In The Normative Structure of Science (1942), Robert K. Merton, an American sociologist, and one of the most pivotal figures of modern day sociology, famously presented a theory of how the scientific community worked, or rather how it should ideally function. Merton idealized science as a self-regulating community of researchers, governed by a strong and distinctive ethos. He believed that this ethos, involved the sharing of knowledge, scepticism and scrutiny of this knowledge, and more importantly, a strong belief in the pursuit of truth and scientific understanding.
Merton proposed that each member of the scientific community should be given equal standing and opportunity, irrespective of whether they are simply a student formulating …show more content…
Scientists are not simply fulfilling their responsibilities as the torch-carriers of science. To put it into a few words, today’s scientific community is held back by many scientists’ desires to pursue their own goals and ambitions, at great costs to the integrity of science. What is more, much of the scientific community is not making the effort or taking the initiative to address this issue. News of prominent researchers or research institutions being alleged for fraud is no longer uncommon, and largely evokes relatively less shock and concern in the public then it did in the past. At the moment, more and more stories of scientists committing fraud and altering data in their research in order to secure future research grants are appearing in the news. Many scientists are risking entire livelihoods, and are not thinking twice about falsifying data, in order to meet their high-pressure demands and deadlines. And, so, this begs the question: why is fraud in the scientific community becoming such a reoccurring theme? Why are some scientists being compelled to commit fraud and commit what Merton describes as the ultimate transgression in regards to vision of science and the ideal scientific community? What are the consequences? Can it be fixed? And, if not, what does it for …show more content…
Unequivocally, it is the inherent nature of the publish-or-perish system that has contributed to some of the most infamous scandals among members of the scientific community. The most notable case of fraud as a consequence of the publish-or-perish system is the Schon scandal, which took place in the early 2000s. Beginning in the late 1990s, German physicist Hendrik Schon, a researcher then at Bell Labs, began to make several ground-breaking scientific discoveries in the field of semiconductors. He took the both the scientific community and the world by surprise, and experienced unparalleled success for a stretch of three or four years. However, his Nobel-Prize winning form quickly disappeared when Lydia Sohn, then an associate member professor at Princeton University, suspected Schon of fraud, after reading one of his papers in a popular scientific journal. She found that some of Schon’s scientific claims simply did not add up, and subsequently proceeded to investigate. In conjunction with a small group of researchers, it was determined that much of Schon’s discoveries were simply fabrications. It was found that over the years, Schon began to succumb to the pressures of his own success, and proceeded to falsify his data and findings to maintain his status as the leading researcher in his
Merton proposed that each member of the scientific community should be given equal standing and opportunity, irrespective of whether they are simply a student formulating …show more content…
Scientists are not simply fulfilling their responsibilities as the torch-carriers of science. To put it into a few words, today’s scientific community is held back by many scientists’ desires to pursue their own goals and ambitions, at great costs to the integrity of science. What is more, much of the scientific community is not making the effort or taking the initiative to address this issue. News of prominent researchers or research institutions being alleged for fraud is no longer uncommon, and largely evokes relatively less shock and concern in the public then it did in the past. At the moment, more and more stories of scientists committing fraud and altering data in their research in order to secure future research grants are appearing in the news. Many scientists are risking entire livelihoods, and are not thinking twice about falsifying data, in order to meet their high-pressure demands and deadlines. And, so, this begs the question: why is fraud in the scientific community becoming such a reoccurring theme? Why are some scientists being compelled to commit fraud and commit what Merton describes as the ultimate transgression in regards to vision of science and the ideal scientific community? What are the consequences? Can it be fixed? And, if not, what does it for …show more content…
Unequivocally, it is the inherent nature of the publish-or-perish system that has contributed to some of the most infamous scandals among members of the scientific community. The most notable case of fraud as a consequence of the publish-or-perish system is the Schon scandal, which took place in the early 2000s. Beginning in the late 1990s, German physicist Hendrik Schon, a researcher then at Bell Labs, began to make several ground-breaking scientific discoveries in the field of semiconductors. He took the both the scientific community and the world by surprise, and experienced unparalleled success for a stretch of three or four years. However, his Nobel-Prize winning form quickly disappeared when Lydia Sohn, then an associate member professor at Princeton University, suspected Schon of fraud, after reading one of his papers in a popular scientific journal. She found that some of Schon’s scientific claims simply did not add up, and subsequently proceeded to investigate. In conjunction with a small group of researchers, it was determined that much of Schon’s discoveries were simply fabrications. It was found that over the years, Schon began to succumb to the pressures of his own success, and proceeded to falsify his data and findings to maintain his status as the leading researcher in his