Scientific Research Misconduct

Scientific Research Misconduct

The ever-growing knowledge and the need to find remedies for various problems in society have prompted researchers to embark on multiple studies and research initiatives aimed at addressing multiple instances in society. These scientific studies are anchored on various scientific dictates that prescribes how the scientific research practice could meet the desired threshold of what an ideal scientific research work entails. However, in a bid to access the much-coveted government funding, stand tall among peers, and attain quick promotions, some scientists engage in unethical data representation (Hill, 2016). Instances of scientific research misconduct discredit the milestones made as organizations tasked with regulating these bodies feigns ignorance about the dishonesty with such vices continuing to manifest through the fabrication of experiments, plagiarism, and falsification of data. Thus the essay would examine the manifestations of scientific research dishonesty in various instances.

First, dishonesty in research works manifests through plagiarism. Though plagiarism takes different forms, one definite description of such practice revolves around using the work and other vital data of an individual researcher without attributing such information to them of having precise citations. Amundsen (1986) takes issue with Lyall Watson’s theory of the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon despite the author’s use of information of credible and respected authors who championed the theory.

With a hypothesis contextualized in over 140 pages, Lyall was expected to give detailed information about the hypothesis instead of explaining the phenomenon in two pages of the book. Such practice amounts to plagiarism owing to the sketchy presentation of the findings and incoherence in articulating facts as the cited authors did. Thus, Amundsen (1986) highlights that Watson was economical with the truth and categorized the work under the same category as other pseudoscientists.

The other manifestation of scientific research misconduct is through the falsification of data. The falsification of data entails the misrepresentation of data to achieve various goals or skewing the data to represent data differently. Hill (2016) notes that there was overwhelming evidence that the research fellows at New Jersey Medical School cooked data for various reasons regarding the cancer scourge. According to Hill (2016), the research fellows under the watch of the organization falsified data to seek federal funding amounting to over 2.5 million dollars. Despite the scans and overwhelming evidence about falsified data, various regulatory bodies never bothered to follow up on the lead provided. At long last, the scientists who falsified the data won the federal funding on behalf of the university. An aspect that shows how such acts are sanitized.

Finally, the fabrication of experiments is another manifestation of scientific research misconduct. For reliable and valid data to be achieved, the data must originate from an observation or experiments conducted under the required conditions. However, in some cases, the conditions of the experiments are altered, or the researcher fails to experiment, an aspect that acts as a conduit for inaccurate data and subsequent alteration of information to a great extent. Hill (2016) highlights that fabricating data was evident among the research fellows as the scans she obtained concerning the supposed research fraud showed disparities and adjusted results of experiments. The falsification of experiments gave rise to multiple graphs in eight reports that produced unpredictable results despite them having eight of such reports receiving grants.

In conclusion, most scientific researchers in the dream to stand tall among the peers, achieve upward mobility in their areas of expertise, and secure funding for their studies, have embarked on multiple unethical and dishonest research practices. These research practices manifest through plagiarism, falsification of data, and fabrications of experiments. The practices immensely taint the credibility of research to a great extent.

References

Amundsen, R. (1986). “The Hundredth Monkey Debunked.” Whole Earth Review, 19-26.

Hill, Z. (2016). Hidden Data: The Blind Eye of Science 2nd Edition. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform. 156.