years ago is now split into three. For the unscrupulous researcher, there is an impetus to generate good positive results, and maybe those results can be gently teased toward perfection by omitting outlying or contrary data (just saying). The system, as it is currently applied, rewards the dishonest.
After a successful stint as a post-doc, there is the possibility of obtaining a renewal of funds or perhaps a post-doctorial role becomes available at another institution. However, the 'Holy Grail' (where is the holy hand grenade of Antioch when you need it?) is academic tenure. These positions are rare and highly sought after. Your previous attainments as a post-doc now become vitally important. If tenure is obtained, you are effectively entering the hallowed world of academia as a lecturer, researcher and administrator. But forget about resting on your laurels. Your supervising professor will apply pressure for continued publication, as before. But now, you will be expected to apply for research grants yourself. With research gelt, you can now engage your own post-graduate students and post-docs, all producing publishable research. In general, the greater the volume of published work, the greater you will be rewarded. A heady mix of carrot and stick and a dangerous enticement to 'enhance' and 'tidy up' data; perhaps.......
Enough, Flaxen, Stop The Rant
A little thoughtful reflection and balance is required. I would not like my readers to think that the whole of 'Academia' is an evil empire imbued with the sole purpose of exploitation and the generation of large quantities of all that sweet, sweet gelt. No doubt there are serious issues that need to be brought forth, discussed, and hopefully addressed. After all the system is a reflection of the society under which we strain. Capitalism is not without its problems, but it is the best political and economic system we have. Unremitting greed is not without its merits.
In the same vein, I don't want folks to go away thinking that a large percentage of scientists are scheming, lying, conniving fraudsters; that is not the case. Most scientists express a genuine interest in their work, do not knowingly fiddle with their data and operate with integrity. For the most part, it is a small sector of the scientific community that cause the most damage.
In the second post, I'll examine a couple of high-profile cases of frank deception, consider the data outlining the incidence of fraud in general, and discuss how the problem is to be addressed.
