Revisiting “Is the scientific paper a fraud?”
Susan Howitt|A. N. Wilson
Science & Society10 April 2014free access Revisiting “Is the scientific paper a fraud?” The way textbooks and research articles are being used to teach undergraduate students could convey misleading image of Susan M Howitt [email protected] Research School Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Search for more papers by this author Anna N Wilson Faculty Education, Science, Technology Mathematics, University Author Information Howitt1 Wilson2 1Research 2Faculty EMBO Rep (2014)15:481-484https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201338302 PDFDownload PDF article text main figures. ToolsAdd favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyWechatReddit Figures Info In 1963, Peter Medawar gave talk, Is fraud?, in which he argued that journal give false impression real process discovery 1. answering his question, that, “The its orthodox form does embody totally mistaken conception, even travesty, nature thought.” His concern was highly formalized structure gives only sanitized version how scientists come conclusion it leaves no room authors discuss thought processes led experiments. explained were presented appear as if had pre-conceived expectations about outcome they followed an inductive logical fashion. fact, do have their observations analysis made light those expectations. Although today's increasingly hypothesis-driven, underlying remain hidden; follow deductive test idea results these tests lead them support or reject hypothesis. However, trend toward explicit framing hypothesis is often misleading, hypotheses may be framed explain set post hoc, suggesting linear not describe actual discovery. There is, course, good reason why structured. Its purpose communicate finding important clearly possible. Even been messy, presents argument, provides supporting evidence, comes conclusion. reader usually need want know starts, failed experiments, changes direction. This approach communication has implications teaching undergraduates practice science creates completely wrong actually works perpetuates stereotype rational beings, doggedly adhering method. Students confuse presentation argument with accurate representation what done. leads view unrealistic damaging implies failure, serendipity, unexpected normal part research. done Textbooks further reinforce view. They typically present having single scientist, small group scientists, little explanation fact building on work others. addition, apparently logically emerging from crucial experiment observation. conceals both preceded it. A case point double helical DNA James Watson Francis Crick. Their Nature reporting famous elegance brevity 2. typical textbook account mentions Crick models generate helix accommodating complementary base pairs. It also X-ray data Rosalind Franklin Maurice Wilkins but says beyond this. As paper, question purpose; read “learn facts,” rather than learn Watson's book, Double Helix 3, makes clear, anything straightforward. preface writing book because concerned general public's progress: “There remains ignorance ‘done’. That say all manner described here. far case, styles vary almost much human personalities. On other hand, I believe came out constitutes odd exception world complicated contradictory pulls ambition sense fair play.” By example, two mistakes during first resulted misunderstanding data, humiliating experience when incorrect model, bases outside, Wilkins. mistake Linus Pauling, who published triple inexplicably neglected some basic chemistry. cases, feedback others, owing formal informal interactions within community, corrected mistakes. Furthermore, structures using—taken textbook—showed tautomeric forms would formed error shared office chemist, Jerry Donohue, saw working provided correct piece luck. different either standard Crick's paper. shows activity whereby ideas tried out, discussed, modified where too common. reinforces views expressed Ernst Mayr 4, “All interpretations scientist hypotheses, tentative. must forever tested revised found unsatisfactory. Hence, change mind particularly great sign weakness evidence continuing attention respective problem ability again again.” practicing we many our ideas, will never published: troubleshooting optimization become unimportant moment solved; negative directions rarely reported; collected simply uninteresting. aspect trying new using imagination remaining open unexpected. Many us subscribe Max Delbrück's principle limited sloppiness 5, “If you sloppy, get any reproducible can draw conclusions, just bit then see something startling say, ‘Oh my God, did do, time?’ really accidentally varied one parameter, nail down.” contrast between Helix, problematic themselves, accounts purposes audiences. arises likely education autobiographies. possible go through complete degree reading nothing else science. especially true introduced early degree, write laboratory reports introduce cutting-edge well before reality largely papers, surprising stick stereotypical literature students' conceptions bemoans naïve very hard change. 1992 review area, Norman Lederman traces desire improve understanding back 1907 discusses lack success 6; 2007 subsequent nearly identical conclusions 7, progress made. belief method defined series steps resistant change, after 8. social disservice maintain facts objective truths. While individual make personal judgments publish, ultimate arbiter value community. accepted sufficient persuade larger happen immediately. Evidence always subject interpretation information. An therefore convince her peers right, presenting experiments observations. imply relativist position: ultimately based community decision whether accept distinguish attains objectivity continuous assessment, scrutiny, reproducing results, necessarily objective. Stephen Jay Gould commented 9, “[…] anyone else. We passionate enmeshed web circumstances. Our field recognize canons procedure designed long shot asserting herself face such biases, unless understand hopes engage vigorous self-scrutiny, able sort unacknowledged preference nature's weak imperfect message.” One needs look at history fraught arguments changing perspectives. Scientists individuals levels tolerance standards evaluate awareness own biases. Part Medawar's spurious level individual. Understanding difference active communicating matters, role modern societies. depend technology address societal problems, literacy develop informed opinions issues global warming, medical research, genetically organisms. use judgment. If seen enterprise, there judgment “the speak themselves.” time; techniques use, model system might appropriate, choosing particular experimental design, parameters should modified, accepting ignoring deciding statistical significance appropriate. Introducing high school realistic recruiting future producing scientifically literate citizens. counterargument eventually better once start projects postgraduate study. least reasons First, surely helpful like making career choice. Martin Schwartz, essay 10, describes realization student exams preparation “immersion into unknown” required He relates attempts solve looking someone knew answer. realized answer—and whole research—that find solution. introduces uncertainty prepare challenges. second scientists. Much secondary tertiary learning facts. put off perception scope discussion, creativity, 11. Girls ethnic minority groups deterred factual authoritarian focus 12. balanced recruitment increase diversity talent Despite repeated calls adapt level, Developing requires challenges control over outcomes. Moreover, starts time wasted, essential progress. well-defined produces answer, dynamic intellectual engagement …students first-year university course science, first-hand shock discover influenced scientists' personalities After discussing 1, agree misled reflect reality. 3 shocking highlights factor discussions recommend introducing authentic inquiry-learning, doing project submitting report end perpetuate myth goes report. experiences, including failures, students, opportunity help “real” bits don't do. Doing quite things; fifty years since changed. Conflict interest declare conflict interest. References P (1963) fraud? Listener 70: 377–378 Google Scholar J, F (1953) deoxyribose nucleic acid. 171: 737–738 Crossref CAS PubMed Web Science®Google 3. J (1968) Helix. New York, NY: Atheneum Publishers 4. E (1982) Growth Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press Harvard 5. Delbrück M. Interview Carolyn Harding. Pasadena, California, July 14-September 11, 1978. Oral History Project, California Institute Archives. Retrieved Nov 15th 2013 World Wide Web: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Delbruck_M 6. NG (1992) Students' teachers' science: Res Sci Teach 29: 331–359 Wiley Online Library 7. (2007) past, future. Handbook SK Abell, (eds), pp 831–880. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cartrette D, Melroe-Lehrman B (2012) Describing preconceptions activities. Educ 42: 1073–1100 9. S (1988) Nurturing nature. Urchin Storm. London: Collins Harvill 10. Schwartz (2008) importance stupidity Cell 121: 1771 Lyons T (2006) Different countries, same classes: experiences words. Int 28: 591–613 Hodson D (1999) Going cultural pluralism: sociopolitical action. 83: 775–796 Previous ArticleNext Article Read MoreAbout coverClose modalView large imageVolume 15,Issue 5,May 2014Cover picture: Inspired Scientific Report p 529. PET-CT authors. Illustration Laura Symul. Volume 15Issue 51 May 2014In issue ReferencesRelatedDetailsLoading ...
EMBO Reports|Europe PMC (PubMed Central)|PubMed Central|PubMed