Susan M. Howitt|A. N. Wilson
Revisiting “Is the scientific paper a fraud?”
Australian National University|University of Canberra
science society10 april 2014free access revisiting scientific paper fraud way textbooks scientific research articles used teach undergraduate students could convey misleading image scientific research susan howitt email protected research school biology australian national university canberra australia search papers author anna n wilson faculty education science technology mathematics university canberra canberra australia search papers author susan howitt email protected research school biology australian national university canberra australia search papers author anna n wilson faculty education science technology mathematics university canberra canberra australia search papers author author information susan howitt1 anna n wilson2 1research school biology australian national university canberra australia 2faculty education science technology mathematics university canberra canberra australia embo rep 201415481484httpsdoiorg101002embr201338302 pdfdownload pdf article text main figures toolsadd favoritesdownload citationstrack citationspermissions sharefacebooktwitterlinked inmendeleywechatreddit figures info 1963 peter medawar gave talk scientific paper fraud argued scientific journal articles give false impression real process scientific discovery 1 answering question argued scientific paper orthodox form embody totally mistaken conception even travesty nature scientific thought main concern highly formalized structure gives sanitized version scientists come conclusion leaves room authors discuss thought processes led experiments medawar explained papers presented appear scientists preconceived expectations outcome followed inductive process logical fashion fact scientists expectations observations analysis made light expectations although todays scientific papers increasingly presented hypothesisdriven underlying thought processes remain hidden scientists appear follow logical deductive process test idea results tests lead support reject hypothesis however even trend toward explicit framing hypothesis often misleading hypotheses may framed explain set observations post hoc suggesting linear process describe actual discovery course good reason scientific paper highly formalized structured purpose communicate finding important clearly possible even actual process discovery messy good paper presents logical argument provides supporting evidence comes conclusion reader usually need want know false starts failed experiments changes direction approach scientific communication implications teaching undergraduates nature practice science creates completely wrong impression science actually works perpetuates stereotype scientists logical rational beings doggedly adhering scientific method students may confuse presentation logical argument accurate representation actually done leads view science unrealistic may even damaging implies failure serendipity unexpected results normal part research students may confuse presentation logical argument accurate representation actually done textbooks reinforce view typically present discovery made single scientist small group scientists little explanation fact scientists building work others addition discovery often presented apparently logically emerging crucial experiment observation completely conceals process discovery thought preceded case point discovery double helical structure dna james watson francis crick nature paper reporting discovery famous elegance brevity 2 typical textbook account mentions watson crick used models generate double helix structure accommodating complementary base pairs usually also mentions xray data rosalind franklin maurice wilkins says little beyond scientific paper question purpose students read textbooks learn facts rather learn scientific discovery watsons book double helix 3 makes clear actual process discovery anything straightforward fact watson says preface reason writing book concerned general publics impression scientific progress remains general ignorance science done say science done manner described far case styles scientific research vary almost much human personalities hand believe way dna came constitutes odd exception scientific world complicated contradictory pulls ambition sense fair play way example two crucial mistakes made discovery first resulted watson misunderstanding xray data described humiliating experience presented incorrect model bases outside franklin wilkins mistake made linus pauling published triple helix structure bases outside inexplicably neglected basic chemistry cases feedback others owing formal informal interactions within scientific community corrected mistakes furthermore base structures watson usingtaken textbookshowed tautomeric forms would formed complementary base pairs error corrected watson shared office chemist jerry donohue saw watson working provided correct tautomeric structures 3 crucial piece luck presents completely different view presented either standard textbook watson cricks nature paper shows science activity whereby ideas tried discussed modified mistakes common reinforces views expressed ernst mayr 4 interpretations made scientist hypotheses hypotheses tentative must forever tested must revised found unsatisfactory hence change mind scientist particularly great scientist sign weakness rather evidence continuing attention respective problem ability test hypothesis practicing scientists know many ideas experiments results never published troubleshooting optimization become unimportant moment problem solved negative results false directions rarely reported much data collected simply uninteresting crucial aspect science trying new ideas using imagination remaining open unexpected many us subscribe max delbrcks principle limited sloppiness 5 sloppy never get reproducible results never draw conclusions little bit sloppy see something startling say oh god different time really accidentally varied one parameter nail contrast double helix nature paper textbooks problematic different accounts different purposes audiences problem arises undergraduates likely read textbooks papers education autobiographies possible go complete science degree reading nothing else sanitized view science especially true students introduced journal articles early degree either models write laboratory reports introduce cuttingedge research well experience reality research possible go complete science degree reading nothing else sanitized view science undergraduates view science largely textbooks papers surprising many stick stereotypical view scientists scientific research fact literature students conceptions nature science bemoans fact nave conceptions hard change 1992 review research area norman lederman traces desire improve students understanding nature science far back 1907 discusses lack success 6 2007 review subsequent literature comes nearly identical conclusions 7 suggesting little progress made belief scientific method clearly defined series steps particularly resistant change even students experience reality research 8 science social activity students disservice maintain facts objective truths individual scientists make personal judgments research publish ultimate arbiter value research scientific community discovery accepted evidence sufficient persuade larger community may happen immediately evidence always subject interpretation interpretations change light new information individual scientist therefore convince peers hypothesis right rather simply presenting results experiments observations imply relativist position scientific progress ultimately based evidence community decision whether evidence sufficient accept new hypothesis therefore important distinguish individual scientist community science attains objectivity continuous assessment scrutiny reproducing results individual scientists necessarily objective stephen jay gould commented 9 scientists different anyone else passionate human beings enmeshed web personal social circumstances field recognize canons procedure designed give nature long shot asserting face biases unless scientists understand hopes engage vigorous selfscrutiny able sort unacknowledged preference natures weak imperfect message belief scientific method clearly defined series steps particularly resistant change even students experience reality research one needs look history science see fraught arguments changing perspectives scientists individuals different levels tolerance new ideas different standards evaluate evidence different levels awareness biases part peter medawars problem scientific paper presents spurious objectivity level individual understanding difference active science communicating science matters important role science modern societies increasingly depend science technology address societal problems need scientific literacy develop informed opinions issues global warming medical research genetically modified organisms important aspect ability use judgment science seen completely objective enterprise need judgment facts speak however scientists make judgments time techniques use model system might appropriate choosing particular experimental design parameters modified accepting ignoring data deciding statistical tests significance levels appropriate introducing undergraduate high school students realistic view science done important recruiting future scientists producing scientifically literate citizens counterargument become scientists eventually develop better understanding research start undergraduate research projects postgraduate study however least two reasons unsatisfactory first surely helpful better idea scientific research like making career choice martin schwartz personal essay 10 describes realization postgraduate student good exams good preparation immersion unknown required scientific research relates attempts solve problem looking someone knew answer realized one knew answerand whole point researchthat able find solution education introduces students uncertainty research postgraduate work would better prepare face challenges second reason teaching process scientific research early implications recruiting scientists much science education secondary tertiary level gives students impression science learning facts many students put approach perception scope within science discussion creativity imagination 11 girls ethnic minority groups particular might deterred science factual authoritarian focus much science education 12 balanced approach teaching science might improve recruitment increase diversity talent within scientific community despite repeated calls adapt science education secondary tertiary level much remains done developing ability make judgment calls requires students face challenges control process outcomes moreover students need learn mistakes false starts time wasted essential part making progress also need understand scientific method series welldefined steps always produces answer dynamic process requires intellectual engagement judgment students need learn mistakes false starts time wasted essential part making progress two scientists teaching firstyear university course nature practice science firsthand experience shock students experience discover process science influenced scientists personalities expectations reading discussing medawars essay 1 many students agree misled believe particular image science reflect reality double helix 3 shocking different way highlights crucial role social interactions different personalities scientists important factor discovery many discussions develop science education recommend introducing students authentic research experience inquirylearning research project submitting formal report end perpetuate myth good science goes report research experiences including failures important students get research also opportunity discuss like scientist help see real science much bits dont go report bits science communicating science quite different things fifty years since peter medawar expressed concern scientific paper little changed conflict interest authors declare conflict interest references 1 medawar p 1963 scientific paper fraud listener 70 377378 google scholar 2 watson j crick f 1953 structure deoxyribose nucleic acid nature 171 737738 crossref cas pubmed web sciencegoogle scholar 3 watson j 1968 double helix new york ny atheneum publishers google scholar 4 mayr e 1982 growth biological thought diversity evolution inheritance cambridge belknap press harvard university press google scholar 5 delbrck interview carolyn harding pasadena california july 14september 11 1978 oral history project california institute technology archives retrieved nov 15th 2013 world wide web httpresolvercaltecheducaltechohohdelbruckm google scholar 6 lederman ng 1992 students teachers conceptions nature science review research j res sci teach 29 331359 wiley online library web sciencegoogle scholar 7 lederman ng 2007 nature science past present future handbook research science education sk abell ng lederman eds pp 831880 mahwah nj lawrence erlbaum associates google scholar 8 cartrette melroelehrman b 2012 describing changes undergraduate students preconceptions research activities res sci educ 42 10731100 crossref web sciencegoogle scholar 9 gould 1988 nurturing nature urchin storm london collins harvill google scholar 10 schwartz 2008 importance stupidity scientific research j cell sci 121 1771 crossref cas pubmed web sciencegoogle scholar 11 lyons 2006 different countries science classes students experiences school science words int j sci educ 28 591613 crossref web sciencegoogle scholar 12 hodson 1999 going beyond cultural pluralism science education sociopolitical action sci educ 83 775796 wiley online library web sciencegoogle scholar previous articlenext article read moreabout coverclose modalview large imagevolume 15issue 5may 2014cover picture inspired scientific report p 529 petct image provided authors illustration laura symul volume 15issue 51 may 2014in issue referencesrelateddetailsloading