Neuronauka tak jak inne dziedziny, nie jest wolna od plagiatów, wymyślonych danych czy niedokładnych interpretacji. Od wyników badań (publikacji) zależy zatrudnienie, pozyskiwanie grantów, aplauz medialny.
Stephen G. Lisberger:...These are questions I ask
myself as the chief editor of an international journal, the chair of a
neurobiology department, and the principle investigator of a systems
neuroscience laboratory.
I’ve been fortunate to sidestep any
problems with fraud in my own department and laboratory, but in the
world outside my own, I have witnessed several seemingly undeniable
cases of fraud. I also have seen a larger number of cases that seemed
like fraud but could have been errors, plenty of cases that aroused
suspicion, and many examples of simple errors that were not fraud but
resembled it. Finally, I have received accusations of misconduct that
turned out, upon investigation, to be misunderstandings or pure
inventions. Even though cheating seems to be a growing problem in
science, we need to be cautious about proclaiming someone guilty of
fraud before all the evidence is available.In my opinion, it is likely that the field of neuroscience is detecting only the tip of the fraud iceberg. Even though most scientists conduct their research impeccably, there is more misconduct than journal editors and the scientific community detect. This is mainly because cheating can be difficult to uncover...
Więcej: DANA
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz