Scientific integrity and the ethics of 'utter honesty'

Good post. From my experience, it's pretty easy to fool oneself (it's happened to me too many times).

It's very easy for one to have preconceived notions or ideas about something and as such it doesn't take much evidence if any for one to be convinced that one's ideas about them are correct even if factually they're to the contrary.

Moreover, precovinced ideas and notions often stop one from reviewing existing evidence about them that one already has in one's possession. When one's without supporting evidence then the very nature of that preconception may stop one from seeking out new or additional information about them.

Essentially, one's entrenched views that one hasn't come by through a process of substantial and rigorous thought one ought to always question.

The trouble is it's easy to say that, to keep the notion ever present at the forefront of one's mind is damn hard.

Following the exposure of a major scientific fraud, senior scientists sometimes voice concern about the possibility of harm to the public image of their field. News reports and transparent investigations sometimes seem to be making the problem worse. But in practice, the scientists most seriously affected by Hendrik Schon's claims were more affected by the reality of fraud than the bad appearance that followed its exposure.

Leading journals like Science and Nature are also reluctant to withdraw papers for similar image reasons, and Schon was a consummate con artist: "He knew it was important to be friendly towards reviewers, and to thank them generously for their valuable comments. He was not to shy to solicit editors politely for their support." He also would go to senior scientists, ask for their opinion on what kind of data would be expected if his imaginary devices worked, and then fabricate data according to their estimates.

Initially, there was also a major pushback against fraud claims by Bell Labs managers, up to giving poor performance reviews to some of Schon's co-workers who questioned his behavior on the basis of them 'not being good team players'.

So, yes, if people had managed to replicate his work, even partially, he'd likely have gotten away with it, and would now be some top scientist in some prestigious institution.

"Interesting" results would presumably include failures to replicate the results of other researchers. Those need to be published.

But really, for an honest scientist, aren't negative results at least as interesting as positive results? I'm assuming that a positive result is one that confirms some theory or assumption; so a negative result is actually more interesting, in that it kicks over the cauldron, and forces a re-evaluation of previous theories and assumptions. A positive result means "All is groovy; rudder amidships, full ahead". A negative result means "Wait - where exactly are we anyway?"

But this IS the crux of the problem. Chess has a similar situation--the forced checkmate is obvious after the fact. However, even chess masters miss forced checkmates up front at the table all the time. And that situation is far less subtle than research data.

> I was absolutely furious and I insisted that he stay back with me in the lab over lunchtime whilst I repeated the titration which he did.

I applaud him, but that's not good lab technique. Good lab technique is "Here's my lab notebook. You can see my data along with the handwritten timestamps. The procedure is also written in there. YOU will replicate this while I watch and correct YOUR lab technique." THAT'S good lab technique.

I had a physics lab as a freshman taught by an absolute tyrant of a professor. He would pull one notebook every lab and try to replicate your results. If he couldn't, you failed that lab. You had to record EVERYTHING in your lab notebook. Serial numbers of equipment, test and calibration procedure steps, data that you knew was invalid and record the reason why ... all in pen with timestamps with no erasures ever allowed.

It was brutal.

He was totally unapologetic. His stance: "If you can't get the same result three times, you don't even know that you're wrong let alone that you're right. I'm actually being generous in the lab--you only have to get the same result twice."