Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T17:04:00.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SCIENTIFIC FRAUD Part I: Definition, General Concepts, Historical Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2022

Enrico Bucci  and
Ernesto Carafoli Open the ORCID record for Ernesto Carafoli [Opens in a new window]
Enrico Bucci
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. Email: [email protected]
Ernesto Carafoli
Affiliation:
Venetian Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Italy. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientific fraud still lacks a precise, universally accepted definition: the borders between unambiguously established fraud, errors, misconduct are uncertain: this frequently complicates decisions on whether or not cases of questionable behaviour can be classified as true fraud. In this article we have listed the behaviours which establish that true fraud has occurred. The most important is undoubtedly the intentionality of the behaviour, aimed at creating fictitious support of a theory or of a hypothesis. The fraudulent behaviour must have violated the standards of the time in which it occurred: this is an important point, as these standards may have been different in different times. Also important is the fact that the assessment of the seriousness of suspected cases is incremental: it goes from simple misconduct cases that would border on negligence, to cases of evident fraud, e.g. the fabrication or falsification of data or results, and/or the appropriation (plagiarism) of another person’s ideas or data without giving appropriate credit. In recent times, scientific fraud has become widespread, but it was known in the distant past as well: it has involved scientists who are real icons in the history of science. This article analyses the most important cases, dissecting with great attention the particular aspects of the accusations that had been levelled at them. With one exception, it clears them all of the accusations.

Type
Review Essay
Information
European Review , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2022 , pp. 835 - 849
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Academia Europaea

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babbage, C (1830) Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes. London: B. Fellowes.Google Scholar
Broad, W and Wade, N (1982) Betrayers of the Truth. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Bucci, E (2015) Cattivi Scienziati, Torino: Add Editore.Google Scholar
Caporale, C and Fanelli, D (2013) Guidelines for research integrity. CNR Committee for Research Ethics and Bioethics, 1–16.Google Scholar
Evans, J (1987a) On the origin of the Ptolemaic star catalogue: part 1. Journal for the History of Astronomy 18, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J (1987b) On the origin of the Ptolemaic star catalogue: part 2. Journal for the History of Astronomy 18, 233–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P (1974) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. New Jersey, Atlantic Highlands Humanities.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA (1936) Has Mendel’s work been rediscovered? Annals of Science 1, 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geison, GL (1995) The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O (1980) Was Ptolemy a fraud? Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 21, 253–266.Google Scholar
Glashow, SL (2008) The errors and animadversions of Honest Isaac Newton. Contributions to Science 4, 105–110.Google Scholar
Goodstein, D (1991) Scientific fraud. Engineering & Science, Winter, 11–19.Google Scholar
Goodstein, D (2000) In defense of Robert Andrews Millikan. Engineering and Science 4, 30–38.Google Scholar
Hartl, DL and Fairbanks, DJ (2007) Mud sticks. On the alleged falsification of Mendel’s data. Genetics 175, 975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, NS (1997) Ptolemy: on trial for frauds. Astronomy and Geophysics 38, 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, G (1978) Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Milikan–Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9, 161–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horbach, SPJM and Halffman, W (2019) The extent and cause of academic text recycling or ‘self- plagiarism’. Research Policy 48, 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, RT (1994) The Psychology of Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koyré, A (1953) An experiment in measurements. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 97, 222–237.Google Scholar
Millikan, RA (1913) On the elementary electrical charge and the Avogadro constant. Physical Review 2, 109–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, LK (1956) The origin of Dalton’s chemical atomic theory. Isis 47, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmieri, P (2001) Galileo and the discovery of the phases of Venus. Journal for the History of Astronomy 32, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, JR (1939) The origins of the atomic theory. Annals of Science 4, 245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perutz, M (1995) New York Review of Books, December 21.Google Scholar
Rawlins, D (1982) An investigation of the ancient star catalog. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 94, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnick, DB and Shamoo, AE (2011) The Singapore statement on research integrity. Accountability in Research 18, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riess, F, Heering, P and Nawrath, D (2005) Reconstructing Galileo’s inclined plane experiments for teaching purposes. Eight International History, Philosophy, Sociology and Science Teaching Conference 1–10.Google Scholar
Rossner, M and Yamada, KM (2004) What’s in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation. Journal of Cell Biology 166, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settle, TB (1961) An experiment in the history of science: with a simple but ingenious device Galileo could obtain relative precise time measurements. Science 133, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Söderqvist, T and Stillwell, C (1999) Essay review: the historiography of immunology is still in its infancy. Journal of the History of Biology 32, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Usselman, MC, Leaist, DG and Watson, KD (2008) Dalton’s disputed nitric oxide experiment and the origins of the atomic theory. ChemPhysChem 9, 106–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westfall, RS (1985) Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope. Isis 76, 11–30.Google Scholar
Wlodarczyk, J (1987) Observing with the armillary astrolabe. Journal for the History of Astronomy 18, 173–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar