Scientific Ethos Robert Merton motivation incentives 1 universalism
과학 부정행위를 이해하기 위한 틀 과학자 사회에 적용되는 Scientific Ethos – Robert Merton 과학자 개개인의 motivation, incentives 1. universalism: that truth claims are to be 1. subjected to pre-established impersonal 2. criteria consonant with observation and with previously confirmed knowledge. 3. 2. communism: that the substantive findings 4. of science are a product of social 5. collaboration and are assigned to the community. They constitute a common heritage. (3) Bang! 3. disinterestedness: that the scientist searches for truth for its own sake, apart from the interests of class, nation, or economic reward. Such rewards may be received, but work should not be specifically directed towards obtaining them. 4. organized skepticism: that the judgment should be suspended until the facts are at hand the beliefs have been scrutinized in terms of empirical and logical criteria. 명예의 추구 업적에 대한 우선권 인정 Careerism 더 많은 연구비, 경제적 보상 노벨상 ……….
과학 부정행위의 history • Charles Babbage, <영국 과학의 쇠퇴에 대하여> (1830) 세가지 부정 행위를 언급함. 1. 2. 3. “trimming” “cooking” “forging” 이 각각을 현대적인 표현으로 1) massaging the data or fudging, 2) finagling, 3) fabricating or plagiarizing 라고 하기도 함.
“Pathological Science”: Before Scientific Fraud • 노벨상 수상 화학자 I. Langmuir의 연설 – Pathological Science: “N-rays” • Symptoms of Pathological Science: 1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause. 2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results. 3. Claims of great accuracy. 4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience. 5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment. 6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
Rene Blondlot’s N-rays
Scientific Frauds after the 1970 s • 1970년대 이후 과학 사기가 심각한 문제가 됨. 1. William Summerline Case (1974) painted mouse 사건 2. John Darsee case (1981) 하버드대학교 의대의 촉망받던 과학자 왜 1980년대 초반 이후 과학 사기가 급증했는가?
규제의 노력들 (1980년대) • 1981: 의회 Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee (위원장 Al Gore Jr. )는 과학 사기에 대한 첫 의회 청문회 • 1985: 의회는 NIH에게 scientific misconduct에 대한 guideline을 출판 하도록 함. • 1986: NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts defines scientific misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP) or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research” • 1987: NSF “Misconduct in Science and Engineering Research: Final Rule” – NIH 의 정의를 따름.
Scientific Fraud: two changes 1. “scientific fraud” 대신 “scientific misconduct” • • Fraud: 사기의 의도가 입증되어야 함 Misconduct: 그럴 필요가 없음. 2. NIH’s definition of scientific misconduct 1. 2. “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (FFP) or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research” falsification의 모호함: 직관에 근거한 data selection과 cooking 의 차이는? Robert Millikan에 대한 해석의 변화
Scientific misconduct after 1990 • 1992: NAS, NAE, Institute of Medicine proposed to narrow NIH’s definition by eliminating “other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research” • 2002: US Department of Health, ORI’s definition: “Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. ” • “misconduct”의 boundary가 과학자 사회의 논의에 의해서 조금씩 바뀌면서 형성됨.
“Scientists Behaving Badly” Nature 435, 737 -738 (9 June 2005) • “To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices, argue Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries. ” ……. .
self-regulation, self-correction mechanism의 오작동 1. “peer-review system” • • reviewer의 주관성 국책과제나 국가전략산업기술 • 군사, 의료 일반 과학기술연구까지 확대 2. “refereeing system” • • • referee의 주관성 referee의 역할에 대한 오해 motivation, incentive가 없음
self-regulation, self-correction mechanism의 오작동 3. “replication” • • “exact replication”: 아주 드문 현상, why? 의심을 품고 replication을 하는 경우에도 논 쟁이 잘 종식되지 않음 실험 조건의 차이 • • • written paper의 한계, 시료 등의 문제 honest error, negligence, misconduct의 차이를 밝혀내기가 힘듬 Ex) cold fusion case
The End Thanks
- Slides: 19