What can move a scientist going to falsify. Why does science falsify? How do scientists reach out to power

One of the most famous falsifications in the history of science is the Pittledown Man. Many Darwinists, however, claim that this event was an exception, and nothing like this can happen now. However, the list of falsifications in science does not end there: it includes the archeoraptor, and the birch moth, and the midwife toad, and Haeckel's embryos, and the Ancon sheep, and the Tasaday Indians, and Bathybius haeckelii, and Hesperopithecus ("man from Nebraska") - the "missing link", which turned out to be a pig. Falsification has turned out to be a "serious problem with deep roots" that affects a considerable number of modern scientific studies, especially in the field of evolution. Due to a number of events, scientists have been forced to recognize this, and now they are trying to fight this problem.

Most of the known falsifications in science today are in the biological sciences. In the field of medical biology alone, in 2001, 127 cases of falsification were uncovered by the US Department of Health's Office of Integrity in Research. This number has risen for the third time since 1998. The problem is not just an academic interest: it concerns the health and life of people. There is more at stake than prestige and money - falsification can cause human death, and in medical science falsifiers "play with lives." Similar cases are happening all over the world. In Australia, violations in the conduct of scientific work have created such a serious crisis that the issue was considered in the national parliament, and scientists were called for the creation of an organization that monitors scientific integrity.

One example of falsification is the widely cited kidney transplant immunology studies by Zoltan Lukas (MD from Johns Hopkins University and PhD in biochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Recently it was discovered that they contain false data. Dr. Lucas was an assistant professor and lecturer in surgery at Stanford University. His graduate student Randall Morris discovered that Lucas was writing research reports that Morris knew had never been done. Morris knew this, for he would have been obliged to take part in such a study! And these works were published in reputable journals, and, no doubt, many scientists relied on their results in their own research. As a result of this epidemic of modern falsifications, the editors of the journal Nature concludes:

“The days are long gone when the falsification of scientific results could be ignored on the grounds that only madmen who are not capable of harming anyone are engaged in it. A deplorably long list of false studies suggests that the falsifiers believe in the results they report and therefore see no threat in attempts by other researchers to replicate their work..

Or they believe that no one will ever think of repeating their research, at least not for some time (many scientific studies are not repeated, but medical research tends to be repeated several times because of their importance to human health, although this process often takes several years). The problem of falsification is so widespread that scientists who are not involved in falsification sometimes deserve special recognition - like the Italian scientist Franco Rasetti: “Today we hear about a lot of falsifications in science and create numerous commissions and committees on ethics. For Rasetti, scientific integrity was an axiom.".

The falsification has spread to such an extent that the authors of one of the works devoted to this problem conclude: "... science retains very little resemblance to its usual image". Although falsification of results is more common among researchers working alone, it also occurs in group projects supervised by colleagues. Among those accused of falsification are the great biologists of our time. The problem exists at Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, Baylor and other major universities. In a review of fraud in an editorial in Nature, it is noted that in many cases false results are not the work of ambitious young scientists, but of experienced researchers. The article reads:

“... a good dozen cases of falsification revealed in the last five years occurred at the best research institutes in the world - Cornell, Harvard, Yale, the Sloan-Kettering Institute and so on - and people who were recognized among colleagues as outstanding scientists were involved in them . Requirements to publish works can explain the abundance of boring scientific literature - but not falsification.

The methods of falsification are varied - from data forgery to frank rewriting of large sections from other articles. Nature comes to the conclusion about the growth of plagiarism, especially in the field of molecular biology. To prevent "leakage of information", many scientists even present incorrect information in the manuscripts of their articles, making adjustments to it only immediately before publication. And the forecast for the future is disappointing: the number of falsifications will increase, especially in medical biology, where a scientist is required to publish a lot of work.

Forgers among Darwinists

The scientific method is the ideal, but there are cases in which it is especially difficult to apply. This applies, in particular, to the "proof" of certain scientific hypotheses - for example, from the field of "science of origins". A good example of this difficulty is "the theory of evolution [as] another example of a theory highly valued by scientists ... but in a sense too deep to be directly proven or disproven". The main problem in this matter lies in arrogance - a quality common in the scientific world. Some scientists believe that they know everything better than anyone, and only they have the right to ask questions, and if they do not ask them, then no one else should do it.

The famous case of falsification in evolutionary research associated with the Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer is the subject of a classic book called The Case of the Midwife Toad. Kammerer drew in ink "marriage calluses" on the feet of the toads he studied. And although this forgery, allegedly testifying in favor of the Lamarckian theory of evolution, was exposed, for decades it was used by the ideologists of evolution in Soviet science - including Trofim Lysenko. In another similar case, William Summerlin faked the results of an experiment in the 1970s by drawing black spots on white test mice with a felt-tip pen.

And here is a very recent case of falsification in evolutionary research - the archeoraptor, the "evolutionary find of the century", allegedly confirming the origin of birds from dinosaurs. National Geographic Society "proclaimed the discovery of the fossil ... as the true missing link in the complex chain connecting dinosaurs and birds". Simons analyzed the authenticity of Archeoraptor, which "several eminent paleontologists" called "the long-awaited key to the mystery of evolution", and proved that it was a falsification. High-resolution X-ray tomography revealed "disparate fragments skillfully glued together." In this falsification, "fanaticism and folly", "the collapse of an overgrown ego", "abuse of trust" and "evil thought" were combined. The story of the Piltdown Man was repeated, and Simons adds that in this story, "every single one" of the participants showed their worst side.

Paul Harvey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford, expresses dismay at the sheer amount of "Moeller's papers with new data and analysis" - all of which is now suspect,30 a fact that "makes nervous" many editors. ...Michael Ritchie from the University of St. Andrews (UK), editor of the magazine Journal of Evolutionary Biology and a member of the leadership of scientific societies that publish journals Evolution and Animal Behaviour r [stated]: “We have to think carefully about what to do and do it right. I don't think we can make hasty decisions.".

Meller's problem first surfaced when lab assistant Jette Andersen claimed that the Oikos article was not based on her data, as Meller had claimed, but on fabricated data. The investigation confirmed this fact. Then suspicions touched other works. Now scientists fear that many of Meller's works have been falsified, and all of his work is under suspicion.

Recent events speak to the seriousness of the problem

Unfortunately, medicine and biology are especially affected by falsifications. The authors of one of the studies found 94 papers in the field of oncology that “probably” contained fraudulent data. Two years later, many of these papers have not yet received a rebuttal from the authors. Thus, the conclusion is confirmed that “Even if scientific incorrectness is proven, there is no mechanism to remove incorrect information from the scientific literature”.

One case of falsification in medicine concerns cardiologist John Darcy at Harvard Medical School. The data was fabricated and formed the basis of more than 100 of his publications over a period of about three years. This case shows how just a few people can create a lot of falsified publications. Having studied 109 articles by Darcy, the researchers found in them completely “abnormal” data that obviously could not be true, numerous inconsistencies, and gross internal contradictions. Examples of egregious errors and inconsistencies were found that reviewers simply had to notice. The authors of the analysis conclude that the co-authors and reviewers who read this work were grossly incompetent.

Another case concerns a biological study that seemed to "turn the generally accepted theory of cell signaling on its head." The article received a refutation by the authors only 15 months after publication. This fact shocked cytologists, and, as the authors of the review note, the career of Siu-Kwon Chen, one of the co-authors of the article, irrevocably ended. Gary Strul, a scientist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Columbia University in New York, co-author of the paper and lead author, published a retraction on February 6. In his rebuttal, Strul stated that Chen, “performed a post-doctoral study in his laboratory, misreported results, or failed to perform critical experiments described in the article”(S.-K. Chan and G. Struhl Cell 111, 265-280; 2002). Strul discovered the problem by repeating some of Chen's experiments. Not getting the expected results, Strul, he said, asked for an explanation from his former subordinate, who by then had moved to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. “Faced with this discrepancy, S.-K. Chen informed me that most of his experiments ... either were not performed or gave results that differed from those given in the article.. Strul writes in a rebuttal: “Therefore, I declare that this article and the conclusions given in it are invalid”. Before publishing the results in October 2002, they worked on the science project for five years.

How to measure lies

Broad and Wade argue that lying in science was not at all an exceptional phenomenon, but, on the contrary, a trend - from its inception to the present day. However, it would be very useful to try to measure the extent of falsification in science - now and in the past. For example, can we say that four percent of all scientific papers in the last thirty years contain false data? Or is it six percent? Or thirty? This fraction depends on what we call a lie, and whether we include unintentional lies (for example, experimental errors) in this category. A one percent figure may seem insignificant, or, depending on one's point of view, catastrophic. Let's say if AIDS strikes half a percent of the world's population, it will be called an epidemic (or rather, a pandemic). In addition, even if you repeat the experiment and find a discrepancy between its results and published data, it will be very difficult to prove the fact of falsification, since evidence of dishonesty is easy to hide. If a scientist claims that a given result has been obtained, then the maximum that can be proved is a persistent discrepancy between the results of repeated experiments with the data of this scientist. Dishonesty can be exposed only if some laboratory assistant declares falsification.

Why is cheating so common?

The modern system of organization of scientific research contributes to the spread of falsifications. Service careers are at stake - positions, grants, lucrative employment contracts and, in the literal sense of the word, the well-being of scientists. This is partly the result of the "publish or quit" policy in scientific institutions. As Broad and Wade point out, “federal government grants and contracts … dry up quickly unless they are followed by immediate and ongoing success”. The incentive to publish, to make a name for yourself in science, to receive prestigious awards and invitations to participate in the management of educational institutions - all this creates a temptation for fraud. The authors come to a startling conclusion: “Lies and violation of norms are inherent in science as no other form of human activity”. And as Broad and Wade emphasize, scientists “Nothing different from other people. Putting on a white coat at the door of the laboratory, they do not get rid of the passions, ambitions and mistakes that accompany a person on any life path..

Usually, when falsifying, the data is not completely rewritten. Most often, the falsifier slightly changes them, ignores some of the data received, and some “corrects” the data to such an extent as to change the result that is close to the expected, but does not have the necessary statistical reliability to the level of 95% reliability. It is very difficult to understand whether the falsification was intentional. It is difficult to distinguish dishonesty from normal human error, negligence, negligence or incompetence. A scientist can, guided by a speculative theory, turn a blind eye to obvious facts that contradict his ideas. The generally accepted theories seem to be carved in stone: they are not so easy to disprove, even if there is a huge amount of new information that contradicts this "inviolable" theory.

One of the reasons for falsification in science is the fact that the purpose of science is to create comprehensive theories, not to collect facts. Sometimes it is difficult to force facts to fit a theory—for example, in situations where there are many anomalies. In these cases, there is a strong temptation to ignore facts that do not agree with these theories. The desire to gain recognition from colleagues (and become famous) from the early days of science led to the temptation to distort or ignore the data obtained, manipulate the facts and even go to outright lies.

Do not notice the mistakes of colleagues

Given the fact that scientific communication is carried out predominantly through print publications, there is a tendency to publish only the work of those few scientists who managed to substantiate a theory in a significant way, and not to publish many results that look less significant. Therefore, scientists often, consciously or not, do this: if the facts confirm the theory, then they are emphasized, if they do not completely confirm, then they correct it, and if they contradict, then they are ignored. But there is also a more sophisticated falsification. One example is the case of Dr. Gluck:

“Just a month has passed since the National Institute of Psychiatry issued its verdict on the investigation into the Breuning case, and the medical community is already shaken by a new scandal. For 22 years, therapist Charles Gluck has been climbing the ranks of science. After graduating in 1964, he has since published about 400 papers at a tremendous rate of about 17 per year. For his work on cholesterol and heart disease, Gluck received the prestigious Riveschl Award from the University of Cincinnati in 1980. Gluck was director of the Lipid Research Center and the General Center for Clinical Research at the university, making him one of the most powerful and highly paid scientists in the state. However, last July, the National Institutes of Health discovered that Gluck's August 1986 paper in the journal Pediatrics was full of inconsistencies and errors. The article, according to the NIH, was frankly lowbrow, and its conclusions were unsubstantiated.”

How did Gluck manage to get an article full of "inconsistencies and errors" printed in a peer-reviewed journal? The practice of peer review of grant proposals means that the scientists who decide who to give money to have a very large influence on what kind of research will be done. Opportunistic research is funded, and work that supposedly contradicts conventional theories (such as Darwinism) has almost no chance of getting funding. Dalton notes that, despite the well-known problem with peer review, “so far, no serious alternative to this system has been proposed. “It's easy to say the system is bad. It's harder to fix it," says Ronald McKay, a stem cell scientist at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Paralysis in Bethesda, Maryland. They tried to fix the matter by requiring reviewers to put their signature on reviews. It was assumed that if the reviewers were required to put their signature under the review, their work would become more open, and no one could interfere with the study under the guise of anonymity. Rennie advocates this approach. He says: “This is the only trustworthy, worthwhile, transparent and honest system ... I turned to scientists with this appeal, but the majority did not support me.”

Numerous "flaws in the system of publishing articles" are mainly caused by the fact that "peer review does not guarantee quality." One way to combat this problem is to publish the names of the reviewers; these people must be trusted. Another way is to publish clear and strict criteria for selection of articles, and if the article does not meet these criteria, the author must make corrections to it until it does not meet them.

Does the scientific world correct the mistakes of individual scientists?

Peer review turned out to be a sham. Eventually “much of what goes into print without arousing objections is actually wrong, and no one knows about it - or maybe no one cares”. Anderson analyzed attempts to defend the system of peer review: for example, the editor-in-chief of the journal Science Donald Donald Kennedy states that "no one ever expected that peer review would reveal falsifications." Kennedy believes that he was partially able to justify this system of peer review, however, in Science, and in Nature articles were published containing false data, and inconsistencies in these articles can hardly be called invisible. As an example, he cites Jan Hendrik Schon, who in one of his works

“used the same curve in two different plots, and in another article gave results without error values. Both journals emphasize that they select articles for publication based on high scientific merit and reviewers based on high professionalism. Could editors and reviewers fail to notice these glaring inconsistencies? In these articles, by the way, statements of great importance for industry and science were made. In addition, Sean was exposed by scientists who were not involved in the review.

The problem is that "science has a pathogenic side" because "lust for power" or "greed" "can afflict the scientist" just like anyone else. Anyone who has ever worked in a laboratory or university, or simply read about the history of science, is well aware of the pride, envy, and competitive spirit that afflict scientists working in the same field. In an effort to "win", some scientists "cooked" discoveries for themselves: they adjusted the real results to what they expected to get.

The main problem with falsifications lies in the science itself. Scientists “see their profession in the light of the spectacular ideals created by philosophers and sociologists. Like all believers, they tend to interpret what they see according to what their faith tells them.". And, unfortunately, science is "a complex process in which the observer can see almost anything they want by narrowing the field of view". For example, James Randi concluded that it is very easy to fool scientists with tricks. The problem of objectivity is very serious, as many scientists believe passionately in their work and the theories they are trying to prove. This passion can support the scientist in his efforts to achieve a result, or it can affect the result and even distort it.

Many examples show that scientists are especially prone to self-deception when they are dealing with facts that call into question the foundations of their worldview. "All watchers, even well-trained ones, tend to see what they expect to see." Nowhere is this more evident than in the highly polemical field of evolutionary research.

Robert Rosenthal, in a series of experiments that have become classic today, studied how scientists perceive the results of an experiment. In one of the experiments, he suggested that scientists conduct a test with "active" and "sluggish" rats. In fact, the rats were randomly divided into two groups. None of the scientists participating in the experiment had experience with this test. The scientists reported that the "active" rats performed better, when in fact this was not the case. The experimenters saw what they wanted (or expected) to see (now called the "anticipation effect") - perhaps unconsciously; it is likely that the scientists stopped the stopwatch a fraction of a second earlier with "active" rats and a fraction of a second later with "sluggish" ones. Other similar experiments have produced similar results.

Science as a tool of suppression

One way to discredit an unpopular theory, especially when it comes to the origin of life, is to call it "unscientific" and the opposite theory "scientific." Sociologists have studied the detrimental effects of this labeling for years. This approach has a positive effect on one of the directions resulting from the artificial separation, and a negative effect on the other direction. In any scientific controversy, the right thing to do is to judge each point of view on its value, using the purely scientific method.

In their study of falsifications in science, Broad and Wade argue that the term "science" is often used as a "label" to hint at the truth or falsity of a statement. According to them, the conventional wisdom is that “science is a strictly logical process, objectivity is an integral part of the attitude of a scientist to his work, and scientific opinions are carefully checked by colleagues and repeated experiments. In such a self-monitoring system, errors of any kind are quickly identified and corrected.”

After that, the authors show that this idea of science is wrong. The result of their work helps us understand the features of scientific work from a more realistic perspective than is common today. They show that supposedly "error-proof" mechanisms of scientific research often do not correct the consequences of falsification, which they call the "epidemic" of modern science. The desire to “be first”, the need to receive grants, travel to exotic places for conferences, the lure of money and prestige, forces many scientists to abandon the high ideals that confronted them at the beginning of their careers.

conclusions

The published literature and interviews I have taken with faculty members of the medical faculty confirm the existence of the problem of falsification in science today. Reasons for falsification include money, positions, grant opportunities, professional competition, and the need to prove a theory or idea. But there is another factor as well. This is a neglect of Christianity and moral values, which resulted in a crisis of ethical foundations that held back falsification. The problem of falsification is especially acute in areas of science that support Darwinism, and it has been around for a long time. The literature describes hundreds of cases of falsification of scientific results. Unfortunately, even when conducting repeated experiments (which is not done in all areas of science), falsification is very difficult to recognize. As a rule, only the assistants and colleagues of the forger can expose the falsification, but often they do not report its fact, as this can cost them friendships and reputation. They may even become the object of revenge. According to Roman, "scammers" are "rare" because of this.

As a result, falsification in science, according to many, has grown into an epidemic. The biological sciences are of great concern in this sense. It is believed that more than 10% of scientists admit dishonesty in this area. It follows that most scientists cite false or at least inaccurate data in their works. Meanwhile, there are very few extensive studies on falsifications (and, probably, the cases found in their course are just the tip of the notorious iceberg).

Jerry Bergman is preparing to receive the ninth academic degree. The main areas of his scientific interests are biology, chemistry, psychology, scientific and technical research. Bergman graduated from a number of educational institutions, including Wayne University (Detroit), Ohio Medical College (Toledo), Bowling Green University. Dr. Bergman is a prolific writer; in addition, he teaches biology, chemistry, and biochemistry at Northwestern University in Archbold, Ohio.

We must remember that science is not an end in itself, and not the meaning of life. This is one of the tools, albeit very important in understanding the world. A misunderstanding of science is no different from a religious faith with its dogmas. It is not for nothing that one of the most totalitarian sects of our world is called the Church of Scientology (scientology from the English science - science), and in philosophy they even distinguish a belief system called scientism, whose adherents affirm the fundamental role of science as a source of knowledge and judgments about the world.

So, speaking in essence, the main "punctures" of science include:
1. Unintentional errors.
2. Deliberate falsifications.

We are all human, and humans make mistakes. Of course, ancient people can hardly be called scientists (they did not have microscopes and degrees with Nobel Prizes), but, nevertheless, the desire to know the world around him manifested itself in man from ancient times. Therefore, errors and erroneous ideas about the world and laws arose from the very history of mankind.

Planet Earth in the form of a flat pancake, the continuum of Greek natural philosophy, ideas about the four principles (earth, water, air and fire.) of matter, attempts to turn base metals into gold - all these are the components of the history of modern science. Mankind had to go through this path of knowledge, no matter how absurd it may seem now.

And here it is necessary to understand that errors and ignorance of the causes of phenomena are the destiny of not only antiquity and the Middle Ages. Back in the 19th century, scientists believed that heat was transferred from one object to another with the help of a special weightless substance called caloric, which was present in every body. Only at the end of the 19th century was radiation discovered, and ignorance of its consequences led to tragic results: Marie Sklodowska Curie, who conducted the experiments, subsequently died of leukemia. In the 20th century, fierce disputes boiled over the model of the structure of the atom. And even now science still does not know very much. When talking about science, it is important to be aware of its weakness in order to avoid mistakes.

We, for example, love to look at beautiful drawings of dinosaurs or ancient people, but we rarely think that the personal opinion of scientists, who, as you know, can be wrong, plays an important role in the reconstruction of the appearance of fossils. So, examining the remains of Iguanodon, scientists announced that he had a horn on his nose. However, subsequent studies found that he did not have any horns, but there were spikes on his front legs ....

It is important to understand that true knowledge is not always where they confidently speak on behalf of science. Therefore, summing up the above, we can say that scientists, of course, cannot be accused of random errors, with the exception of such cases, which can be said with the words “oh, you don’t need to deceive me, I myself am glad to be deceived.” The most striking example of such errors can be our unforgettable, unshakable and painfully familiar Theory of Evolution. The stubbornness with which many scientists hold on to it is explained only by the fact that apart from it, they actually cannot offer anything else. Does this theory have a right to exist? Of course, because it meets the minimum requirement for a theory, namely predictability.

The trouble begins when this theory is presented as an absolutely proven fact, which is not true. And if scientists themselves know about this, then ordinary people leave schools with a firm conviction that, roughly speaking, we are all descendants of monkeys. But the word Theory itself speaks of the unprovenness of this statement, for a theory is just what needs to be proved. The fact that it is not necessary to prove, as you know, is called an axiom.

Unfortunately, some scientists, unable to prove the truth of their research and discoveries, resort to falsifications.

Frauds are different. Sometimes scientists are driven by greed, sometimes by ambition. But for us, the falsifications and errors that are constructed with the aim of war against religion are of the greatest interest.

As we have already said, the desire to present the theory of evolution as a fact forced some scientists to outright falsifications. One of the weakest points in TE is the absence of fossil transitional species. This explains the desire of scientists to fill this gap. And in this, the bones of various animals and good quality glue were good helpers.

In December 1912, the Royal Geological Society officially announced the discovery at Piltdown of the remains of an intermediate species between ape and man - an eoanthropus. Subsequently, a monument was even erected to the Pittledown man at the place of acquisition. However, already in the late forties, doubts began to appear about the truth of the find. Studies have shown that the eoanthrope is a fake. The skull fragments belonged to humans, while the lower jaw belonged to a chimpanzee. The teeth of the unfortunate applicant for transitional laurels were corny filed.

Another fresh example of falsification is the archeoraptor, which, according to inventive scientists, should have been an intermediate step between dinosaurs and birds. In November 1999, National Geographic magazine published an article about the discovery of an archeoraptor, but a year later, using X-ray tomography, it was proved that this specimen was a skillfully glued craft made up of bird bones and a small microraptor dinosaur.

Another falsification: Haeckel's embryos. This enterprising scientist in 1986 published pictures that allegedly showed fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit and human embryos in three stages of development. This proved that the human embryo during the first months of its development briefly repeats the various stages of evolution: the possession of gills, like a fish, a tail, like a monkey, and so on. And since Ernst Haeckel had no evidence, the resourceful scientist ... simply changed the drawings of the embryos. As early as 1874, Haeckel's falsification was exposed by Professor Heath. However, the locomotive of evolutionary propaganda was at that time in full swing and any doubts were hushed up and hushed up. And only at the end of the 20th century, Michael Richardson, an embryologist at the London Medical School of St. George in London, the issue of falsification was raised again. A group created to study this problem collected embryos from 39 representatives of the animal world and found that the embryos of different animals differ significantly. Richardson himself described it this way: “This is one of the worst cases of scientific falsification. It is shocking when you find that someone who was considered a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It infuriates me ... He (Haeckel) did the following: he took a human embryo and copied it pretending that the salamander and the pig and everything else looks exactly the same at the same stage of development. No, they don't look... They're fakes." (one)

Stories are also known falsifications aimed at proving the variability of the body under the influence of external factors. For this purpose, felt-tip pens and pens came in handy. Remembering their childhood, scientists enthusiastically began to play coloring books: the Viennese biologist Paul Kammerer painted "marital calluses" on toads' feet. William Summerlin used a felt-tip pen to draw black spots on white test mice.

In addition, falsifications were revealed in the works of one of the world's experts in the field of evolutionary biology, Anders Möller, "who is the author of more than 450 articles and several books. her data, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the correctness of the laboratory assistant.Now the rest of the scientist's work is under suspicion.A disservice to archeology was done by lovers of burying rarities and then finding them.We have already talked about the Pitladunovsky man.Alas, this is not the only case of falsification in archeology.

In Japan, at one time, the archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura, nicknamed the "hand of God," who, starting in 1981, periodically dug up sensational finds tens of thousands of years old, was very popular. In 2000, Fujimura reached the peak of his fame, finding a 600,000-year-old (!!) pebble with an artificially hollowed out hole. And everything would be fine, but only these paparazzi can’t sit at home. One of these scandal-seekers peeped and filmed how a descendant of the samurai digs into the pit objects that he himself had to accidentally find. Involuntarily, a bearded proverb about a piano that accidentally ended up in the bushes comes to mind. Backed against the wall by irrefutable evidence, the archaeologist was forced to confess his falsifications.

Many scientists are driven by the desire to become famous, especially among colleagues, to leave their name in history. Much to their delight, their undertakings are briskly picked up by the media: "it's so interesting, and in the end you have to write about something." News agencies periodically give out sensational news about allegedly found vaccines against AIDS or cancer, about successful teleportation of substances, about copulation of algae, about the creation of transistors the size of one molecule, etc., etc. No one is surprised by statements even from reputable scientists about the miraculous properties of the pyramids, about the unique property of water to record information and about contacts with extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, not very well-known scientists are fond of such theories, because here, as they say, the niche is still free and there is a chance to make themselves known. For example, the until recently unknown archaeologist Harald Cresson became famous after his "find" in 1884 in Delaware of a sea shell depicting a mammoth. From this, it was concluded that mammoths moved to America and survived almost to the present day, although neither earlier nor to this day have any fossil mammoths been found on the territory of the American mainland. However, in 1988, James Griffin proved that this image is a copy of a similar image found earlier in Europe. Even nuclear physics was not without falsifications. In 1999 at the National Laboratory. Lawrence at Berkeley announced the discovery of superheavy elements 116 and 118. However, repeated experiments carried out in Darmstadt, in Japan, and three times again at Berkeley, gave negative results: a new genetic family could not be found. "We found that some of the data had been grossly tweaked," Lee Schroeder, director of the Berkeley Division of Nuclear Physics, said in this regard. And of course, one of the reasons for the emergence of falsifications is the eternal love of man for the golden calf. After all, a scientist is also a person - he also needs to feed his children, and sponsors often stop funding research if they do not see any benefit in them. So scientists have to show miracles of resourcefulness according to the saying: "if you want to live, know how to spin" For example, the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk was accused of misappropriation of public and private funds (6.5 million dollars), which the scientist received for allegedly successful experiments on cloning.

Norwegian scientist Yona Destiny received a $10 million grant from the US National Cancer Research Institute to study the effects of anti-inflammatory drugs on the risk of laryngeal cancer in smokers. in October 2005, the Lancet published the results of studies that showed that when taking anti-inflammatory drugs, the risk of developing laryngeal cancer is reduced by 2.5 times. However, later it accidentally turned out that the database of patients on whom the research was allegedly carried out turned out to be fake ...

Stefan Willich, director of the Berlin Institute for Social Medicine, falsified clinical data to prove that loud noise contributes to heart disease. So, without in any way rejecting science, it should be noted that a lie in the scientific world, alas, is not such an impossible phenomenon. Moreover, we see, perhaps, only the tip of the iceberg, because it is not always easy to detect falsification. Often, scientists act very carefully, because through simple combinations, even if the deception is revealed, it is possible to write off everything on the human factor. Usually, in falsification, the data is not completely invented. A scientist changes some data, ignores others and gets quite acceptable results. Unfortunately, the scientific community itself does not always adequately respond to controversial research, supporting the conjuncture.

Knowingly misinterpreting something in order to obtain some benefit (for example, falsification of scientific data, data, etc.).

Falsification should be distinguished from.

There is also a place for falsification in the manufacture of food products. Sometimes, to improve the organoleptic properties, various additives are used that mimic the improvement in quality (sweeteners, dyes, etc.)

Falsification in art

Fake things

A fake is an imitation that is usually made with the intent to maliciously misrepresent its content or origin. Word fake most often describes counterfeit or , but can also describe things like: , or any other product, especially when it results in infringement or trademark infringement. Often, in order to avoid accusations of infringement, fake things are stamped very similar to the original names of the producing companies, but with one or more letters in the name changed. The most famous cases: -, Abibas- etc.

Food adulteration

Food adulteration was extremely common until the 19th century. Research into the practice of mixing in the early 19th century and the development of methods for detecting falsification in the mid-19th century led to the adoption in Great Britain in 1860 of the first food mixing law ( Food Adulteration Act). In 1906, through the efforts of a chemist, publicists (, and others), with the support of the president, "" was adopted, and in 1907 it entered into force: it was created (FDA).

According to the Federal Law "On the Quality and Safety of Food Products":

Counterfeit food products, materials and products - food products, materials and products that are intentionally altered (fake) and (or) have hidden properties and quality, information about which is obviously incomplete or unreliable.

Falsification of perfumery and cosmetic products

Counterfeit drugs

At the end of the 20th century, falsification became widespread. It is believed that a significant part of them is produced on the same ones that produce “normal drugs” (“unaccounted for”). The other part is made in small clandestine, in which proper production conditions cannot be provided at all, in this case, the preparations can be very different from those indicated on the label. Some fakes are sold through.

Drug control is the responsibility of the relevant departments of the Ministry of Health.

Despite the widespread reflection of the problem of falsification of medicines in, control authorities almost never transfer the case to, limiting themselves to withdrawing low-quality and counterfeit drugs from the sale. This testifies both to the weakness of the regulatory authorities and the imperfection of the legislation, as well as to the high potential.

Falsification and forgery in philately

Falsification in science

Fake media

In 2017, the phrase "fake news" was recognized as the phrase of the year. This phrase meant sensational, but obviously false messages. Experts from note the vague nature of the concept of fake news, which include, secretive and. Sometimes truthful messages are given out as fakes, the headlines of which exaggerate sensationalism. Fake stories are often presented as eyewitness accounts who send fake photos to the editorial office. As a rule, fakes are spread by the media, which themselves are in error. Subsequently, the media may apologize for publishing fakes. Fake news can be news that refers to "unnamed sources". In some countries (), legislators plan to criminalize the dissemination of fake news, but human rights activists warn that this may serve as a legal basis for restricting freedom of speech. The word "fake news" was used to characterize the channel.

IN

As photo processing technology advances, .

Fake (fake) can also be accounts, pages or sites with content similar to the main site.

Notes

"3D barcodes target counterfeit drugs and devices"
On the quality and safety of food products (as amended on December 30, 2008) (version effective from December 26, 2009) (indefinite) . Products. CJSC Codex. Retrieved April 15, 2010. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012.
Falsification // Philatelic Dictionary / V. Grallert, V. Grushke; Abbr. per. with him. Yu. M. Sokolova and E. P. Sashenkova. - M .: Communication, 1977. - S. 193-194. — 271 p. - 63,000 copies.

Photos from open sources

The falsification of the truth is a common thing for our wretched society, where it is headed by a bunch of multi-rich people, for whom unlimited power over the people is much more important than the development and prosperity of modern civilization. And there is no such crime that they would not commit for the sake of the power of money. (website)

Today, it is almost no secret to anyone that for the sake of this most notorious unlimited power of the world government, history is distorted, written and rewritten. However, as it became known, even more terrible for society is the falsification of science, which allows the Illuminati to keep humanity in darkness, poverty and hunger.

Photos from open sources

It was with such a statement that Alfred Webr, who was once an adviser to the White House, and therefore knows all the ins and outs of the US government's policy of concealing scientific data, knows firsthand. Well, Webr claims that in the United States, let's say, the same time machine has been under development for at least eighty years. During this time, in the course of numerous experiments, there were both dead and missing, however, in the end, amazing results were achieved, proving that it is possible to travel both to the past and to the future.

Photos from open sources

For this reason, says Webr, the White House government, for example, knew about the tragedy of September 11, 2001, in the early seventies. This is proved even by the Illuminati playing cards, which appeared in 1995, which depicted the collapsing twin towers of the famous New York World Trade Center. Then all this, of course, was written off as a coincidence, but in fact, such decks of cards are evidence of information leakage.

Photos from open sources

But why in this case the US government did not prevent the most grandiose terrorist attack of the beginning of the 21st century is another question, although it is again closely related to the distortion of the truth (any).

Falsification and secrecy go hand in hand

The richest clans of the Earth, sometimes called the world government, sometimes the Illuminati, which is essentially the same thing, at the beginning of the last century classified all scientific experiments that would undermine their fabulous income from the sale of gas, oil, and other important natural resources, and therefore world science today is bribed. All developments, such as "time machine", "perpetual motion machine", "zero energy and its wireless transmission" are tabooed. These developments can only be carried out by selected (you know who) scientists in secret laboratories under the supervision of, say, the same CIA. Therefore, the results of these studies are closed to society, but they are successfully used by the Illuminati themselves for their own selfish, almost misanthropic purposes.

Photos from open sources

Alfred Webr gives an example that a hundred years ago the world "elite" developed a memorandum aimed at falsifying science and practically destroying it all over the world. It all started with the destruction of the fundamental disciplines for science and education - the scientific method and logic. Thanks to this, fundamental science is practically marking time - it has reached a complete dead end. This is also confirmed by the luminaries of modern scientific thought, such as M. Kaku, V. Katyushchik, S. Sall and many others, who state in plain text that today we are practically running in the opposite direction from the same zero energy (free for all mankind) and many other great discoveries, since dogmas and patterns that are contrary to common sense are imposed on society.

Instead of Mendeleev's Newtonian, Einstein's erroneous theory

For example, why was the element newtonium excluded from D. Mendeleev's table, which was in the zero row and from which the table just began? And the fact is that Newtonium corresponds to the world ether, which stores and transmits all types of energy in nature. The very theory of the ether just led to unlimited and practically free energy, which was not at all included in the plans of the oil and gas magnates. And then, instead of the ether theory, Einstein's theory of relativity was imposed on the world. Moreover, the German scientist himself would be very surprised to get acquainted with some of the provisions of "his theory", which were frankly falsified.

Photos from open sources

In fact, V.Katyushchik explains, it is not space that is bent, but a place, for example, the trajectory of photons passing by the Sun is bent, but not space at all. These are the basics of the scientific method that are not taught in universities, as is the interpretation of the first law of logic. And why? Yes, because otherwise students will get to the bottom of the truth and ask with surprise: what does the curvature of space have to do with it?

Why and how do the richest clans of the world falsify science?

In the middle of the last century, journalists still raised this issue - the falsification of science. For example, in the newspaper "Financial Times" of that time you can find an article "What is science?". It said that the modern luminaries of science are far from celestials who do everything for the good of the people. Among them are full of swindlers, crooks and forgers, and that for the sake of money they are ready for any meanness, up to and including crime. Unfortunately, the authors of that article concluded, the activities of such "prominent scientists" are recognized by society too late, sometimes when they are no longer alive. And sometimes you don’t even get to the bottom of the truth, who is to blame for what ...

However, as Alfred Webr explains, journalists at that time did not understand the main reason why people from science falsify this very science, that they are simply paid for their silence, their fraud and even their crimes. And they pay well, because it is very beneficial for the world government. Actually, there are two sciences in the world. One is true, but secret, and the second is public, but deceitful and corrupt. By the way, the same picture can be seen in education, which is why society is becoming more and more stupid and poorly educated, despite the numerous secondary and higher educational institutions. And the fact that the satirist Zadornov ridicules the Unified State Examination and American education, which has already flooded the whole world, including Russia, is actually far from funny, but sad and even tragic for all mankind ...

Photos from open sources

For example, the same Rockefeller is generously paid for by the so-called “science commissions”, which have been created in almost all the advanced countries of the world, thereby suppressing any attempts to develop and even more so implement the same alternative fuel-free technologies, medicines for the most terrible diseases of our century , means of life extension, revealing the hidden potential of a person and much more that undermines their power over the world. Thanks to these commissions, everything advanced is declared quackery, pseudoscience, obscurantism. At the same time, the world government itself, on the other hand, also generously finances its underground science, and uses the fruits of purchased scientists to direct forbidden knowledge to further strengthen its already almost limitless power ...

MOSCOW, June 27 - RIA Novosti, Alfiya Enikeeva. The authors of the Stanford prison experiment were suspected of staging. This threatens to cancel the results of the study, which is considered canonical by psychologists around the world. The history of science knows many falsifications. RIA Novosti recalls the loudest academic scandals and understands why scientists cheat.

Women scientists are more honest than men, study showsIn addition, it turned out that men are more likely to break the rules: they accounted for 149 cases of cheating (65%). At the same time, the higher the status of a scientist, the higher was the proportion of male offenders.

If in the case of c Zimbardo it is rather a matter of misinterpreting the results obtained (a special case was extended to the entire human population) and ignoring errors in the methodology, then the Japanese biologist Haruko Obokata falsified the results themselves.

In January 2014, an employee of Harvard University (USA) and the RIKEN Scientific Institute (Japan) Haruko Obokata published in Nature a sensational statement that ordinary cells can be turned into stem cells without interfering with their genetic code, simply by exposure to acid. A Japanese woman claimed to have obtained mouse stem cells from lymph cells.

The study was breakthrough because it opened the prospect of creating artificial organs and tissues with a low risk of rejection. After all, stem cells can turn into any types of cells that make up the body.

In the spring, the researcher admitted to falsifying some data, but continued to insist that she received stem cells using her method more than two hundred times. She was asked to repeat the experiment in a lab with 24-hour video surveillance. Obata tried 48 times to create stem cells without success.

She was fired from the institute, the article was retracted from Nature. One of the co-authors of the work, Yoshiki Sasai, who led the laboratory where the experiments described in the article were carried out, committed suicide.

Clones that didn't exist

South Korean biologist Hwang Woo Suk became famous as the world's first clone of human stem cells and a dog, traditionally a difficult object to copy.

In articles published in Science and Nature, he claimed to have created a culture of embryonic stem cells (in such experiments, not individual cells are obtained, but entire cell generations - lines) from the cells of adults. In addition, he used only 185 eggs for eleven cell lines. This is quite a bit. For comparison, it took 236 eggs to clone Dolly the sheep.

Some scientists refused to cooperate with Hwang Woo Suk, pointing out the violations he committed when obtaining eggs. Seoul University, where the biologist worked, initiated an independent review of all his research.

As a result, in addition to ethical violations in the acquisition of eggs (they were given by students and university employees), it turned out that all the results, except for cloning a dog, were falsified. Of the eleven cell lines, nine had identical DNA, meaning they were descendants of the same cell.

Science has published a rebuttal. At home, the scientist was sentenced to two years probation for embezzlement of public funds and banned from stem cell research.

Fictional Experiments

The German physicist Hendrik Schön, a specialist in microelectronics, simply invented experiments, and then described the results of the experiments in accordance with his assumptions. This strategy worked well for many years, and the scientist was even considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize.

For three years (from 1998 to 2001), Shen demonstrated in organic materials almost all the electronic phenomena required by the high-tech industry, from superconductivity to a single-molecule transistor. Every eight days there was a new publication.

Other scientists have never been able to reproduce his experiments. And in 2002, it turned out that several of his works used the same diagram, but with different signatures. In the laboratory of Bell Labs (USA), where Shen worked, began an internal investigation. turned out to be disappointing: Shen conducted all the experiments alone, did not keep laboratory records, and destroyed the samples of materials.

The scientific work of the physicist was recognized as falsified. He was fired and stripped of his doctorate.

Introduced Dostoevsky and Dickens

One of the most high-profile scientific scandals happened in literary criticism. British researcher Arnold Harvey has been writing scientific articles under various pseudonyms for 35 years (at least seven of his alter egos are known), quoting himself and inventing historical facts.

In particular, in 2002 he described the meeting between Dickens and Dostoevsky, when an English writer allegedly complained to a Russian colleague about mental illness: "Two personalities coexist in me." To which Dostoevsky replied: "Only two?" and winked.

This pseudo-meeting, which was later mentioned by all Dickensian scholars, marked the beginning of a whole series of revelations. The American Slavist from the University of California at Berkeley, Eric Neumann, doubted the accuracy of the information provided and tried to find the author of the publication, which first mentioned the conversation between famous writers.

Stephanie Harvey, who wrote that article, referred to the Vedomosti of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, but this journal could not be found. But the researcher was actively quoted and even criticized by other scientists, whose existence Neumann also did not find traces. After an almost detective investigation, it turned out that these are all pseudonyms of Arnold Harvey.

It was impossible to dismiss him for violating scientific ethics; by that time he had not worked anywhere. The historian himself is pleased with how much noise his hoax has made. In one of the interviews, he said that he wanted to demonstrate the bias of the editors of scientific journals, who for several years refused to publish papers signed by his real name.