Abstract
Scientific misconduct is usually assumed to be self-serving. This paper, however, proposes to distinguish between two types of scientific misconduct: ‘type one scientific misconduct’ is self-serving and leads to falsely positive conclusions about one’s own work, while ‘type two scientific misconduct’ is other-harming and leads to falsely negative conclusions about someone else’s work. The focus is then on the latter type, and three known issues are identified as specific forms of such scientific misconduct: biased quality assessment, smear, and officially condoning scientific misconduct. These concern the improper ways how challenges of the prevailing opinion are thwarted in the modern world. The central issue is pseudoskepticism: uttering negative conclusions about someone else’s work that are downright false. It is argued that this may be an emotional response, rather than a calculated strategic action. Recommendations for educative and punitive measures are given to prevent and to deal with these three forms of scientific misconduct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The TU/e thus stood by the conclusions of Van Hee’s quality assessment, even after it had been independently established that this was unsound.
Note that the term ‘pseudoskepticism’ here has the same connotation as the term ‘pseudoscience’.
From a Spinozistic point of view, scholars—not necessarily group members—might also start criticizing the work in the hope of scoring points among group members, which might yield a better perspective for the future.
References
Aaronson, S. (2012). I was wrong about Joy Christian. Shtetl-Optimized blog, May the 10th.
ANP. (2008). TU/e in de fout bij herbeoordeling promotie. NRC Handelsblad, August the 29th (in Dutch).
ANP. (2012). Eindrapport over fraude ex-hoogleraar Stapel. Volkskrant, November the 28th (in Dutch).
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgements. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh: PA Carnegie Press.
Beeckman, T. (2009). Blijheid in overvloed. Spinoza over verlangen en macht. In: T. Beeckman (Ed.), Spinoza: Filosoof van de Blijheid (pp. 53–72). Brussels: ASP (in Dutch).
Beenakker, C. (2008). Unpublished referee report, conclusions mentioned in: (LOWI, 2009) (in Dutch).
Brown, C. L. (2005). Overcoming barriers to use of promising research among elite middle east policy groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 17(1), 489–544.
Cabbolet, M. J. T. F. (2010). Elementary process theory: A formal axiomatic system with a potential application as a foundational framework for physics underlying a gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter. Annalen der Physik 522(10), 699–738.
Cabbolet, M. J. T. F. (2011). Addendum to the elementary process theory. Annalen der Physik 523(12), 990–994.
Campanario, J. M. & Martin, B. (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(3), 421–438.
Christian, J. (2011). What really sets the upper bound on quantum correlations? arXiv:1101.1958v1 [quant-ph].
Consoli, L. (2006). Scientific misconduct and science ethics: A case study based approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 12, 533–541.
Dijkgraaf, R. H. (2011). In Geschokte Robbert Dijkgraaf: Fraude Stapel veel erger dan gevreesd. Volkskrant, October the 31st (in Dutch).
Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or bust? (p. 38). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fuller, L. L. (1981). Philosophy for the practicing lawyer. In K. I. Winston (Ed.), The principles of social order: Selected essays of Lon L. Fuller (pp. 287–290). Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik (p. 161). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp Verlag (in German).
Lambert, F. (2008). Lemma “Marcoen Cabbolet” in Wikipedia, created by Lambert on January the 18th (in Dutch; title has changed in the meantime).
Landau, L. D. & Lifschitz, E. M. (1976). Mechanics, 3rd ed. (p. xii). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
LaViolette, P. (2005). Solar cycle variations in ice acidity at the end of the last ice age: Possible marker of a climatically significant interstellar dust incursion. Planetary and Space Science, 53(4), 385–393.
Löwenstein, S. & Müller, R. (2011). Wir sind einem Betrüger aufgesessen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 February 2011 (in German).
LOWI. (2009). LOWI-advies 2009, nr. 1 & nr. 2 (in Dutch; anonymized version publicly available).
Martin, B. (1997). Suppression stories (pp. 84–103). Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent.
Martin, B. (1998). Advice for the dissident scholar. Thought & Action 14(1), 119–130.
Martin, B. (2010). How to attack a scientific theory and get away with it (usually). Science as Culture, 19(2), 215–239.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (p. 477). New York: Free Press.
Motl, L. (2012). Joy Christian, an entanglement denier. The reference frame blog, March the 24th.
Mytelka, A. (2007). High-profile dean of admissions at MIT quits over spurious credentials. The Chronicle of Higher Education, April the 26th.
Popper, K. (1982). Quantum theory and the schism in physics (p. 100). London: Hutchinson.
Post, R. (2008). Addition to the lemma “Marcoen Cabbolet” in Wikipedia, January the 23rd (in Dutch).
Schweber, S. S. (1989). Some reflections on the history of particle physics in the 1950’s. In L. M. Brown, M. Dresden & L. Hoddeson (Eds), Pions to quarks (p. 681). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwinger, J. (1991). Cold fusion—does it have a future? In M. Suzuki & R. Kubo (Eds), Evolutionary trends in the physical sciences, springer proceedings in physics, Vol. 57 (pp. 171–175). Berlin: Springer.
't Hooft, G. (2008a). In: Nobelprijswinnaar negatief over omstreden promotie. Volkskrant, January the 17th (in Dutch).
't Hooft, G. (2008b). In: E. Hardeman, Iets heel erg uit de rails gelopen. Ublad 16(39), 12 (in Dutch).
't Hooft, G. (2008c). In: Elementaire Proces-theorie allang achterhaald. Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, 76(9), 65 (in Dutch).
Truzzi, M. (1987). On pseudo-skepticism. Zetetic Scholar, 12–13, 3–4.
Truzzi, M. (1990). Reflections on the reception of unconventional claims in science. Frontier Perspectives, 1(Fall/Winter), 13–25.
Van Reijen, M. (2009). Spinoza’s naturalistische filosofie van de affecten. In T. Beeckman (Ed.), Spinoza: Filosoof van de Blijheid (pp. 13–30). Brussels: ASP (in Dutch).
Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318, 23–27.
Vongehr, S. (2011). Exchange with the future king of physics. alpha meme blog, June the 1st.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Aliaksei Sedzin (NXP Semiconductors, Eindhoven, the Netherlands) for bringing the Soviet documentary “Ya i Drugiye" to his attention, and Brian Martin (University of Wollongong, Australia) for his helpful comments. This research has been facilitated by the Foundation Liberalitas (the Netherlands).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cabbolet, M.J.T.F. Scientific Misconduct: Three Forms that Directly Harm Others as the Modus Operandi of Mill’s Tyranny of the Prevailing Opinion. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 41–54 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9433-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9433-8