When it came out earlier this month, I immediately picked up Eugenie Samuel Reich’s book about the Hendrik Schön scientific fraud case because my graduate work began as part of the Minnesota efforts to reproduce some of Schön’s results (there are a few pages on the Minnesota collaboration in the book). Being touched by the fraud personally, I found this book provided a satisfying look at how it all happened. Although you can never get into Schön’s mind, I began to understand how fraud of such magnitude could unfold, namely Schön asked others what they would expect to see, and then created results that matched those expectations. That he aimed to meet people’s expectations, combined with his quiet and amiable personality, meant that the red flags didn’t go up immediately.
One theme that Reich kept raising was whether the self-correcting nature of science worked in this situation. Personally, I found this to be a distracting framework in which to place the Schön case. I consider the self-correcting nature of science to refer to the back and forth of different researchers, theorists and experimentalists, as they try to arrive at the correct understanding of a particular physical phenomenon. Researchers often begin by putting forth what turn out to be incorrect interpretations. As others consider the work, the interpretations are refined and refuted until consensus is reached about what is the appropriate description. To me, this is the self-correcting nature of science. I don’t think the primary purpose of this process is to catch people who are trying to dupe the system, and to ask whether the self-correcting nature of science worked in the Schön case is not an appropriate question.
I was also interested to learn about Schön’s graduate work, which showed an early tendency towards sloppy practices. The book mentions the graduate student Schön fiddling to produce a line of best fit that matched the scientific literature better than what he would have gotten without fudging, and Reich also finds an early example of data manipulation in published work related to Schön’s dissertation. Is it a slippery slope towards fraud? Do we convey forcefully enough the importance of good record keeping and honest practices, even at the undergraduate level?
I’ll admit that starting my graduate work chasing fraudulent results has indelibly shaped my view of the scientific endeavor. I think I am somewhat more cynical about science as a result. I also tend to be wary of the flashy results that show up in Science or Nature, appreciating the more in-depth technical papers appearing in Phys Rev B that actually require significant discussion of how results were obtained and what they might mean. Nevertheless, I recognize that science is ultimately about trust, and I’ve got to trust that most scientists are dedicated to the advancement of science over personal advancement.
The question of whether there is a way to prevent this type of fraud in the future is worth considering, and I generally agree with Steve at Complex Matters that for the most part the system works, although there is always the chance that someone will come along and take advantage of a trusting system. (Of course, I can say this because the Schön episode only impacted the very start of my graduate career so I didn’t get burned badly. Those whose careers were seriously damaged might feel differently.) I did walk away from Reich’s book wishing it had more discussion of the role of the journals, reviewers comments, and editors decisions in potentially helping or hindering fraudulent work.
Georg at Life on the Lattice wonders if the open science movement would have prevented Schön’s fraud. Of course, more transparency is always better, but despite the trusting nature of scientists, there is still a tendency to play things close to the chest for fear of being scooped and to maintain an advantage for continued priority of discovery. When in the trenches trying to replicate Schön’s work, missing information about experimental techniques regarding the deposition of aluminum oxide was problematic. There were e-mail exchanges in which Schön happily dished out information about what he supposedly did, but ultimately, we decided he used some experimental trick that we didn’t. I’m not sure tricks of the trade will ever be freely shared when researchers are hotly competing with each other to be the first to get results. But then again, maybe that’s just my cynicism coming through.
I’d be interested in hearing others’ thoughts. Do we simply live and learn with each fraud case? Or can we do more to prevent fraud in the future? Is science too trusting? Or not trusting enough?