2024年4月25日发(作者：战地5中文版下载)

Fraud in Science

For many years physicists lagged way behind(lag way behind 远远落在后面) biologists in

the

perpetration

(犯罪) of scientific fraud. But in 2002 they have caught up in(卷入)

spectacular

(壮观的) style with the

ambitious

(有抱负的，有野心的)

opus

(作品) of Jan Henrik

Schon of Bell Labs(贝尔实验室), who placed seven of his

fictive

(虚构的) works in Nature and

nine in Science. Schon was even talked about as a possible Nobel Prize winner(Schon甚至被

讨论可能是诺贝尔的得主). But other researchers grew more and more

suspicious

(猜疑的，怀疑

的) until finally someone pointed out that he had published

identical

(同样的) graphs in

separate

(v.分开，分离 不同的) papers(前面public表示发表，所以此处paper表示期刊),

supposedly

(据推测 suppose v.假设，认为，猜想) on different

phenomena

(现象). The

laboratory

convened

(convene 聚集，集合) an

external

(外部的)

investigation

(调查)

panel

(面

板 专家组) and Schon was found

guilty

(有罪的) of

misconduct

(不当行为) and

sacked

(sack 麻

袋 v.解雇).

Fraud in science is a

minor

(较小的)

irritant

(刺激物 刺激的) from one

perspective

(观点，

视角), a serious problem from another(学术造假从一个角度看是一个小问题，对别人却是很严重的

问题). Most instances(

instance

实例) of fraud concern work of little importance and are

quickly forgotten. Some practitioners forsake the safety of

mundane

(世俗的，尘世的)

fabrication

(捏造，伪造) and

concoct

(v.捏造)

spectacular

(壮观的，雄伟的 惊人的) experiments

about matters at the cutting edge of(在前沿) their fields(捏造惊人的实验关于各自领域前沿的问

题). But one can argue that the more ambitious the fraud, the more quickly it will be

discovered.

The Schon case does not strongly support this

contention

(论点). His fraud remained

undetected

(未被发觉的) for two years. He was detected because of an insider`s tip(内部情报),

not by the usual checking mechanisms(

mechanism

机制) of science: refereeing(

referee

裁判)

and

replication

(复制). Had he had the good sense(判断力强) to stop in time（及时）, his

oeuvre

(全部作品) might have gained him a

professorship

(教授职位) from which he could

have directed the work of an army of honest PhDs and laid a

firmer

(firm公司 坚固的 firmer

坚固的) basis for his scientific standing. Perish the horrid thought that undiscovered Schons

throng the halls of academe.

Science is a

cumulative

(累积的) process, however, and in the long run(长远) each

brick

(砖)

must bear the

load

(负荷，负载 载入) of those placed above it(从长远来看，每块砖必须承担那

些放在它上面的负荷). So there is much force to the argument that

incorrect

(不正确的) results

of any kind whether obtained by fraud, self-deception(自欺), or other

regrettable

(令人遗憾的)

human frailties(

frailty

脆弱) cannot

last

(延续，持续)

indefinitely

(无限期地 不确定地) (无限期地

持续下去).

But they can last a long time breezing past the

conventional

(传统的)

checkpoints

(检查点)

of scientific quality without the slightest difficulty(毫无困难地). This is sense in which fraud is a

serious problem, both of methodology and of public relations. Scientists point to the

refereeing system as a

guarantor

(保证人) of quality, but in the next

breath

(呼吸) (几乎同时)

will

assert

(断言，宣称) that referees cannot be expected to

detect

(发现，察觉) fraud. In fact, a

referee, who after all is just doing an

unpaid

(未付款的) paper

review

(v.回顾), cannot test for

much more than

plausibility

(似乎有理). That`s a useful

function

(功能), but it`s not very

effective as a screen against fraud.

Replication is central to scientific methodology, but in practice it`s almost never an exact

duplication of the kind necessary(这种必要) to support an

accusation

(控告) of fraud. There

are plenty of

honest

(诚实的) reasons why two researchers may get different results from the

same experiment. A claim that cannot be replicated is generally ignored, not publicly

repudiated(

repudiate

v.否定). Like refereeing, replication plays a useful purpose in science,

but it is not designed to detect fraud and rarely does so(它不是设计用来发现欺诈，也很少这样

做).

Many, perhaps most, cases of fraud come to light(欺诈案件曝光) because someone in the

perpetrator

(犯罪者)`s laboratory, someone in a position to

observe

(v.观察) his behavior and

see the

raw

(未加工的) data, gets uncomfortable enough to

blow

(v.吹) the

whistle

(口哨). The

front line of(一线) defense against fraud is not methodological but personal(防止欺诈的首要不

是方法而是个人). The lab chief is in the best position to detect fraud. Only he can

demand

(v.

要求) to see the lab notebooks, evidence that is beyond the reach of(够不着的地方)

outsiders(

outsider

局外人).

Science, by this analysis, is

institutionally

(制度的，制度上的)

vulnerable

(脆弱的，易受伤的)

to fraud. Its quality control mechanisms do not prevent fraud, yet as each new case bursts(v.

爆发) into public view(公众视野), scientists find themselves put in the generally false position

of declaring(

declare

v.宣布，声明) that there is no need to worry, because the quality control

mechanisms of science

infallibly

(准确无误地) detect fraud.

A more direct answer(一个更直接的答案) would be that research is not a process that can

be made

efficient

(有效率的). There is an

inevitable

(必然的) degree of waste in the system,

and fraud is generally not a serious enough problem to

justify

(v.证明) any

measure

(v.测量 措

施) that would cost

significant

(可观的) time or money. However, it has not proved to be a

popular

response

(n.响应，回应) to go before

Congress

(国会，议会) or the news

cameras(

camera

摄影机 照相机) and declare, “Fraud happens forget about it.”

There`s a strong case for viewing(

view

观察 视图 来看) the

prevention

(防止) of fraud as

the direct responsibility of the lab chief. If the people he or she has hired(

hire

v.雇用，租用) are

disturbed(

disturb

v.打扰，妨碍) enough to cook date, the lab chief should get to know about

it. If the lab chief should get to know about it. If the lab chief puts his name on the concoction,

intending to draw credit for it, he deserves(

deserve

v.应得，应受) a big share of(很大的一部分)

the blowback. But at present every fraud case seems to end the same way. The

perpetrator

(犯罪者) disappears from view, slinking off(

slink off

潜逃，溜走) to become a

pathologist

(病理学家) in a Midwestern hospital. And the lab chief receives the

commiseration

(怜悯) of his pals(

pal

朋友，伙伴) for the unfortunate

occurrence

(发生 出现)

that fate visited on him.