Every science has a dark side, and this dark side is not open, which can be converted into evil", and not evil intentions mad scientists. The dark side of each science is a fraud. Sounds awful prosaic, but the consequences of such fraud can be no less impressive than the plans for world domination.

Not so long ago at the annual Convention of the American society for cell biology was released disappointing statistic: of the 53 health research 47 the results were reproducible. The reproducibility of the results, as you know, hardly probable not the main criterion of reliability of work: if you have something happened - so it should get another; if your object falls down with acceleration of 9.8 m/S2, and it should fall as well. Of course, if the result was not played, it is possible to explain some natural causes, but 6 of reliable work of the 53 - is, you will agree, in any gate.

Here, obviously, begins to act "human factor". Researchers are people too, with her tenderly cherished concepts and theories, they want recognition, respect, self-respect, and money, in the end. Loud stories about fraud sometimes go beyond the scientific community, it is sufficient to remember the legendary Korean researcher Wu Suk-hwan with its mythical cloned stem cells.

Or Dutch psychologist Diederik Shipyard, which is a rare luck was called the "master data" (this nickname for him remained, but have purchased several different colour). Or the story of a viral cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. Information about irreproducible results and apology to the "misrepresentation" regularly published in scientific journals, and fraud are all disciplines, from dentistici to neurobiology.

This problem, as you can see, socio-psychological and the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science devoted to it in the past year a number. It psychologists are trying to figure out what exactly makes scientists, voluntarily or involuntarily, to manipulate the results and what it can do. The first advice given by the researchers, is to try to understand the incentives of scientific work. It often happens that the driving force is the desire as soon as possible to achieve results.

The reasons can be many: the need to receive a grant, to win the competition for the position, to be in time with the publication etc., it is Difficult to get published in the elite magazine, if all your data is simply a confirmation of the results of the predecessors, and without such publication is difficult to receive a grant. It turns out that modern research focuses on speed, but not on the accuracy and in the magazines covers shaft crude works.

To overcome the drive for success, according to psychologists, it is possible if to convince researchers to publish articles not only positive, but also negative. Let the articles will be much, but let some of them will be those that speak about failures, unproven hypotheses, etc. Even Edison said that to invent the light bulb helped him failed experiments. Alas, modern science simply does not see a negative result or outcome that does not lead to an immediate opening or patent (we mean the institutional sphere of science, its, so to say, administrative-coffee-grant part).

Another thing that you must understand the modern scholar: it work itself proves nothing. The result can be arbitrarily revolutionary, but in science as perhaps nowhere else, the principle of "one man is no man". Only in modern science scale of the so dependent on collective efforts. However vision Laurel wreath so seductive that resist him no way. Let us not forget and about the love of public opinion and the press that nourishes it is the opinion - for sensation.

Pure methodically the reliability of the result can be strengthened by the use of meta-analysis, which means integration of the results of all work performed on some topic. Unfortunately, now researchers prefer to pay attention only to those works, the results of which confirm their own assumptions, and ignore everything else. The authors of Perspectives on Psychological Science, even of the opinion that metaanalytic could be an internal police, like the Department of internal security of the police present. And, of course, that this Department has been functioning, the scientific community needs to clearly state ethics laws the violation of which would rely punishment.

However, all this is fine, but only a theory, which requires specific, practical, administrative implementation. And then replace the psychologists, sociologists and social science methodologists must come administrators who would take the trouble to correct scientific mores. This work, as we understand, will be terribly huge: the scientific life and scientific psychology integrated into society, and their "correction" will have to look at politics, Economics, mass culture, the press, the hopes of "simple people". "The people", by the way, after reading about voluntary or involuntary scams from science, we can say something like "well this science." And here "the common people" should remind: all the material things that he has now, he has this very science, and in his interests to support science afloat, even if it is not always honest not only with "people", but to herself.

Prepared according to the New Yorker.