Dan Ariely in his talk, ‘The Honest Truth About Dishonesty’
at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2013 introduces the concept of little cheaters, that is,
people who are dishonest in ways that they consider small enough to maintain personal
morality while still reaping benefits of dishonesty. This concept was derived
from studies in the general population suggesting that scientists too are privy
to such behavior, but what implications does this have for science?
The most likely effect of dishonesty in science is irreproducibility.
If experiments are planned, executed, interpreted, or reported with even the
slightest amount of dishonesty, they are impossible to repeat by others. Consequences
extend beyond those who seek to replicate to those attempt to build on the
existing work as they would be working off likely incorrect information. Such deception
is clearly undesirable but eliminating it can be difficult as perpetrators may
not always be aware of their deception because they perform it while convinced of
their morality. This is further compounded by the inherent conflict of interest
that exists in all scientists. Every researcher holds stake in the success of
their work: graduate students benefit from publishing papers and graduating
early, senior investigators gain career advancement and increase their marketability
for grant funding by presenting positive results. All these factors color the
objectivity of researchers making it harder to recognize the subtle ways in
which they can be dishonest such as inflating the meaning of their findings or omitting
unfavorable results. Proper statistics should be able to check this bias but it
is no secret that many laboratory scientists are not sufficiently conversant in
statistical methods.
What then, does the combination of dishonesty, bias, and
poor statistical knowledge mean science is doomed? Should presenting work be
put off until these problems are eliminated? No. Rather, science needs to be
redefined as the work in progress that it is and not the subject of irrefutable
answers as perceived by many. Efforts should be taken certainly, to minimize blatant
falsehood in published work, but it should also be acceptable to not be quite
certain. Scientists will be more likely to shed their little cheater identity
when it is fine to have work that does not completely make sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment