Предлагаем восстановить, заказать, купить диплом Вуза в любом городе России. Только настоящий бланк ГОЗНАК с гарантией.
Viewings: 4716Unfortunately, in recent research papers containing false and openly falsified the results. But what makes scientists to lie? Psychologists believe that this shame is the focus of scientists exclusively on positive result. Otherwise they simply will not get money for new research.
It should be noted that the problem of scientific lies hardly is a funny thing - rather, it is the trouble of our days. And far beyond the examples do not walk - recently 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. So from more than fifty medical works only six proved true!
By the way, the above criteria of reproducibility of results is important when evaluating whether to trust the investigation or not, because one of the basic laws of scientific thinking says that what happened in one experiment, it should look in the other. Simply put, if one scientist empirically established that when a hundred degrees Celsius, the water boils, and another researcher she needs to simmer at the same temperature. Otherwise it will be either a mistake (maybe in the second experiment, not with water worked or temperature was below), or intentional falsification.
Unfortunately, such falsifications recently becomes more and more. To recall the story about the cloning of stem cells, which allegedly happened with Korean Professor At Suk-hwan, or the epic to open a nonexistent virus "chronic fatigue syndrome". The most interesting thing is that all these studies were impressed reliable, and even experts do not immediately noticed the catch. To distinguish truth from falsehood in these cases helped the criteria of reproducibility is to deceive him was more difficult.
Psychologists have long tried to understand why scientists in our days, more and more often resort to deliberate lie. No, of course, it is obvious that lie is inherent in all people, and the worker of science, anyway, and all the same people. But falsifying the results, the researcher is actually a great risk, because of a scientist almost nothing except their reputation, and deceit is not conducive to its perfection. So in case of detection of fraud, unfair scientist can once and for all to break with the opportunity to receive a grant, or with career prospects.
Moreover, as the research results are published in a special peer-reviewed journals that representatives of the scientific community still reading, then expose the falsification of the shame of the deceiver will know everything. This means that, most likely, the doors of other laboratories before such unfair researchers will be closed. It should also be noted that many of the questions scientists are quite conservative, and they find it hard to believe that once deceived their trust colleague in the future will not do it.
So, as you can see, the risk in this case is really great. But is there any benefit from such fraud, which forces scientists to manipulate the results? Psychologists investigating this issue, to my surprise found that especially benefit-then no. What, then, is forcing scientists to lie? It is strange, primarily focus on the positive result. This is quite positive as if it is reduced to an absurdity, can lead to very sad consequences.
Indeed, in the modern world often becomes the driving force desire as soon as possible to achieve results at any cost. The reasons for this can be many, the need to receive a grant, and win the competition for the post,Yes or catch a publication, while you are ahead of more nimble colleagues. It turns out that now the researcher mainly concerned about how quickly he will do the work, not how carefully he does it. As a result, the "save" for control experiments and tests results, and numerous more in the nineteenth century discussions with colleagues. And all this leads to the fact that peer-reviewed journals covers shaft works, reliability of which is doubtful.
However, the policy itself log this is also very helpful - it was published in them are considered an indicator of a successful scientist (which for many years and achieved the editors of these publications). But eventually formed a vicious circle: without proper number of articles in peer-reviewed journal, the researcher will not give funding, and without financing, it will not be able to do the work that it would not be ashamed in this journal to publish. Because of this, many go for outright falsification of data, reasoning like this: to reach a certain result we will be able then, and now for us the main thing is to receive money. And the logic of this is because nobody forbids scientist in the next article to refute the results of the previous!
To overcome this vicious drive for success, according to psychologists, it is possible only in case, if we succeed to convince researchers to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals not only positive, but also negative. And the editors of these publications, respectively, to print them. And may the number of publications will increase several times, but there must be those which speak about failures, unproven hypotheses and failed experiments.
Besides the fact that this information itself can be for someone securities (even Edison said that to invent the light bulb helped him failed experiments predecessors), this approach will show many scientists that a positive result is not necessarily an indicator of the value of work as such. On the contrary, the value of this study is that it still held. Well, science administrators also should pay attention not only to a positive result is more important, for example, the complexity and accuracy of the work done, even if it failed.
I understand that many people are now such a proposal will seem funny, but in essence, such a proposal is very reasonable. If to remember the history of the discoveries of the past two centuries, it becomes clear that in most cases they were made because the scientists are not afraid to make mistakes and admit their mistakes. However, the system of financing research, developed in the second half of the XX century were actually deprived of their right to make a mistake. In the end has the steady tendency to falsify the results, and this affected not only the quality of work, but also on the attitude towards science from the society - scientists have become less trusting, and indeed the call by ordinary people: "if scientists deceive, without science we can do" is heard more and more often.
Of course, it's a break and then strong - without science now do not in any way. And the one who is pushing for an end to the funding of research, it is more likely to remember that all the material things that he has now, he has this very science, and in their best interests to maintain it, even if it is not always honest not only with those who use its achievements, but also to itself.
However, to help scientists Unlearning to lie not only possible but necessary.
And for this, you just need to convince them, and those who give money on science, justice one of the old truth: a negative result is also valuable as a positive...
You are reading news Курьезы науки: как отучить ученых врать? if You liked the article Курьезы науки: как отучить ученых врать?, prokomentiruet her.