The definitions below are mine, and are based on my observations of many years. Both bad, or corrupt, "scientists" can cause great harm (Ex: pollution of an area, cause death of native organisms, cause illness/injury to humans, give wrong information to the public, etc.), because they can lead to false answers rather than the truth. Such "scientists" commit a fraud on society and the corrupt ones should be prosecuted for their fraud, in my opinion. The bad "scientists" may have committed fraud by accident, but the corrupt "scientists" committed fraud on purpose.
A real scientist is constantly questioning, observing, and seeking the truth, without regard to politics, power, money, sex, or any other outside influence. In my opinion, Dr. Gordon Gunter, who hired me in l971 as a new Ph.D., and was a major teacher to me in life and science, represented what it means to be a real scientist.
A bad scientist is one who does things out of ignorance, stupidity, or carelessness which may affect research in progress or the conclusions of research.
A very few examples:
--A person used roach spray in an office area next to culture area for organisms used in experiments, knowing that the air flow in the building went from office through culture area to exhaust. The airborne pesticide spray settled in many tanks, killing a large number of brood stock, thereby causing a long delay in experiments.
--A person hooked up air supply lines to live organisms used in experiments without an oil filter after the air compressor (and before the live organisms). Oil from the compressor was injected into water holding the organisms, adding an unwanted toxin, and affecting the experiment.
--A supervisor moved heaters in a fish culture lab closer to the tanks without checking with person in charge of fish, and without checking on heating done on the tanks a little time later. Many brood stock were cooked, and important experiments were delayed. Supervisor then blamed the fish worker (and not himself), saying the fish room was not properly insulated, and made workers insulate the floor while others went off to a party.
--A person demanded pesticide treatment of aquatic plants to rid them of dragonfly and damselfly larvae so they would not eat a few small fish, but thought nothing of using fish, exposed to the pesticide in the plants, in a toxicity test.
--A person demanded fish in a tank be fed a lot of food, over protests of the fish feeder, and the next morning valuable fish were dead from overeating.
Sometimes a bad "scientist" makes a bad call because he/she tries to make decisions in fields where they have little knowledge, or experience, and they misuse their power.
A corrupt scientist is one who changes on purpose (for malice/revenge, for political reasons, for money, for power, etc.) the outcome of a "scientific" investigation by making changes in: the thing to be analysed (Ex: dilution of original toxic sample), or sampling design (Ex: change location of a station), or experimental techniques, or analysis, etc., which will give him the answer he, or someone else wants, which will avoid the true reality, but, unless found out, will present the picture of "good science" and be accepted as such by other scientists and the public.
Do not assume that one who touts "good science" is actually practicing "good science." The person could be trying to convince you that "good science" is happening rather than politics.
A very few examples:
--A person moved a sampling station away from bayou (runoff) area on beach where there were high coliform readings to a safe station upcurrent and far enough removed from orginial station so that a bad coliform count was not gotten. (Outcome they wanted of no/low coliform counts resulted in tourism for the beach area and apparently outweighed any of their concerns for public heath.)
--A person apparently diluted toxic effluent enough so that it passed a toxicity test.
--A person disregarded a large number of tags that had either been rejected/expelled by tagged fish, or the tags came from fish that died after rough tagging, and washed up on shore, and acted like that his techniques were sound.
--A person doctored the data/analysis/conclusion, or "cooked the books" to get the answer desired.
--A person designed his sampling times and locations so that he got the answer wanted. Ex: No longer sampling after rains when coliform counts can go higher.
A bad or corrupt "scientist" may also be a bully scientist. Such people want/need the ideas and works of others to advance their image/position/power/publication list/etc. See a prior post on bully scientists.
Politicians sometimes pick corrupt "scientists" as described above to be their government or university agency/department leaders, etc., because they know this type of people will give them the answer they want. Politicians and administrators do not usually want an honest person or real scientist because they consider such people to be "loose cannons" that cannot be controlled (such people may tell the truth). They do not want people telling the truth in oppostion to the political answer they are presenting, especially if the people have a good reputations as scientists and high credibility.
It is a hell-of-a-world we live in ... where some people can go to jail for not telling the truth to a government official or in a court proceeding, and others can lose their jobs/careers/families for telling the truth when their bosses/politicians do not want them to do so.
Adrian R. Lawler, Ph.D., (C) 2012 --
No comments:
Post a Comment