scilog92_page1

 Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1992 13:59:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Education Bashing

Education Bashing

The Times reports here on a continuing argument: the meaning
of the apparent gap in standardized test scores of American
students when compared to standardized scores for students in
other nations. Americans, we are told, score poorly when compared
to the Japanese, the German, the Taiwanese and all the rest.
Clearly, runs the interpretation, there is something wrong with
our schools, with our system of education and with our students.

For one thing, standardized test scores may not be a good
index of educational achievement. Multiple choice tests are
limited. Furthermore, those who administer such tests have
benefitted enormously from the gloomy picture they have drawn of
American education ever since the launching of Sputnik. Bashing
schools is what schools love. Schools benefit from their apparent
failures precisely because governments, naively accepting these
data, typically increase school budgets in the hope that our
educational achievement will improve. And the educators get their
money for nothing more than "more of the same." We have spent a
fortune, in other words, trying to get kids to get better scores
on ETS tests. Is that really what we want?

The psychometricians at ETS have their own goals, their own
agenda. They want their instruments to appear to be useful,
indeed, powerful. They want their instruments to make the largest
possible impact on the impressionable public. So they issue dire
warnings, gloomy predictions and blame the Japanese auto industry's
successes on the amount of time spent in school by Japanese
children. If only the schools could prepare the kids better, goes
this logic, then "improvement" would show up in the standardized
scores, it would be measurable. (Of course, ETS is not so stupid
as to predict that our auto manufacturers will retake the lead in
production they once had if American kids spend more time in school.
The failure of the auto industry says more about that industry
than it does about education. In fact, ETS cannot show any
validity to the standardized tests they give save to predict to
other test scores.)

Nonetheless, American have bought into the games of the ETS
and have, for years, accepted the "fact" that Americans kids are
not getting a good education. It is a very easy way for
Americans to escape blame themselves: so long as schools'
failures are to blame, the fix is elsewhere than in the
responsibilities of the parents, the homes, and in the economic
order. Blaming the schools is a beautiful rationalization.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation of the piece.

++++++++++

\Kolata, Gina. "Which Students Are Worst At Science?"
New York Times, 24 December 1991, pp. C1, C6.\

Standardized tests have been used since the 1960s
to demonstrate that American education is inferior to
Japanese education and, for that matter, all the rest
of the nations to which comparisons are usually made.
Using comparative data based on standardized tests,
educators publicized their inadequacies, their
limitations, their needs and, as a result, have had
money thrown at them. Americans typically believe that
money hurled at problems brings about a solution.
Moreover, in the 1960s and later, we were defending
ourselves against the Russians: we had to close the
"school gap." It was a matter of national security.
Educators made sure that comparisons with other
countries showed us to be inferior and thereby insured
continued support for education. With more funds, they
hoped to end our educational inferiority.

There are those who insist that the disparity
between our students and Hong Kong students, Japanese
students, Taiwanese students, and all the rest, is
real. That our educational system is flawed. They
have the statistics, generated by the Educational
Testing Service, to back them up. Their critics claim
that the data do not mean what they are interpreted to
mean: it is not a matter of inferiority but our lack
of awareness of the educational practices in other
countries. The United States, for example, sends the
vast majority of its youngsters to high school while
other nations, to which we compare ourselves, only send
elite students. Fully 80 percent of American kids
cannot compare to the selected, carefully prepared,
elite of 3 percent of the top Hong Kong students. The
comparison is stupid and the conclusion of our own
inferiority, wrong. If we were aware of the guaranteed
invidiousness of the comparison, we would reject the
data as being meaningless.

The comparisons so often critical of education are
flawed. And the data get cited at all for political
reasons: school systems love this kind of bashing
routinely given them. This kind of bashing is
enormously helpful: the greater the flaws as measured
by standardized tests, the greater the investment to be
made in "education." So educators promote their
apparent inferiority as a means of fishing for
increased support. With their hard-nosed data, they
can "prove" inferiority, demand more funds, more jobs,
bigger and better equipment, physical plants,
libraries, gymnasia, and all the rest of it.

Actually, there are data which seem to indicate
that Americans who make it through to higher education
are not doing badly; but, the issue for "education" is
not higher education but Big Bucks for the primary and
secondary education. And the educators of this world,
for their own reasons, are continuing the propaganda.
Higher education is not typically blamed while the poor
showing of fifth graders is. In fact, it is to the
United States that many of these same nations send
their very brightest students for their advanced
education.

Educators are not alone in their gaming for money
in this fashion. Americans value standardized tests.
They value "objectivity." They like their data simple
and what could be simpler than the scoring of some
multiple choice test? But standardized tests are
subject to interpretation and cannot be taken at their
face value. Japanese students, it is suggested here,
spend a great deal of time learning how to complete
standardized tests. They do not learn the substance of
a field, they learn how to pass tests in that field.
One can train for test-taking or for substance.
Americans have to decide which is more important.

Finally, it is suggested here that Low test scores
can be a measure of society as well as a measure of
schools. "'The main problem with the school reform
movement in the United States is that we have the basic
assumption that we can fix the schools so the schools
can fix the kids, no matter what is wrong with the
family and the community.'" There may be a context
other than the methodological one for the argument that
calls for a rejection of the obvious conclusions of
ETS' studies.


++++++++++++++

Psychometric methods provide apparently "objective" evidence
that schools are in need, that American education is a disaster,
that something needs to be done. However, the nay-saying by ETS
and other critics is self-serving. Americans, no less than
educators themselves, want to hear this kind of thing.
Education, no less than the arms industry, benefits from
science which supports its continued functioning. Scientists
are very good at promoting science which promotes more science.

This is not to say that American education is without
blemish. There are lots of problems but they are not the sort of
problems which can be solved by psychometrics. They cannot even
be described by psychometricians.

Science, here again, has contributed to the formation of a
convenient ideology. It is a typical and sometimes unfortunate
contribution that science makes to society.

+++++++++++++++++++
ACHiggins
ach13@albnyvms
scifraud@albnyvm1
+++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 14:33:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Perceiving Pressures

Perceiving Pressures

Here is a report in the Times concerning a recent
publication in Science. Two critics of DNA "fingerprinting" have
been "pressured" to accept the reliability and validity of the
technique. They feel the pressures on them are not simple
disagreements but something more, something, perhaps, which is
unusual and unfair.

++++++++++

\Kolata, Gina. "Critic of 'Genetic Fingerprint' Tests
Tells of Pressure to Withdraw Paper," New York Times,
20 December 1991, p. A20.\

Here is an announcement of "something going on" in
science: there is apparently an argument about the
technique of DNA "fingerprinting." Molecular
biologists are convinced that DNA is unique to the
individual, that as with fingerprints, a sample of
blood or semen should reveal the identity of the
individual. The technique is being used in courts as a
method of identification. It is agreed that, in
theory, DNA is unique. The problem is that
laboratories can make mistakes. It is very easy to
make an error. "Most scientists say that DNA
fingerprinting should be effective, in theory. But
critics say that in practice the technique can produce
misleading results. DNA is often taken from blood or
semen stains that have been degraded by bacteria.
Laboratories can have high, and undetected, error rates
in doing the tests."

There is no consensus among scientists that, in
practice, DNA testing is reliable in identifying, say,
a defendant in a court case. Indeed, two critics of
the procedure, Daniel Hartl and Richard Lewontin,
submitted a criticism of the process to Science. They
have been placed under various pressures to change
their statistical objections. Thus, Daniel Koshland
the editor, requested some last minute changes which,
it is reported here, were made against the better
judgments of the authors. And in finally publishing
the piece, Science is simultaneously publishing a
rebuttal, a most unusual event for Science. Dr.
Koshland is quoted here as saying that "I can't
remember another one like this..."

"Some scientists say the unfriendly climate has
discouraged them from testifying about DNA in court."

The molecular biology community strongly defends
its tests and its methods. Critics are being silenced
and subjected to pressures. Hardly the sort of
"science" one idealizes about in textbooks.


++++++++++

Science is not for the thin skinned and Lewontin is not one
to easily knuckle under to the establishment's ideas about
biology. It is here reported that he feels pressured by this
unusual event, the simultaneous publication of a rebuttal in
Science. When one like him reports "pressures," the observer
should appreciate his comments.

Big science is certainly capable of applying all kinds of
pressures on scientists. One who criticizes the biological
community can expect to find himself under this kind of attack.
Here is one of the pressures it can apply: it will not allow the
use of the leading science journal in this country to be used as a
forum for criticism. Big science defends itself in diverse ways.


+++++++++++++++++++
ACHiggins
ach13@albnyvms
scifraud@albnyvm1
+++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 10:58:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: plagiarism machine

I assume a lot of folks saw the article in the New York Times
Science Section on Tuesday of this week. For those who didn't,
it's a report of an anti-plagiarism machine put together in the
basement at NIH. Perhaps Al will digest the article for the
list; as a teacher who has sometimes worried about the sudden
near-perfect journal-quality paper handed in by a student in a
course where the subject matter, the myriad of references, and
the sophisticated statistical analyses seemed out of place, I
would welcome access to such a machine. However, some folks see
it as a threatening development.

Tell me, isn't the development of such a device a concrete
expression of the reputed self-corrective character of science?

Bob Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 20:23:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Reply To Barasch

A Reply to Barasch

Tuesday's Science Times featured (page C1, column 1) an
article on the recent work of Walter Stewart and Dr. Ned Feder.
This pair has been investigating misconduct in science for a long
time and their latest efforts concern plagiary. Mr. Stewart has
put together some hardware and some software which
will allow them to scan documents for evidence of plagiary.

I had not posted SCIFRAUD's annotation but, at Bob Barasch's
invitation, here it is.

++++++++++++



\Hilts, Philip J. "Plagiarists Take Note: Machines
on Guard," New York Times, 7 January 1992, pp. C1,
C9.\

Here is a report on the recent sleuthing by Walter
Stewart and Ned Feder, most particularly their
searching for plagiary using computers and scanners.
It is reported here that the device invented by Feder
and Stewart has not gotten the heartfelt thanks of the
scientific community's leaders and the president of the
Carnegie Institution is quoted as saying that she finds
the search for plagiarists "chilling." Moreover, "We
don't normally in our society go looking for behavior
not consistent with accepted practices. The whole
system is designed to protect people. I don't know why
in science we have to do these more threatening kinds
of things." (p. C9) She further suggests that while
such devices might be used by the C.I.A. or Interpol,
she would not expect scientists to use it.

An article of Nature is quoted: "An untested
misconduct machine would be dangerous at any speed.
With the power to ruin careers, even a test-drive could
cause disaster." (p. C9)

The history of Feder and Stewart is partly told and
reference is made to the Imanishi-Kari case. Their
work in championing Margot O'Toole's work is cited
specifically. Then, reference is made to the Converse
case concerning plagiary. It is mentioned that they
have played parts in other cases which have not come to
the attention of the public.

After all their work in plagiarism, they note two
things: "'That plagiarism is rare; and that people
who copy do so from obscure places and chiefly from
dead authors." Steward adds, "There is something
specially disturbing about that, isn't there?" (p. C9)

This article ends of a hopeful note that the
device Stewart and Feder have developed may reveal some
of the truth about cheating in science.


++++++++++


Bob suggests that the device might be useful for faculty
members interested in tracking the letter-perfect documents
sometimes produced by the louts who seem otherwise incapable of
any work at all: a device to help us catch student cheats.

Interesting proposal. I have the feeling that, as usual, there
would be more than a little work involved in constructing a database
with which to compare submitted documents. There is little written
here about the ease, or difficulty, of using the device(s).

Any comments?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 08:55:00 GMT+1
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: dieter britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Antiplagiary machine

Al wonders whether the users of this machine are going to amass a data base of
writings to compare with. I doubt this; it would be an impossible job, the
volume being too large. The newspaper item gives no details but I can imagine
that such a device would work on linguistic analysis. I suppose that most
plagiarised writings consist of a mixture of authors (the "writer" and the
writer). Even if such a text did not (being perhaps wholly plagiarised or
wholly the stated author's own work) it can be compared with other samples
from the purported author. For longer texts, it is possible, by analysis of
word frequency patterns, to tell whether two pieces of writing are by the same
author or not. See, e.g., John Burrows, "Computation into Criticism",
Clarendon Press, Oxford 1987. Burrows was able to show, for example, that
Smollet's "The Memoirs of a Lady of Quality", thought by some to have been
written by Lady Vane herself, were in fact written by Smollet. Although I have
been told that this technique has been considered for forensic use, I have a
feeling that largish amounts of text ought to be used for statistical
reliability. So it might not be so good for the relatively short pieces that
most scientific papers are (the Lady's Memoirs ran to 44000 words). This would
not necessarily deter someone from trying it, though.
Before we cry foul, however, imagining that "they" are going to put every
scientific article through this machine, let's get down to Earth: they can't
possibly do that, and wouldn't even want to. If such a device does indeed
exist, surely it would be used only in those cases where plagiarism is already
suspected. In that case, it would be just another diagnostic tool - as long as
it is not given more credence than it deserves.


Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.


Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 15:56:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Crystal Balls

Beginnings and Endings

The start of the new year is an appropriate time to look
back and to look forward. This is no less true regarding
scientific misconduct than in other matters.

Here in its entirety is its January statement in Nature,
derived, as usual, from the SCIFRAUD database.


\Anderson, Christopher. "Growing Up In Public,"
Nature 355 (2 January 1992), p. 6.\

"If the modern era of scientific misconduct was
born two and a half years ago when the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Office of
Scientific Integrity (OSI), 1991 was its awkward
adolescence. The year opened with a nation watching
the investigations of AIDS pioneer Robert Gallo and the
immunological Thereza Imanishi-Kari (and by extension,
he co-author David Baltimore), as well as open warfare
over the operation of the OSI. And unfortunately, it
closed just the same way.
"In the intervening 12 months, Suzanne Hadley
resigned as the deputy director of OSI, and
Representative John Dingell (Democrat, Michigan)
strongly criticized NIH for its bungled handling of the
whole issue. Other than that, not much changed.
Investigation of scientific misconduct was a mess last
year, and it is a mess today.
"However, 1992 may be the year in which misconduct
grows up. For one thing, the investigations of
Imanishi-Kari and Gallo--OSI's flagship cases--seem to
be winding down, though slowly ... And although those
cases have been long, ugly affairs, they have opened up
the misconduct system as never before.
"Through congressional hearings, a phenomenal
amount of news coverage, and the attention of virtually
every element of the scientific community, the pitfalls
of misconduct investigating are now a matter of public
record. Leaks are one problem. So are inconsistent
procedures (for instance, prominent researchers got
special review committees, although others did not).
In both the Imanishi-Kari and the Gallo case, NIH
investigators were often reduced to a role of following
up allegations in the press, which made nearly everyone
but Dingell uncomfortable. In an important debate over
'due process' in OSI investigations has, intentionally
or not, essentially halted several cases.
"Even OSI admits that some of its most prominent
investigations were badly handled. But it has also
learned some tricks on the job: to avoid leaks,
sensitive drafts reports now go only to principal
parties, and OSI is increasingly employing forensic and
statistical analysis to add some quantitative rigour to
what has often been a disquietingly subjective process.
Investigations now focus on whether misconduct occurred,
and no longer stumble on the question of a researcher's
intent. As OSI discovered, claims of "unintentional"
misconduct have flummoxed many university
investigations, even when they turned out to be red
herrings that obscured clear abrogation of scientific
responsibilities.
"Other changes at OSI are coming from outside.
After losing a lawsuit that challenged the way it
developed its procedures, OSI published a set of
proposed new rules last year. Public comments were
generally scathing, mostly focused on the proposed
definition of misconduct, which included, together with
the usual "fabrication, falsification and plagiarism,"
the category of "other practices that seriously deviate
from those that are commonly accepted from the
scientific community." An NIH advisory committee has
recommended that the catchall phrase be changed to
"other fraudulent activities in proposing, conducting,
reporting or reviewing research," a definition that OSI
says it can live with.
"The committee also proposed--and NIH agreed--that
OSI's staff be increased from 19 to 28, including, for
the first time, three lawyers (OSI investigators have
traditionally been scientists). And the committee
recommended open hearings, in which accused and accuser
can face each other. OSI director Jules Hallum opposes
that move, arguing that face-to-face confrontations
"would destroy the willingness of whistle-blowers to
come forward."
"Even as it reconsiders it role, however, OSI
languishes in a sort of bureaucratic limbo. Both
Congress and some Administration officials are
contemplating taking OSI away from NIH and placing it
instead under the wing of the Department of Health and
Human Services, NIH's parent agency. When Dingell held
a hearing last summer accusing Bernadine Healy, the NIH
director, of a conflict of interest in an OSI
investigation of a case at the Cleveland Clinic,
Healy's former Institution, it only reinforced the
concern that OSI might be more independent if it
operated like any other government investigative office
--firmly entrenched in the bureaucracy. If the
administration does not propose the move itself,
congressional legislation to that effect may appear this
year.
"But the worst may be behind the misconduct
controversy, if not OSI itself. Perhaps the most
encouraging sign is the improving quality of university
investigations. Whereas academic panels in the past
often erred on the side of finding no misconduct,
Hallum says that recent university investigations, such
as two last year at the California Institute of
Technology, have been more thorough and fair. "If they
keep it up, they may put us out of business," he says.
Nevertheless, until conspicuous mishandlings such as
Imanishi-Kari's inquiry at the Massachusetts of
Technology (sic) and that of whistle-blower Erdem
Cantekin at the University of Pittsburgh (...) become a
thing of the past, OSI wants to keep tight reigns on
the universities. The proposed new procedures would
allow OSI to intercede earlier in an academic
investigations if things seem to be going awry, and
Hallum is hoping to have the rules clarified to give
OSI explicit authorization to investigate the
universities themselves, to explore the possibilities
of cover-ups."


++++++++++

For its part, Science is not far behind in making its
auguries for the year.


\Hamilton, David P. "What to Expect on the
Misconduct Front," Science 255 (3 January 1992),
p. 19.\

"Research misconduct, a particularly irksome
subject for much of the scientific community, will
remain a controversial topic in 1992. Here's why:
NIH's Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), whipsawed
by Representative John Dingell (D-MI), NIH director
Bernadine Healy, and much of the scientific community,
is likely to see its troubles mount. By the end of the
year, OSI will probably find itself operating under new
guidelines that define misconduct in terms of intent.
And there will be increased pressure to offer subjects
of investigations more due process. While both can be
accomplished, an increasingly harried OSI staff may be
tripped up by the shifting ground underfoot.
"OSI may finally complete its investigations of
Robert Gallo and Thereza Imanishi-Kari. While Gallo
appears likely to escape misconduct charges, his former
associate Mikulas Popovic will probably face a formal
finding of misconduct, which he will almost certainly
appeal. The Imanishi-Kari case seems destined to end
up in court one way of the other: Either the Attorney
in Baltimore will formally charge the Tufts
immunologist with making false statements to the
government, or Imanishi-Kari will sue NIH for the
damage its two lengthy investigations have done to her
career.
"The joint Franco-American patent on the AIDS
blood test could come undone as federal and
congressional investigators zero in on what some
sources have described as false statements by U.S.
officials in the legal documents underlying the patent
agreement."

+++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++

At the year's beginning, the two leading journals of
science are clearly focused on misconduct.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 14:42:01 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: st802456@brownvm.bitnet
Subject: Re: Continuing A Dilemma
in-reply-to: message of wed, 6 nov 1991 11:36:00 est from <ach13@albnyvms>

please unsubscribe me from this list
Thank You
Ben Sanders
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 23:20:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: "How To..." Books

A "How To..." Book

Here is a posting which appeared on another board but
which, for various reasons, deserves mention on SCIFRAUD. "How
To..." books in this area are rare and I thought you would
appreciate the reference.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




from: in%"ethics-l@uga.bitnet" "discussion of ethics in computing" 10-jan-199
2 11:40:48.06
to: "pm751@albnyvms peter meadows" <pm751@albnyvms.bitnet>
CC:
Subj: Books on Viruses

Return-path: <ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET>
received: from jnet-daemon by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240; fri, 10 jan 1992
11:40 EST
received: from albnyvm1(mailer) by albny1vx with jnet id 9922 for
PM751@ALBNYVMS; Fri, 10 Jan 1992 11:40 EST
Received: by ALBNYVM1 (Mailer R2.08) id 7564; Fri, 10 Jan 92 11:42:34 EST
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1992 11:35:00 EDT
from: mark <nelson@smcvax.bitnet>
Subject: Books on Viruses
sender: discussion of ethics in computing <ethics-l@uga.bitnet>
to: "pm751@albnyvms peter meadows" <pm751@albnyvms.bitnet>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ethics in Computing <ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET>
message-id: <c9dbff4c00200227@albnyvms.bitnet>
X-Envelope-to: PM751

A friend of mine at WPI sent this up to me. I thought this might be
a good place for some discussion about it.


>
>More books to keep you awake at night (I've only seen volume 1 so far.)
>
>The Little Black Book of Computer Viruses, 169 pages, Mark Ludwig, ISBN
>0-929408-02-0, $14.95 - American Eagle Publications, P.O. Box 41401, Tucson,
>AZ 85717 - (602) 888-4957. (Thanks to Winn Schwartau for this referal to a
>publisher right here in my own town!)
>
>The back cover of this one tells it all:
>
>WARNING. This book contains complete source code for live computer viruses
>which could be EXTREEMELY DANGEROUS in the hands of incompetent persons. You
>can be held legally liable for the misuse of these viruses, EVEN IF SUCH
>MISUSE IS UNINTENTIONAL. Do not attempt to execute any of the code in this
>book unless you are well versed in systems programming for personal computers,
>and you are working on an isolated machine.
>
> Introduction: "This is the first in a series of three books about
> computer viruses... All three volumes are full of
> source code... It is enevitable that these books will
> offend some people ... The first volume is a
> technical introduction... The second volume discusses
> scientific applications... The third volume discusses
> military applications ... (And, a lengthy disertation
> on everything from the social meaning of this all to
> the "why do it" of it all (that would play very nicely
> here in RISKS.?))
> Vol 1
>
> Ch 1 - The basics
> Types
> Functional elements
> Tools needed to write viruses
>
> Ch 2 - Simple COM file infector
>
> Ch 3 - Sophisticated executable virus
>
> Ch 4 - Simple boot sector virus
>
> Ch 5 - Sophisticated boot sector virus
>
> Appendix 1 - TIMID
>
> Appendix 2 - INTRUDER
>
> Appendix 3 - A basic boot sector
>
> Appendix 4 - KILROY
>
> Appendix 5 - STEALTH
>
> Appendix 6 - Hex file loader
>
> Appendix 7 - BIOS and DOS interupt functions
>
> Appendix 8 - Suggested reading list
>
>Kaplan's comments:
> 1) - "Oh, <pregnant pause> my."
> 2) - Wonder if volume three will ever get out ;)
>
> Ray 8-|)}
>New address: kaplan@vms.ccit.arizona.edu
>
>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1992 15:00:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Request for Help

Here is an inquiry received from another network but one
in which members of SCIFRAUD may have an interest and may be able to
help. If any of you can help...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++



Subj: ACADEMIC CHEATING

Return-path: <METHODS@RPIECS.BITNET>
received: from jnet-daemon by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240; mon, 6 jan 1992
12:21 EST
received: from albnyvm1(mailer) by albny1vx with jnet id 9148 for
PM751@ALBNYVMS; Mon, 6 Jan 1992 12:21 EST
Received: by ALBNYVM1 (Mailer R2.08) id 1830; Mon, 06 Jan 92 12:23:07 EST
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1992 10:13:11 EST
from: stephen_eyres@cmr001.bitnet
Subject: ACADEMIC CHEATING
sender: research methodology <methods@rpiecs.bitnet>
to: pm751 albnyvms peter meadows <pm751@albnyvms.bitnet>
Reply-to: Research methodology <METHODS@RPIECS.BITNET>
message-id: <aaea0846c0200227@albnyvms.bitnet>
X-Envelope-to: PM751

I'm trying to locate questionnaires or researchers looking at the
issue of academic cheating. Any information will be most
appreciated. In return, I'm prepared to supply leads to Methods.
Many thanks. MY CONTACT INFORMATION IS:
Stephen A.T. Eyres
Department of Military Leadership and Management
College militaire royal de St-Jean
Richelain, Quebec
Canada
J0J 1R0

FAX: 1-514-358-6799
BITNET: STEPHEN EYRES@CMR001.BITNET

++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++

In a subsequent posting, this was added:


from: in%"methods@rpiecs.bitnet" "research methodology" 9-jan-1992
12:57:07.23
to: pm751 albnyvms peter meadows <pm751@albnyvms.bitnet>
CC:
Subj: ACADEMIC CHEATING: EXAMINATIONS, PLAGIARISM, ETC

Return-path: <METHODS@RPIECS.BITNET>
received: from jnet-daemon by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240; thu, 9 jan
1992
12:56 EST
received: from albnyvm1(mailer) by albny1vx with jnet id 4777 for
PM751@ALBNYVMS; Thu, 9 Jan 1992 12:56 EST
Received: by ALBNYVM1 (Mailer R2.08) id 0785; Thu, 09 Jan 92 12:58:51 EST
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1992 12:03:09 EST
from: stephen_eyres@cmr001.bitnet
Subject: ACADEMIC CHEATING: EXAMINATIONS, PLAGIARISM, ETC
sender: research methodology <methods@rpiecs.bitnet>
to: pm751 albnyvms peter meadows <pm751@albnyvms.bitnet>
Reply-to: Research methodology <METHODS@RPIECS.BITNET>
message-id: <0b59a296e0200227@albnyvms.bitnet>
X-Envelope-to: PM751

I'm trying to locate questionnaires that have been used to assess
the frequency of academic cheating in universities. Question-
naires that assess student honesty in various situations, or their
attitudes toward academic honesty are my major interest.
I would appreciate copies of any questionnaires currently in use,
or a contact address.
Many thanks.
MY CONTACT INFORMATION IS:
Stephen A.T. Eyres
Department of Military Leadership and Management
College militaire royal de St-Jean
Richelain, Quebec
Canada
J0J 1R0

FAX: 1-514-358-6799
BITNET: STEPHEN EYRES@CMR001.BITNET
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 23:00:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Indirect Costs, Continued

Overhead Overcharges, Continued

The New York Times gives great prominence to further
improprieties by major universities. Following the lead provided
by Congressman Dingell's investigations of Stanford, government
auditors have investigated additional universities and has found
overbilling at all of them.

Here is SCIFRAUD's annotation of the article.


\Pear, Robert. "U.S. Seeks Millions Back in Charges,"
New York Times, 13 January 1992, pp. 1, B8.\

The New York Times made much (page 1, column 1) of
this: "Federal auditors have found that 14 research
universities inappropriately billed the Government
several million dollars for housing, personal expenses,
travel, entertainment, fund raising, and other
activities unrelated to research.
"A report on the auditors' findings, for the
Department of Health and Human Services, provides the
first detailed indication of how widespread such
overcharges are among universities conducting research
for the Government. The audits, undertaken after last
year's disclosures of overcharges at Stanford
University, surveyed 14 research research universities
and found overcharges or questionable charges at all of
them, though on a smaller scale than those reported at
Stanford." (p. 1)

Repayments are being sought and some of the
institutions are reported to have begun the process.
Universities insist that the overbillings account for
only a small portion of the total overhead. Michigan
has paid back the Government for a trip by
administrators to see the university play in the Rose
Bowl in 1989.

"Howard J. Gobstein, vice president of the
Association of American Universities, which represents
58 institutions conducting Government-financed research
said: 'The audits indicate that there were some
mistakes made, and there need to be some changes in the
way institutions keep their accounts, but there is no
scandal here. Less than 1 percent of indirect costs
charged to the Government were improper.'" (p. B8)

The problem is that government funding is huge,
some $9.6 billion of $16.3 billions spent on research
in universities in 1990

Some of the repayments reported here: MIT repaid
$778,261 to cover 5 years of overbilling. Emory
University repaid $310,000 for the years 1988-1991.
The University of Pennsylvania repaid $930,642.

Some of the mistakes in billing government included
the following: "Air fare for the wives of college
presidents, 'air fare to Grand Cayman to attend meeting
of investors,' chauffers and limousine services.
"'Numerous charges for attendance at football
games, opera tickets and liquor,' catered lunches,
dinners and parties for trustees.
"'Legal fees to help universities deal with Federal
investigations 'concerning tuition price fixing and
violation of student civil rights.'
"Charges for lobbying state legislatures and
Congress and for fines and penalties resulting from
underpayment of taxes and violations of local laws."
(p. B8)


++++++++++

No one expected to find that there were no errors made in
the enormous package of research grants given to universities.
One must note, however, that liquor, limousines and Rose Bowl
games are a bit much to bill government. Charges for lobbying
legislatures? Payment of back taxes? These are not errors or
slips of an accountant. To charge these to the Federal
Government takes brass of a very special sort.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 08:16:24 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: jeffrey cohen <jc924@albnyvm1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Indirect Costs, Continued
in-reply-to: message of mon, 13 jan 1992 23:00:00 est from <ach13@albnyvms>

I want to correct what is probably a misunderstanding about the way indirect
costs are handled at many Universities which may account for some of the
problems which are arising in the area of inappropriate charges. The problem
is most likely an accounting problem. Instead of being maintained in separate
accounts, as is the case at SUNY, many Universities include indirect costs in
with other University funds. Thus, expenses such as flowers for the
President's house or trips for the President's wife get paid for with indirect
costs instead of with discretionary University money. It is not usually a
case of fraud but one of sloppy bookeeping. I would wager that most
University professors' personal accounts would turn up just as many
inappropriate accounting practices, not to mention those of most Congressmen.
I would certainly like to do a similar audit of Congressman Dingell's
campaign expenses.
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 16:42:44 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Indirect Costs, Continued
in-reply-to: <no.id>; from "achiggins" at jan 13, 92 11:00 pm

> No one expected to find that there were no errors made in
> the enormous package of research grants given to universities.
> One must note, however, that liquor, limousines and Rose Bowl
> games are a bit much to bill government. Charges for lobbying
> legislatures? Payment of back taxes? These are not errors or
> slips of an accountant. To charge these to the Federal
> Government takes brass of a very special sort.
>
I think you do not understand how accounting systems at large organizations
like universities operate. At the time that particular items are purchased,
on the relevant forms some account number is supplied. There are various
checks and balances and for each account only certain individuals are allowed
to sign for purchases from that account.

When it comes time for the organization to construct an overhead pool, some
accountants come along and attempt to estimate what proportion of each account
went to the support of grant and contract work. So, for example, the account
which purchases all janitorial supplies might be allocated to the overhead
pool based on the square footage of space occupied by research activities.
The point is that the person who is actually making the purchase usually has
no particular information about what the accountant will do with respect to
including this into the overhead pool. The accountant may make their decision
based on their understanding of what is charged to that account without any
detailed examination of what purchases were actually made from that account.
Thus supplies for a custodial party may have been actually purchased from that
account and thus a proportion included in the overhead without anyone actually
making a conscious decision that the party costs were going into the overhead
pool.

Certainly more precision can, and should be applied. Rather than using total
charges to the account, there may be particular codes for different classes of
charges, and perhaps the allocation needs to be done separately for each class
of charges. There are points of diminishing returns here, however. The more
effort spent on being more precise means more costs being incurred. Auditing
each purchase to make certain that the account and charge class are correct is
the detail type of work that many academics find rather tedious.

-phil

--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1992 18:03:36 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: "Indirect Costs"

If a university president charters a private jet to fly to the Rose Bowl game,
then rides from the airport to Pasadena in a limousine, it's not a matter of
some accountant not properly allocating the right percentage of some budget
code to make it unethical to incur these expenses. For my money, there
isn't ANY budget category in a research university's budget that could
properly be charged for such extravagances. I'll side with Higgins's
interpretation that "brass of a special sort" is involved. The best way
to remedy that, if you ask me, is to let the president's discretionary
and other accounts be reviewed yearly at a public meeting of the faculty
and student senates.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 14:04:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Reply To Miller

Reply to Miller

Professor Miller chooses to believe that "accounting
systems" and their complexities allow for the kinds of "errors"
which have recently been reported in the Times and previously
reported in Science and elsewhere. Accounting systems are
creations of those who use them and they are set up for the
benefit of their users. If complexities are built in, those
complexities can be examined in terms of their functions: for whom
do these these complexities work best?

There was no doubt that at Stanford, Kennedy used his
indirect cost accounting in what has been described as an
"aggressive" manner. He went after every penny he could get from
government. To Kennedy, the rule was: if it were legal, it was
Stanford's. And so wedding receptions, yachts, ceder closets,
liquor, football games, all got charged to government. In
Kennedy's case, we're not talking about accounting errors but,
rather, about accountants being used to bilk the government as
best they could. That was the charge given them by the president
of the university. Accountants used their skills to the best of
their abilities.

Indeed, Kennedy is quoted, even after his resignation, as
defending his "aggressive" method of cost accounting. He could
still defend it even though it brought him down. A legalist, he
saw nothing immoral in that which was not clearly illegal and that
which could be gotten away with. And he apparently got away with
millions. Biddle's best guesstimate is that Stanford got $200
million in excess indirect costs over 10 years. Would you
seriously ask us to interpret that as an accountancy problem?

Kennedy is not alone. Liquor bills and limousines, Rose
Bowl games, airplane rentals, and all the rest of it are NOT
bookkeeping boo-boos. Quite the contrary, they are university
presidents' evaluations of government bureaucracy. They are the
elite's estimate of what the clods of taxpayers will tolerate in
the name of science.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 17:21:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Hoax?

Hoaxes

One of the members of SCIFRAUD forwarded this.
Interesting.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




received: from granite/mailqueue by malachi.albany.edu
via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 102.920116162322.352;
16 Jan 92 16:23:36 -0500
received: from uacsc2.albany.edu by malachi.albany.edu
via Charon 3.4 with SMTP id 102.920116162322.352;
16 Jan 92 16:23:23 +0500
received: from uhupvm1.uh.edu by uacsc2.albany.edu (ibm vm smtp v2r1)
with BSMTP id 4904; Thu, 16 Jan 92 16:23:46 EST
received: from uhupvm1 (pols0) by uhupvm1.uh.edu (mailer r2.08 r208004) with
BSMTP id 4310; Thu, 16 Jan 92 15:24:58 CST
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 15:24:27 CST
from: pols0%uhupvm1.bitnet@uacsc2.albany.edu
Subject: Iraq war virus citation
to: al <ach13@louise.albany.edu>

Al,

This is the material I have on the Iraq "virus" news fiasco. The
original reference is in the last message. I have not looked at the
reference, so I cannot guarantee its accuracy, but at some point in time
perhaps as early as three months, I shall. If you have any comments I
I look forward to hearing them!

Randy
P.S. This is from VIRUS-L.

Date: Sat, 11 Jan 92 21:55:05 -0600
from: fstuart@eng.auburn.edu (frank stuart)
Subject: Gulf War "virus"

{Moderator's note: I've received several (!) postings about this
topic, but I'm only including two here. Relevant, substantiated
follow-ups will be posted as well.}

CNN is reporting that a computer "virus" was used during the Gulf War.
Reportedly, the virus was used to blank the screens of Iraq's air
defense computers. The alleged virus was supposed to have been hidden
in a printer chip that was smuggled in from Jordan. I (and many
others, I'm sure) would be very interested if anyone has further
information.

| 'A man in love is incomplete until he has marrried.
Frank Stuart | Then he's finished.'
fstuart@eng.auburn.edu | --Zsa Zsa Gabor



Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 00:32:41 -0500
from: stus5239@mary.cs.fredonia.edu (kevin stussman)
Subject: Viruses against Iraq??????

I was watching CNN (Sun Jan 12 00:04:57 EST 1992), and they
were talking about things that helped the US defeat Iraq. One of the
things they mentioned was a "virus" on a chip which the CIA planted in
some printers in Jordan bound for Iraq. Apparently, it blanked out
computer screens attached to the printers, and those screens were part
of the air defense network over Baghdad.

Virus on a chip?? How and when did it go off? What type virus?
(it probably wasn't a real virus (not self replicating) but nasty
screen killing code on a chip) So now hacking is now legal, but only
during wartime against an enemy. (goes with killing)

What's the deal here? Am I the last to hear this? (has it been discussed?)

K.

+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
*+*+*+
_ __
| | / / -=> stus5239%mary.cs.fredonia.edu@cs.buffalo.edu
| | / / stus5239@mary.cs.fredonia.edu
| |< < UUCP:...{ucbvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!mary!stus5239
| | \ \
|_| \_\ evin Stussman -=>Never has so many known so little about so much.<=-
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
*+*+*+
Rock climbing Joel...rock climbing.... -- Crow (MST3K)
<<<---- KEEP CIRCULATING THE TAPES


<<<---- Mail Me If Interested And Local ---->>>
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+
*+*+*+



Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 00:04:45 +0000
from: mcafee@netcom.netcom.com (mcafee associates)
Subject: Re: Gulf War "virus"

fstuart@eng.auburn.edu (Frank Stuart) writes:
<Moderator's note deleted>
>CNN is reporting that a computer "virus" was used during the Gulf War.
>Reportedly, the virus was used to blank the screens of Iraq's air
>defense computers. The alleged virus was supposed to have been hidden
>in a printer chip that was smuggled in from Jordan. I (and many
>others, I'm sure) would be very interested if anyone has further
>information.

Hi Frank,

The original "source" of this virus is an article that appeared in the
April 1st, 1991 (April Fools' Day) issue of InfoWorld Magazine as a
gag. Maybe a reporter or some other person came across the article
and thought it was serious.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
McAfee Associates Technical Support

- --
- - - -
McAfee Associates | Voice (408) 988-3832 | mcafee@netcom.com (business)
4423 Cheeney Street | FAX (408) 970-9727 | "Welcome to the alligator
Santa Clara, California | BBS (408) 988-4004 | farm..."
95054-0253 USA | v.32 (408) 988-5190 | CompuServe ID: 76702,1714
ViruScan/CleanUp/VShield | HST (408) 988-5138 | or GO VIRUSFORUM


Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1992 21:36:32 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply To Miller
in-reply-to: <no.id>; from "achiggins" at jan 15, 92 2:04 pm

> Reply to Miller
>
> Professor Miller chooses to believe that "accounting
> systems" and their complexities allow for the kinds of "errors"
> which have recently been reported in the Times and previously
> reported in Science and elsewhere. Accounting systems are
> creations of those who use them and they are set up for the
> benefit of their users. If complexities are built in, those
> complexities can be examined in terms of their functions: for whom
> do these these complexities work best?
>
I am sorry my message did not get through. What I was trying to say was that
individuals who were spending the money were not necessarily intentionally
"charging it to the government as overhead." I doubt that even Kennedy sat
down and said "We are going to charge the flowers as part of the overhead."
He may well (and probably did) issue instructions to be "agressive" in finding
things to include in the overhead, but the details as to what specifically
went into the cost pool is a level of detail that I doubt a university
president would be involved in. I agree that "the buck stops here" for the
president, but the actual detail of what is included in that pool is not
usually something that the person authorizing the expenditure is aware of AT
THE TIME THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS BEING MADE. Thus the FRAUD (the subject of
this list) has to do with the decisions of accountants (perhaps following what
they perceive to be the university's policy).

If I can generalize from the experiences of our university, the disputed
charges were perhaps evenly split between items that once someone looked at
the specifics it was clearly agreed by all that an error had been made and
those where there were real, credible differences of opinion about what to
include in the cost pool. If you have ever been involved in these things it
is clear there are many gray areas.

-phil

--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 21:25:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: APS' Ethics

APS' Ethics Guidelines

Here are two documents. The first is a report on the difficult
work of a committee of the American Physics Society in preparing
ethical guidelines for the APS. The second, the Ethical Guidelines.
Here is the whole of it as placed on the SCIFRAUD database.

It is interesting to see what the committee was thinking of
when it prepared its statement, what the committee included and
what was not mentioned, what was "defined" and what was left
"ill-defined." Finally, it is fascinating to see what the
committee delineated as unethical.


+++++


\Editor, "Council Approves New Ethics Guidelines," APS
News 1 (January, 1992), pp. 1-4.\

Based upon a recommendation from the Panel on Public
Affairs (POPA), the APS Council approved a set of
"Guidelines for Professional Conduct," at its November
meetings in Tampa, Florida. The guidelines were drafted by
a POPA subcommittee in anticipation of a new Bylaw
permitting the termination of APS members for ethical
violations, as well as other reasons. However, no amendment
to the Bylaws will be sought until there has been ample
opportunity for public discussion of the guidelines, POPA
hopes to publish them with a detailed discussion of the
rationale behind each section in an upcoming issue of
Physics today.

Martin Blume (Brookhaven National Laboratory), then
chair of POPA, appointed the subcommittee in 1990. It was
chaired by Robert Richardson (Cornell University) and
included the members of POPA's smaller Steering Committee.
But the issue of scientific ethics first arose with a 1987
proposal by the Committee on Opportunities in Physics
(COP)--renamed the Committee on Membership in 1990--for a
Council statement on ethics. The committee perceived a
'need for an affirmation of the high integrity of our
profession,' particularly for new and younger members of the
APS. However, COP met with considerable resistance when a
draft statement was presented to Council in April 1987.

Although a version of that statement was finally
adopted, there was a strong feeling among Council members
that an ethics statement wasn't needed. 'It was unthinkable
to some that a physicist could be unethical,' said APS
Treasurer Harry Lustig (City College of New York) of the
prevailing opinion at that time. 'Merely to suggest the
possibility in an official statement was considered unwise
by many Council members.' However, when the project was
revived three years later, a series of highly publicized
cases of alleged misconduct, including the announcement and
subsequent widespread debunking of cold fusion claims, and
the federal investigations conducted at Stanford University
and MIT by a House subcommittee chaired by Representative
John Dingell (D-MI), contributed to a significant change in
climate within the physics community.

The initial draft of the guidelines underwent
multiple revisions to incorporate suggestions from POPA and
the APS operation officers. Sources consulted as models by
the subcommittee included the NAS Ethics Report and the
guidelines of several professional societies, none of which
could be readily adapted to suit the needs of the APS. The
1987 Council statement on ethics was likewise deemed
inadequate, although some of its language was retained in
the concluding paragraphs of the new guidelines.

The subcommittee opted for a statement restricted to
professional activities as a physicist and excluded matter
related to teaching, classified research, and general
morality, which are covered by other entities, such as
government or educational institutions. 'It's not that we
encourage unethical activities that aren't covered in the
statement, but if you start trying to list everything under
the sun, things that are inadvertently omitted may seem to
be condoned,' said Richardson. 'It's intended to be a stand
alone document and we didn't want too much extra
interpretation related to it for that reason.'

The first paragraph of the Preamble contains the
general statement of purpose of the guidelines as they
relate to the APS Constitution and Bylaws. The second
paragraph is a 'Golden Rule,' intended as a catch all to
cover anything omitted from the remaining text. According
to Richardson, the redundancy of the words 'trust,'
'ethics,' and 'honesty' is deliberate. 'The English language
has a certain richness that strikes a lot of people in many
different ways,' he said. 'We wanted to ensure that we
painted the picture in a way that could be perceived clearly
by everyone.'

Specific issues comprising the critical aspects of
the physics profession are outlines in the third paragraph
and addressed specifically in the subsequent sections.
These include prompt reporting of research results,
fabrication or theft of data with intent to deceive,
conflict of interest, and the necessity of peer review to
the scientific process. The phrase 'minimal standards' was
employed because the subcommittee wanted to stress the
ethical principles while avoiding an extensive list of
specific examples. The central issue with regard to
research results--the idea that 'painted mice are
abhorrent,' as Richardson phrase it--was considered a
critical component of the guidelines. The language is
intended to deter those who would publish results on new
phenomena without revealing techniques for measurement or
calculation.

Regarding issue of publication and authorship
practices, the subcommittee deliberately ignored the
questions of serial publications and multiple reports of the
same scientific results, concluding that it is the
responsibility of individual journals to set their policies
on those issues. 'We didn't want to get involved in trying
to decide whether something was a multiple publications of
the same work or not,' said Richardson. 'And there are times
when things that look like serial publications are perfectly
appropriate, although sending the same paper to two journals
and pretending to one that you didn't send it to the other
is clearly unethical--it's sort of plagiarizing yourself.'

The first two sentences of the postlude, which
recognize that honest error is an integral part of the
scientific process, are considered crucial ideas in the
guidelines. 'Mistakes are not dishonest and science
advances through mistakes,' said Richardson, although the
guidelines also contain a corollary stating that errors
should be promptly acknowledged and corrected. The language
on the collective responsibility of physicists to ensure the
integrity of the physics profession, which Richardson
descries as the 'whistle-blower clause,' is taken from the
1987 Council statement.

The final draft of the guidelines was presented to
the Executive Board in June, which passed a motion
commending the subcommittee for its work. POPA made a few
additional minor changes before submitting the guidelines to
the Council for approval. 'Thomas Jefferson was fortunate
that his committee had only three members,' said a
much-relieved Richardson in summation of the experience.

The full text of the APS Guidelines for Professional
Conduct follows.

The American Physical Society: Guidelines for
Professional Conduct.

Preamble

The Constitution of The American Physical
Society states that the objective of the Society shall be
the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics.
It is the purpose of this statement to advance that
objective by presenting ethical guidelines for Society
members.

Each physicist is a citizen of the community of
science. Each shares responsibility for the welfare of this
community. Science is best advanced when there is mutual
trust, based upon honest behavior, throughout the community.
Acts of deception, or any other acts that deliberately
compromise the advancement of science, are therefore
unacceptable. Honesty must be regarded as the
cornerstone of ethics in science.

A. Research Results

The results of research should be recorded and
maintained in a form that allows analysis and review.
Research data should be immediately available to scientific
collaborators. Following publication the data should be
retained for a reasonable period in order to be available
promptly and completely to responsible scientists.
Exceptions may be appropriate in certain circumstances in
order to preserve privacy, to assure patient protection, or
for similar reasons.

Fabrication of data or selective reporting of data
with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious
departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct, as
is the theft of data or research results from others.

B. Publication and Authorship Practices

Authorship should be limited to those who have made
a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution
and interpretation of the research study. All those who
have made significant contributions should be offered the
opportunity to be listed as authors. Other individuals who
may have contribution to the study should be
acknowledged, but not be identified as authors. The sources
of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior
and is never acceptable. Proper acknowledgment of the work
of others used in a research project must always be given.
Further, it is the obligation of each author to provide
prompt retractionsor correction of errors in published
works.

C. Peer Review

Peer review provides advice concerning research
proposals, the publication of research results, and career
advancement of colleagues. It is an essential component of
the scientific process.

Peer review can serve its intended function only if
the members of the scientific community are prepared to
provide thorough, fair, and objective evaluations based on
requisite expertise. Although peer review can be difficult
and time-consuming, scientists have an obligation to
participate in the process.

Privileged information or ideas that are obtained
through peer review must be kept confidential and not be
used for competitive gain.

Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest
resulting from direct competition, collaborative, or other
relationships with any of the authors, and avoid cases in
which such conflicts preclude and objective evaluation.

D. Conflict of Interest

There are many professional activities of physicists
that have the potential for a conflict of interest. Any
professional relationship or action that may result in a
conflict of interest must be fully disclosed. When
objectivity and effectiveness cannot be maintained, the
activity should be avoided or discontinued.

It should be recognized that honest error is an
integral part of the scientific enterprise. It is not
unethical to be wrong, provided errors are promptly
acknowledged and corrected when they are detected.
Professional integrity in the formation, conduct and
reporting of physics activities reflects not on the
reputations of individual physicists and their organization,
but also on the image and credibility of the physics
profession as perceived by scientific colleagues,
government, and the public. It is important that the
tradition of ethical behavior be carefully maintained and
transmitted with enthusiasm to future generations.

Physicists have an individual and a collective
responsibility to ensure that there is no compromise with
these guidelines.

+++++

Two fascinating documents. They are intriguing for what
they say and what they do not say.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1992 21:41:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Baltimore's Final Days

The Final Days

Here is an accounting of what might be called the final 50
days of David Baltimore as Rockefeller's president. It describes
some of the strategy and tactics which were used by Baltimore, his
eventually failed efforts to say on the job which he considered
"his lifelong dream."


\Hall, Stephen S. "David Baltimore's Final Days,"
Science 254 (13 December 1991), pp. 1576-1579.\

Shortly after Thanksgiving, 1991, David Baltimore
resigned as president of Rockefeller University, a
position he had occupied for the previous 18 months.
This is an account of the events leading up to the
resignation and it focuses on the period between 17
October 1991 and Baltimore's resignation. It was on 17
October that David Rockefeller announced his $20
million gift to Rockefller University and, later in the
day, a group of senior faculty members delivered a vote
of no confidence in Baltimore. It became clear at that
meeting that Baltimore had to be replaced as far as the
senior faculty was concerned.

Baltimore's strategy at Rockefeller essentially
involved pitting the junior faculty against the senior
faculty. The seniors had, more or less, opposed
Baltimore from the start. The seniors also felt that
they had already begun the reforms for which Baltimore
was to receive credit, including doing something about
the fusty Board of Directors which had refused to take
action under the previous president, Joshua Lederberg.
There had been a standoff between senior faculty and
the board but, then, the board identified itself with
Baltimore and was contaminated by the Cell paper
controversy: the senior faculty acted against the
Board as well as Baltimore. In the spring, when
Baltimore and several other co-authors of the Cell
paper finally retracted the article, there was a rash
of bad publicity concerning Baltimore. Then, there was
an exchange of letters between Paul Doty, an emeritus
professor of chemistry at Harvard, which appeared in
Nature. Doty argued with Baltimore and won the
argument when Baltimore seem to insist that the whole
community of science was responsible for correcting his
mistakes.

Then, too, there were resignations of senior
people from the faculty. That did not help.

The result of these factors, people who
originally supported Baltimore no longer could. He had
mishandled the paper in Cell and now he was mishandling
their University. There were three major concerns:
"'One, the continuing ball-in-play on the Cell paper,
and all of the negative publicity and the uncertainty
of when it would end. That came through clearly. The
second was whether Baltimore was so severely wounded
that he would be incapable of recruiting new faculty to
Rockefeller. The third thing was whether all of the
hubbub of the Cell controversy, and the public aspects
of it, would also poison his ability to raise
money.'" (p. 1578)

Baltimore then encouraged junior faculty to
contact board members and express support for him.
While the strategy seemed to work, it had negative
effects when faculty came to realize what he was
doing. The factulty was "fractionating." It blamed
Baltimore.

Then, James D. Darnell resigned. That resignation
was common knowledge on campus. Campus rumor has it
that Darnell stepped down to force Baltimore to resign
before he could do further damage to the University.

"'David refused to be contrite. He wouldn't admit
he made a mistake.'" (p. 1579)

++++++++++

Baltimore will stay on at Rockefeller as a professor. It is
suggested that he may do research on AIDS.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1992 13:24:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Baltimore's Final Days

Baltimore's final days don't seem that final to me. If he is
indeed staying on as a professor, then the only result of his mistakes
seems to be a loss of power. I'm sure he will manage to remain rich
and continue to advance his career in other ways. Perhaps the most
major punishment for his folly was the bad press.

And, perhaps I missed something in the hearings, but what will
happen to Dr. Imanishi-Kari? Is she losing her career? Or merely
being forced to relocate?

Perhaps scientists would not be so fraudulent if the risks outweighed
the gains. If the results of getting caught amount to bad press and a
job change, then why not save time by commiting fraud? The situation
seems to be analagous to a store not prosecuting shoplifters. I'm not
advocating jail time for the indicted frauds of science, but certainly
the most well-known cheats should be made into an example. Even if
Baltimore's salary drops to a measly 100,000, which would no doubt leave
the man a wreck, this is not going to seem like punishment to most people.

Hopefully the new lawyers at OSI will be a bit more cruel and heartless
than the regular staff.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 19:49:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Growing Costs

Growing Costs at Stanford

Here in its entirety, from Science, is a brief statement
concerning Stanford. It would appear that the university's
problems are not over.


\Holden, Constance. "Stanford: More Bad News,"
Science 255 (10 January 1992), p. 154.\


It looks as if the worst isn't over for Stanford
in the indirect cost arena. The Defense Contract Audit
Agency has agreed with Navy whistleblower Paul Biddle's
claim that the university overbilled the government by
more than $200 million in indirect cost charges. The
auditors found about $235 million in overcharges
between 1981 and 1988, and, according to a
congressional staffer, they expect the numbers for
1989-90 to bring the total to more than $300 million.
Suspecting that the bad news was imminent,
Stanford president Donald Kennedy and board of trustees
president James Gaither predicted in a letter in the
alumni newspaper Observer that the government would
back up Biddle.
Kennedy and Gaither say Stanford will fight the
auditors; finding, which they say improperly disregards
all of the memoranda of understanding on which
Stanford's indirect cost rate was based during the
1980s. Biddle finds those memoranda invalid, while
Kennedy and Gaither call them "binding contracts."
Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) isn't likely to
buy Stanford's argument. "If Stanford wants to say to
the American people, We screwed you, but we did it
legally, they can do it," said a member of Dingell's
staff. "That was their defense on the last round, and
they lost their president over that one."


++++++++++

These are not good times for Big Science. Big Science here
is accused of a $500 million swindle of the government over the
past decade. An awesome sum.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 21:59:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Growing Costs

In regards to the Stanford difficulties, would sombody
In regard to the article on Stanford University's misuse of Govt. Funds,

What Were they intended for? Where did they end up?

If someone knows the answers to these questions the time spent composing
a reply is greatly appricated.

Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca, N.Y.
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 23:14:30 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: cal pryluck <pryluck@templevm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Growing Costs
in-reply-to: message of tue, 21 jan 1992 19:49:00 est from <ach13@albnyvms>

Why is anyone suprised about Stanford's problems with research grant overhead?

As far back as 1965 to my direct knowledge university business offices saw
research overhead as a profit center. As money got tighter, many schools saw
the light and declared one of their goals was to join the ranks of "research
universities." The overhead, of course, was just an incidental benefit. At
one school that I know of the measure of success was how much overhead money
was generated by a researcher. Results, I suspect, were incidental.

Cal Pryluck <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple Uuniversity
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 22:35:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Replies and More

Stanford's Gift, Replies

There are presently some 57 universities which are members
of the AAU, the Association of American Universities, the major
beneficiaries of research funds from government and from
business. These are the major players of grantsmanship. These
are the universities which receive the lion's share of all the
funds spent for research. The rest of the pack, the several
thousand others, share what is left over. The system of
distributing government and business grants, with all the perks
that go with them, are structured to and for these few schools.

The elitism of the few is notorious. The system's sages
insist that this is the way the system had to work: science was
essentially a hierarchy of the sort dominated by the favored few.
Indeed, the ideologists insist that any effort to change the
system of science in this country would be detrimental to
science. The public was also lulled into thinking that what was
good for Harvard was good for the country. And there is a very
cozy relationship between successful politicians and Big
Scientists in our society.

For the most part, other scholars were envious but they
tolerated the system. So long as there were some funds for the
rest of us, the system was tolerated. Whistles were not blown.
And yet, like Cal Pryluck, we all "knew." We all knew what was
going on and we tolerated it. The vast majority of us kept our
mouths shut. We accepted the ideology of elitism, we wished we
were part of the elite but, since we weren't, we kept our mouths
shut like good hacks at second-rate universities are supposed to.

There have been complaints over the years and there have
been strategies to get around the strangle-hold the AAU has held.
The latest end-run has been the "pork barrelling of funds," the
political process of getting friends in Congress to earmark funds
for schools outside the favored few. Pork barrelling has become
big business in the 1980s and 1990s. Meantime, the AAU members
have taken great care to declare that pork barrelling is not in
keeping with the time-honored process of peer review which the
AAU controls and abuses: the same "peers" who pass on grants are
the schools to which grants are given. The process is about as
objective as that. Nonetheless, pork barrelling has been
declared "unethical" by the leading members of the AAU.

The strategies of the outs have not been terribly effective.
The pork barrel did benefit a few schools. There is a new
library here or there, a laboratory in an unlikely place, a
supercomputer somewhere or other. But, in the main, the system
has held: the AAU still dominates.

Is there any evidence that the science bought and paid for
in the U.S. is the best science we could have? Of course not.
Is there any evidence that only the researchers at the AAU-
institutions can do the research the government supports? Again,
of course not.

There have been calls for reform down through the years:
simply a more equitable geographic distribution of funds, for
example (the money now goes to the East and West Coasts). But
this has not happened. There have been calls for the
distribution of funds to smaller schools so as to improve the
quality of science education at those institutions. Again, this
has not happened.

The gift given the critics of Big Science by Donald Kennedy
and the whole indirect cost scandal is this: The strangle-hold
of Big Science by the AAU and a few universities has been
exposed. Stanford ripped off as much as a half a billion
dollars! To answer, in part, the question asked by Jamie
Lacivita, the money has gone for yachts, and football games,
and wedding receptions, and trustee parties, and liquor, and
presidential air travel, and crystal ware, and opera tickets, and
presidential homes, and shopping malls, and flowers at the
president's home ($2000/month worth). Big Science has shown
itself to be lavish. Its lifestyle is that of the Robber Barons,
one of whom was, of course, Leland Stanford. It's like carrying
on a tradition.

I, for one, am delighted at the enormity of the sum. Even
in today's world, $500 million is not something Stanford can
defend or the AAU can explain away in terms of "accounting
errors." The public will notice. Stanford has exposed its hands
and they are very dirty.

Give Kennedy enough rope... and he'll try to--how was it a
congressional aide delicately phrased it?--screw the public.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1992 22:53:04 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Geographical distribution

You're off on one point, Al. The attempts to get geographical distribution
of funds weren't ALL failures. The two notable exceptions were, of course,
the Morrill Land Grant College Act and the Hatch Act, both in the nineteenth
century. The first gave every state an equal sum, raised from the sale of
public lands, for the purpose of supporting a state college dedicated to
"agriculture and the mechanic arts". This was, of course, the start of the
great state universities. The second gave every state an equal sum, again
raised from the sale of public lands, for supporting research at an
agricultural research station. There was plenty of griping at the time
by people such as the elitists at the National Academy of Sciences that
this was simply wasting money on people who didn't know how to spend it
wisely, but many have concluded since that these monies were some of the
best investments in research ever made in the United States. It wasn't
until the passage of the Adams Act in the first decade of the twentieth
century that controllers from central locations (in that instance, at the
USDA) began to wrest the process of setting research agendas out of the
hands of the locals.
There are plenty of sources on the topic, ranging from excellent to
utterly sappy. One good start is Charles E. Rosenberg, NO OTHER GODS,
especially chapters 9 through 11.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 10:12:43 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: don zilversmit <dbz@cornella.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Replies and More
in-reply-to: message of wed, 22 jan 1992 22:35:00 est from <ach13@albnyvms>

The discussions about mismanagement of overhead funds by accountants or
University Presidents or the membership of of Universities to elite
groups does not appear to have much bearing on FRAUD IN SCIENCE.
This group should not address all social ills. So, let us return
to topics more relevant to scientific misconduct.

Don Zilversmit
Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry
Cornell University
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 14:29:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Replies and More

In reply to Dr. Zilversmit, the topic of misuse of funds certainly
seems to be under the headline of 'fraud', and it is certainly being
committed by scientists, or at least the administrators of science, which
nowadays appear to be the bulk of those involved in science. So, is that
not Scifraud?

And I have a question about the scandals over this grant abuse thing:
has the government been alerted sufficiently by this Stamford news to look
into where the rest of their resources (or, rather, OUR tax dollars) are
going? Or are they naively assuming that this event is a fluke, and
certainly no other big name Universities would commit such a crime? I'm
just wondering how many science schools are going to feel a bit of invest-
igative pressure soon.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 13:41:07 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ted <theodore@uafsysb.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Replies and More
in-reply-to: message of thu, 23 jan 1992 10:12:43 est from <dbz@cornella>

Just a short note to say that I think misuse of government funds,etc.
is very relevant to the topic of this list. Stealing money is just as
bad as stealing data. Let's continue the discussion as info becomes available.

Ted Pedersen
University of Arkansas
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 17:29:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mg5856@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Replies and More

Every once and a while it seems, the topic of what should and should not
be disussed on Scifraud comes up. This debate is so persistent that I
have no qualms about throwing in my (unsolicited) two cents. Personally,
I think that the current discussion of stealing funds and money is certainly
within Scifraud's range of discussion. It's definately fraud and it's
happening within the field of science. I think that such unethical behavior
clearly merits discussion on a listserver that discusses/debates issues of
fraud in science.
-M. Guggenheim
SUNY Albany
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 18:06:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Replies

Replies

Professor Carroll is, of course, correct in reminding me
that my oversimple characterization of geographical inequity is
historically inaccurate. There were times when government was
less preferential and distributed its science support more fairly
in termws of geography. But that was a long time ago. Big
Science, especially since World War II, has been dominated by the
AAU members on the two Coasts.

Professor Zilversmit of Cornell suggests:

+++++++++++++

The discussions about mismanagement of overhead funds
by accountants or University Presidents or the
membership of of Universities to elite groups does not
appear to have much bearing on FRAUD IN SCIENCE.
This group should not address all social ills. So,
let us return to topics more relevant to scientific
misconduct.

+++++++++++++

I beg to differ. And so do at least two other members of
the SCIFRAUD community. Are we to assume that college presidents
and accountants are the miscreants here and the professors victims
of the bureaucrats who run universities? Is the position to be
taken by a researcher, "I was only following orders"? And, I had
no control over the university's misdeeds? I did not know what
the university's accountants/presidents were doing? I did not
benefit from the misdeeds of the bureaucrats? I did not know that
the new science buildings were wrung from inept accountants at
ONR?

It may be true enough that researchers do not do the
bookkeeping. It may well be that scientists could care less
about the nitty-gritty of administering grants. But the
opportunity structure of science in this country, and the games
that scientists play in grantsmanship (remember the delightful
Professor Grant Swinger and his Institute for the Absorption of
Federal Funds {See, Dan Greenberg}, are part and parcil of the
processes of Big Science. Any scientist who participates in the
grant-getting process, any scientist who accepts research money
channeled through an AAU affiliate, is a part of the system of Big
Science in which SCIFRAUD is interested. We focus on the
opportunity stucture of Big Science.

Elite scientists at elite universities are very well aware
of the postions they occupy. They know what is going on and they
play the games of Big Science. Moreover, they participate in the
games of grantsmanship by sitting on government's advisory committees
and peer review the process of giving money to themselves and
their colleagues. They know, as they assign funds, the indirect costs
of the universities getting grants.

Scientists may not like bookkeeping but they love
the outcomes of Big Science. The research laboratory, the
institute, the new facility, the staff, the perks of all sorts, are
part of the process of doing major research in this country. And
the Big Names participate wonderfully in ediface construction.

The research scientist who "brings in the bucks" is the
"king of the hill" and a major player in the system. To suggest, as
you do, that the researcher is not interested in benefits accruing
to the university is absurd. He or she is a part of the university
and benefits accordingly. Not a player? He or she is a
major player in each and every university.

Presidents and accountants use the system researchers
helped to create and benefit from the "science facilities" which
administrators build. Attempts to distance scientists from the
misdeeds of the universities' officers are, themselves, a dodge.
The opportunity structure of Big Science is very much a topic of
concern to SCIFRAUD.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 18:22:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: The Galapagos Myth, Again

The Galapagos Myth

\Browne, Malcolm W. Galapagos Mystery Solved Fauna Evolved on
Vanished Isles," New York Times, 21 January 1992, p. C1, C11.\

It is not the substance of this article which commends its worth
to SCIFRAUD readers but, rather, this Timesman's use of the "Galapagos
myth," the notion that Charles Darwin saw evolution as the result
of his experiences on the Galapagos archipelago. Just so, he begins
this article: "To biologists, the Galapagos Islands are very
special places, not least because their distinctive wildlife prompted
Darwin to hit upon the theory of evolution." (p. C1) Then, later in
the piece, "Scientific understanding of the evolution of species began
in the Galapagos in 1834, when the young Charles Darwin stepped
ashore from the H.M.S. Beagle to collect samples. Astonished by the
great variety of previously unknown birds, reptiles and mammals
inhabiting the islands and their waters, he killed and preserved as
many as he could find. Returning to England, Darwin showed his
specimens to the ornithologist John Gould, who recognized them as a
scientific treasure." (p. C11)

Here we are back at the myth of "discovery" and insight, of
recognition, and inspiration in science. The magic moment is supposed
to happen to discoverers and, so, it must have happened to Darwin.
And what better place on earth than the mysterious Galapagos, a
fitting outpost of Nature's pursuits? An apt Utopia for Nature's
demonstration of her arts.

Of course, the story of the Galapagos "discovery" is a phony. It
did not happen. Darwin bumbled along for another 20 years working
on his theory. But that bumbling cannot be told: the myth is
preferred as a means of impressing the uninformed concerning the
processes of science. If, in fact, the stumble-bumble process of
science were described instead of the mythic tales of discovery,
the public might lose some of the respect science commands today
(and, thereby, science some of its support). Scientists have only
themselves to blame for fostering these myths of science. So I
searched the SCIFRAUD database on Galapagos and discovered the following
annotations which may be enjoyed. Some are mythic and some pooh-pooh the
myth. They all provide something to think about.

++++++++++

\Sulloway, Frank J. "Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a
Legend," Journal of the History of Biology 15 (Spring, 1982), pp.
1-54.\

Sulloway has previously debunked the Freud legends and here
he is at a similar task with Darwin. Recall that "Darwin's
finches" are identified with Darwin's recognition, his
inspiration, concerning evolution via natural selection. That is
the textbook myth, ranking right up there with Newton's apple and
Galileo's dropping balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Sulloway
points out that the myth has no basis in historical fact. Darwin
did not discover evolution as a result of his work with the
finches of the Galapagos Archipelago! In fact, Darwin recognized
nothing about the birds while he was visiting the Islands,
misclassified the sample he collected, and faked his
identification, later, of the Islands where the birds came from.
Back in England, he had to locate shipmates' collections in order
to have his expert naturalists classify the birds which, by then,
had become important. Darwin makes nothing of the finches in
the Origin or his Journal of Researches. The myth has been the
work of text authors.

The term "Darwin's finches" was used for several reasons by
ornithologists. For one thing, there was no good classification
of all the finches on the Islands because the birds did not
inhabit all the Islands and one could not call them Galapagos
finches. Darwin's name got used to describe all the birds in
which ornithologists were interested. Later the term was used
to identify a good example of evolutionary radiation, and some
people used the name as if Darwin had classified the birds.
Darwin's name was so used in 1947 by David Lack, who demonstrated
how useful these birds were as an illustration of radiation.
"Lack's book has helped to make these birds famous far out of
proportion to their actual role in furthering evolutionary
theory... By telescoping history around one
dramatic moment of insight in the Galapagos Archipelago, the
textbooks have developed the legend into a compelling and
appropriately empirical account of the origins of modern
evolutionary biology... Legends are, after all, to celebrate
heroes; and there is something definitely heroic--more so than even
the legend has captured--about Darwin's scientific triumph..." (p.
47)

++++++++++


\Sulloway, Frank J. "Darwin's Conversion: The Beagle Voyage and
Its Aftermath," Journal of the History of Biology 15 (Fall, 1982)
pp. 325-397.\

As in the article which appeared in the Spring issue of this
journal, Sulloway is here the debunker of legends in science. In
the earlier article he demonstrated that Darwin never relied on
"Darwin's finches" in the "discovery" of evolution. In this article
he suggests that the insight to natural selection as the process
governing evolution did not occur on the voyage of the Beagle. It
occurred at home, in England, and only after Darwin had obtained the
critical judgments of the experts who examined the specimens he had
brought home with him. Darwin needed these experts to provide him
with his facts. The significance of natural selection dawned but
slowly, over time. Darwin was not the lone genius who got an
insight and thereby convinced the world. He was bright enough to
use the information of the experts at the Museum and the Zoological
Garden; to use those facts to develop a general theory which the
experts couldn't "see." Perhaps he had the advantage of being a
generalist.

In reporting on the finch myth, Sulloway puts it simply: "As
for the claim that Darwin was immediately impressed by the
morphology of the finches as a classic case of adaptive
evolutionary radiation, nothing could be further from the
truth." (p. 348)

Concerning the importance of the Galapagos to Darwin:
"Early March of 1837 is therefore the first opportunity
Darwin had to find out how truly remarkable the organic
productions of the Galapagos Archipelago were proving to be.
From Gould he had learned that virtually all the Galapagos land
birds were unique, although clearly of American character, and
that some of these species indeed represented one another on
the different islands of the archipelago." (p. 369)

Concerning the "insight" of evolution: "But if his conversion
was not instantaneous, it probably did not take more than a few days
or a week at most. And even this relatively brief episode of
intellectual transformation had itself been foreshadowed by
occasional 'vague doubts' about species over the previous eighteen
months or so. In this sense the conversion was, and remained, an
ongoing process and was not the sort of dramatic or instantaneous
insight that legend has generally maintained." (p. 369)

++++++++++


\Gruber, Howard E. and Gruber, Malmai. "The Eye of Reason:
Darwin's Development During the Beagle Voyage," Isis 53 (June,
1962), pp. 186-200.\

Two things are made very clear in this brief article on
Darwin's Beagle voyage. First he came to understand the writings of
his grandfather, Erasmus, on evolution. However, this does not mean
that he was an evolutionist at any time on the trip. He began as a
creationist and stayed that way until after his return to England.
(There is some evidence that he doubted while traveling but only
late in the trip.)

Second, there is no evidence at all that Darwin had anything
like an inspiration or a "breakthrough," in the imagery of the
creativity theorists on the contrary, there was a very gradual
growth of his awareness. It was only after his return to England
that he became aware of the significance of his experiences, and
of his specimens from the Galapagos Archipelago.

++++++++++

\Huxley, Julian. "Darwin Discovers Nature's Plan," Life, 30 June
1958, pp. 63ff.\

The hundredth anniversary of the Wallace-Darwin papers read at
the Linnean Society meeting of 1 July 1858 is a cause for
celebration. Here is the initial article (of a series of 8) in
which Darwinism is examined and evaluated. The author of most of
this series is a journalist, Lincoln Barnett, but it is appropriate
that the series be initiated by one with a family tie to Darwinism.
Huxley, the grandchild of "Darwin's Bulldog," is such a one.

These articles appear in a span of time matching the stretch of
time between the Linnean presentation and the appearance of the
Origin in November, 1859. The last in this series appears in the
October 1959 issue and is entitled "Where Evolution Stands Today."
The intermediate articles include such topics as the Galapagos
Islands, (8 September 1959), Tropical Insects (3 November 1958),
Fossil Animals of South America, (26 January 1959) and so on. As
was always the case with this magazine, the photography is superb,
and these topics lend themselves to a whole range of fascinating
possibilities for that medium.

On the whole, the journalist Barnett has done a good job. He
has done his homework and does not makes outrageous claims for
Darwinism and the gradual process by means of which the theory
evolved. But this lead article, written by a believer, is the
mythic account of Darwin's genius and his great discoveries.
Indeed, Huxley's very first paragraph contains a misstatement. He
suggests that Darwin recalled the Linnean meeting as one with
little effect, and quotes the famous lines of Professor Haughton
which, Huxley says, were quoted by Darwin "long after" the event.
But that quote appears the first letter he wrote to Wallace after
the meeting, in which he "explained" the meeting. But that
mistake is trivial by comparison to the nonsense attributed to the
Galapagos experiences. Here the myth is full-blown. "When the
Beagle reached the oceanic archipelago of the Galapagos Islands on
the equator 600 miles west of Ecuador, the conviction first dawned
on Darwin that gradual change--in other words, evolution--must
actually have occurred in living things and that new species must
have been formed from others already existing. It is certain that
among the ground finches (now called Darwin's finches) and
mockingbirds and tortoises and lizards and plants on these
isolated islands, Darwin's experiences finally crystallized his
dawning thoughts and led him to the idea of evolution as the best
hypothesis to account for the facts of nature. He spent the next
20 years of his life testing this hypothesis and eventually
demonstrated that evolution was a fact." (p. 77) But that is just
not the way it happened. There was no "breakthrough" on the
Galapagos or anywhere else. And Julian Huxley, with access to the
Darwin notebooks, especially M and N, should have known it and
probably did know it, but told this story because it was a useful
origin myth for his beloved biology.

Celebrations are times when one is expected to tell only the
nicest version of what really happened. The orator asked to praise
the memory of someone can hardly be faulted if his words are
carefully chosen and selective. However, here is a myth of science
which deserves to be identified.

++++++++++

\Shapley, Harlow, editor. A Treasury of Science. New York:
Harper, 1958. (Originally, 1943).\

This is an anthology of great events in science and consists of
the myths of science, the gee whiz of science, the awe of science.
It is the best single example of the genre I have read. It is
edited by an academic loyalist who, among other things, was the
principal hatchet man in the case of Immanual Velikovsky. It is
supposed to be an up-to-date picture of science at mid-century, and
it is typical of the sort of thing published in science at the time
Science is special. Science is different. Science can save us.
Science will provide man with leisure and happiness. It is a very
false picture of science that is presented here. (It may be useful
to point out that the edition I have is one identified as a
Book-of-the-Month Club Dividend. This says a great deal about what
this book is supposed to be.)

Shapley not only rhapsodizes over science in his Introduction
(pp. 3-7) but throughout, as evidence by his selection of papers
included in this anthology. In the Introduction, for example, he
mentions Copernicus doing calculations at Frauenburg Cathedral (we
know very little about Copernicus at Frauenburg); Ben Franklin's
kite flying (which nearly killed several people); Darwin on the
Galapagos (which I will not belabor again); and the Curie's
discovery of polanium and radium. Shapley would have everyone fix
eyes on these moments. But these moments are, in themselves,
absurd. Take Copernicus as a good example. He refused to publish
for 30 years because he did not wish to risk the outcries which
would be raised against him. Moreover, he was a canon of the
Church, a physician, and the favorite of his uncle, the Bishop of
Ermland, who saw to his nephew's well-being and needs. This eternal
student is hardly the hero who spent years calculating the orbits of
planets. Shapley reports only a selected version of the tale of
Copernicus.

The rest of the book contains similar "great moments in
science." However there are some good selections and among the
best is the short tale by Dallas Lore Sharp, "Hunting Turtle Eggs
for Agassiz," (pp. 31-42) in which the author describes the
hellish and exciting quest for 3-hour old turtle eggs for the
Harvard biologist to dissect. Wonderful stuff, and descriptive of
all the help that scientists must get before they can do science.
However, it was Agassiz who got the credit for the work.

There are excellent selections from various authors:
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Franklin, Jeans, Curie, deKruif,
Haldane, Darwin, Hooten, Steffansson, Jenner, Fleming and even A. A.
Brill. The successful speculators of the past are not alone; there
are the futurists who don't overall do very well in making
predictions, but their vision of the future is still worth reading.
The book ends with a piece which was typical of its time: science is
not responsible for what man has done with its inventions, war is.

There is not a hint here of any dishonesty in science, no views
of fraud or gamesmanship. Science is just wonderful. The scaffold
is down and out of sight and only the myths are being told. These
authors and the editor who selected them for inclusion are all
Romantics of science. They want science to be special and so they
create the special institution they wish it to be.

++++++++++
++++++++++

I might add: one can hardly fault the Timesman for his use
of the myth. It makes for good reading, it gets the tales across,
it makes for good copy in the Science Times. Only one thing wrong:
it is not a description of the way Darwin worked his way to his 1859
abstract. That story is ever so much more fascinating and ever so
much more difficult than the "bolt from the blue" that inspires the
genius. Bolts from the blue typically sell newspapers and science
while the mechanisms of discovery and the pathways to truth are
difficult.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 19:43:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Replies and More

Mr. Zilversmit,

As you know, the conduct of modern science is intended to be the rigerous a
application of processes and techniques which are intended to produce accurate
data and interperation to further our knowlege of our enviroment.

Since, our socety is not as altruistic as we protray it, funding our science
has become one of those "processes and techniques."

Anything that endangers our ability to truthfully adheare to scientific
processes and principals, has the potental to defraud science.

That is why, although (and I agree with you here) the discusson of the mism
mismangment of funds in general, and Stamford's in particular does not sound
very scientific, but, I feel that this line of discussion has revelance here.

Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca, N.Y.
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 20:35:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Biosphere 2 Fraud?

This article appeared on the Prodigy service on Jan 25. I beleve it will be of
intrest to this discussion because it rases a number of important questions
about the nature of privite science.

- J.L.

Is There Something Rotten on the Miniplanet?

The four men and four women were to be sealed inside the
glass & steel structure, where they would grow their own
food, and recycle the air, water and wastes -- independent
and untouched by the world outside.

That, at least, is what they promised.

But in the four months that Biosphere 2 has operated near
Tucson, Ariz., project sponsers have pumped in fresh air from
outside. They have admitted to secretly installing a machine
to scrub carbon dioxide from the air and stocking the artifical
world with food ahead of time.

Some former employees or people close to the project are charging
fraud and deception. Other sources say it's just a matter of
inept public relations. In eather case, the credibility of a p
project that promised to blaze a trail for the survival of Earth's
species has eroded.

Among the more serious accusations are these:

* A crew member who left for medical treatment secretly brought
back a duffel bag full of supplies -- including, a critic says
a seals that are supposed to prove the airlock doors haven't been
opened.

* Computer programs that monitor conditions inside the dome were
designed to premit tampering with the data.

Space Biospheres Ventures, the private company that developed the
project, denies thoes specific allegations as well as others by
critics of the project's management, says spokesman Larry Winokur.

But, a key consultant, Carl Hodges, director of the University of
Arizona's Enviromental Research Laboratory, has gone to Texas
billionaire Ed Bass -- the prime funding source for Biosphere 2 and
urged him to "do everything possible" to save the undertaking's
credibility.

Hodges told the Arizona Daily Star that he expressed his "deep
concern over the status of the project, paritculary as it is being
interperated from reports coming from the press, to the public."

Just what is going on inside Biosphere 2 is difficult to verify --
partly because the project's managers are not reluctant to litigate.

One critic is being sued by Biosphere officals. Some former empoyees
say they fear retaliation if they speek out; some worry their home
phones are bugged.

Enviromental and life sciences specialists contacted for comment general
ly declined to be quoted by name. Those still working at the site
have been requried to sign statements promising not to talk to repr
reporters or sue the company -- or to acknowledge that such statments
exist.

One scientest unaffiliated with the project who's willing to speek
for the record is Larry Slobodkian of the state university of New
York-Stonybrook, a general ecologist who once worked with NASA on
closed systems in space.

Slobodkian says Bioshpere 2's introduction of fresh air, storage of
food and outside energy production "disqualifies the installation as
a closed exprement, but we already knew that. So it's an exercise of a
very strange kind of living in very close proximity in almost prison
like situation."

Slobodkian notes that the project depends on electricity from out
outside the dome, uses air conditioning and lacks expremental controls.

The 3.15 - acre "miniplanet," featuring a tiny ocean, savannah and
3800 species of plants and animals, was sealed sept. 26 for the two
year exprement.

Visitors are charged $9.95 for excorted tours of the outside walls.
The project's for - profit bent and increasing thrust as a major
tourist attraction -- complete with plans for a confrence center
hotel, golf course and space camp -- have provided more fuel for
skeptics.

Consultant Walter Adey, who designed Biosphere 2's ocean, has told
the Washington Post he is distraught that the project which he views
as a serious scientific expreiment has evolved a Diseyland approach.



This article rases many questions.

How should for-profit science be juged?

How does the "Diseyland Approach" efect scientific credibility? What does this
say for events such as dolphen shows or planaturum "sky-domes?"

Obviously the Biosphere 2 exprement is not perfect (outide power and air ect.)
but, is a flawed exprement better than no exprement at all?

Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca, N.Y.
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1992 21:13:57 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: pols0@uhupvm1.bitnet
Subject: Re: Replies and More
in-reply-to: message of sat, 25 jan 1992 17:29:00 est from <mg5856@albnyvms>

On Sat, 25 Jan 1992 17:29:00 EST <MG5856@ALBNYVMS> said:
>Every once and a while it seems, the topic of what should and should not
>be disussed on Scifraud comes up. This debate is so persistent that I
>have no qualms about throwing in my (unsolicited) two cents. Personally,
>I think that the current discussion of stealing funds and money is certainly
>within Scifraud's range of discussion. It's definately fraud and it's
>happening within the field of science. I think that such unethical behavior
>clearly merits discussion on a listserver that discusses/debates issues of
>fraud in science.
> -M. Guggenheim
> SUNY Albany
I agree.
R. Hergesheimer
University of Houston
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1992 21:16:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on A Hoax

More on A Hoax?

Here are additional materials on the reported hoax
concerning a computer virus planted in the Iraqi air defense system.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





from: in%"ach13@louise.albany.edu" "al higgins" 22-jan-1992 00:41:14.49
to: ach13@albnyvms.bitnet
CC:
Subj: Forwarded message

ReturnForwarded message:
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 92 12:07:14 CST
from: pols0%uhupvm1.bitnet@uacsc2.albany.edu
Subject: More virus stuff
to: al <ach13@louise.albany.edu>

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 22:41:58 -0800
from: p1@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca (rob slade)
Subject: "Desert Storm" viral myths

This was pretty much forced on me by the press. There have also been a
lot of messages on the topic in alt.folklore.computers.

DEFMTH7.CVP 920115

"Desert Storm" viral myths

The recent spate of reports of a virus which shut down Iraq's air
defence system during "Desert Shield/Storm" seems to have started with
the series "Triumph Without Victory: The Unreported History of the
Persian Gulf War" by U. S. News and World Report. The articles are
being rerun in many papers (as well, apparently, as CNN and ABC
Nightline), and the article on the virus run in my local paper is
specifically credited to USN&WR. The bare bones of the article are that
a French printer was to be smuggled into Iraq through Jordan, that US
agents intercepted the printer, replaced a microchip in the printer with
one reprogrammed by the NSA, that a virus on the reprogrammed chip
invaded the air defence network to which the printer was connected and
erased information on display screens when "windows" were opened for
additional information on aircraft.

The first question is: could a chip in a printer send a virus? Doesn't
a printer just accept data?

Both parallel/Centronics and serial RS-232 ports are bidirectional.
(Cabling is not always, and I well remember having to deal, in the early
days of PCs, with serial ports which had been used as printer ports, and
could not be used as modem ports because the "return" pin had been
sheared off, a common practice to "fix" balky printers.) However, the
"information" which comes back over the line is concerned strictly with
whether or not the printer is ready to accept more data. It is never
accepted as a program by the "host".

The case of "network" printers, is somewhat more complex. There are two
possible cases: network printer servers and "network printers (such as
the Mac Laserwriters): and they are quite distinct. The print server
(on, say, DECnet) is actually a networked computer acting as a print
server; accepting files from other network sources and spooling them to
a printer. True, this computer/printer combo is often referred to simply
as a printer, but it would not, in any case, be able to submit programs
to other hosts on the net. The Mac case is substantially different,
since the Mac laser printers are attached as "peers". Mac Laserwriters,
at least, do have the ability to submit programs to other computers on
the network, and one Mac virus uses the Laserwriter as a vector.
However, it is unlikely that the Iraqi air defence system was Mac based,
and few other systems see printers as peers.

Second question: if it *was* possible to send some kind of program from
the printer to the computer system/network, was it a virus?

Given the scenario, of a new printer coming into an existing system, any
damaging program would pretty much have had to have been a virus. In a
situation like that, the first thing to do when the system malfunctions
after a new piece of equipment has been added is to take out the new
part. Unless the "chip" could send out a program which could survive,
in the network or system, by itself, the removal of the printer would
solve the problem.

Third question: could a virus, installed on a chip, and entered into
the air defence computer system, have done what it was credited with?

Coming from the popular press, "chip" could mean pretty much anything,
so my initial reaction that the program couldn't be large enough to do
much damage means little. However, the programming task involved would
be substantial. The program would first have to run on the
printer/server/peripheral, in order to get itself transferred to the
host. The article mentions that a peripheral was used in order to
circumvent normal security measures, but all systems have internal
security measures as well in order to prevent a printer from "bringing
down" the net. The program would have to be able to run/compile or be
interpreted on the host, and would thus have to know what the host was,
and how it was configured. The program would then have to know exactly
what the air defence software was, and how it was set up to display the
information. It would also have to be sophisticated enough in avoiding
detection that it could masquerade as a "bug" in the software, and
persistent enough that it could avoid elimination by the reloading of
software which would immediately take place in such a situation.

The Infoworld AF/91 prank article has been mentioned as the "source" for
the USN&WR virus article. There was, however, another article, quite
seriously presented in a French military aerospace magazine in February
(which possibly prompted the Infoworld joke.) This earlier article
stated that a virus had been developed which would prevent Exocet
missiles, which the French had sold to Iraq, from impacting on French
ships in the area. The author used a mix of technobabble and unrelated
facts, somehow inferring from the downloading of weather data at the
last minute before launch, the programmability of targets on certain
missiles and the radio destruct sequences used in testing that such a
"virus" was possible.

It has also been rumoured, and by sources who should know, that the US
military has sent out an RFP on the use of computer viri as computer
weapons. Although I have not seen the request, I *do* believe it went
out, and we have confirmation in the report of a contract being awarded
for further study in that area. I *don't* believe in the USN&WR report.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1992 DEFMTH7.CVP 920115


Vancouver p1@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca | "A ship in a harbour
Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca | is safe, but that is
Research into CyberStore Dpac 85301030 | not what ships are
User rslade@cue.bc.ca | built for."
Security Canada V7K 2G6 | John Parks

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 14:47:00 -0700
from: "rich travsky" <rtravsky@corral.uwyo.edu>
Subject: Gulf War Virus & "Softwar"

Regarding the Gulf War virus: Anyone remember the book "Softwar", by
Thierry Breton and Denis Beneich? Came out in 1984. Been a while since
I read it, goes something like this: The U.S. allows the Soviets to
buy a super-computer. The chips were, uh, slightly modified. Or
something like that. You can guess the rest. Fair reading as I recall.

Too bad the Gulf War version seems to an April Fool's story. (We
coulda had a sequel to the book!)

+


| | Division of Information Technology
| | University of Wyoming
| |
| | RTRAVSKY @ CORRAL.UWYO.EDU
| U W | (307) 766 - 3663 / 3668
| * | "Wyoming is the capital of Denver." - a tourist
+


Home state of Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense of these here UNITED STATES!
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 15:40:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mg5856@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?

I have also read about the accusations and complaints regarding the conduct
of the Biosphere 2 experiment. I think that Mr. Lacivita is right: Biosphere
is clearly not perfect. He does raise an interesting question, though: Is
a flawed experiment better than no experiment at all? It is to this issue
that I would like to respond: ABOSOLUTELY NO.

Experiments and their subsequent data provide the foundation, basis, and/or
impetus for further experiments. Computer scientists have the saying "garbage
in, garbage out." Lawyers and judges adhere to the "fruits of the poisonous
tree" dictum. Obviously, scientists must follow these edicts as well. If
Biosphere's data is flawed, or worse, tampered with, then the conclusions that
can be drawn from such data are subsequently suspect and any further
experiments are, at least, compromised.

-M. Guggenheim
SUNY Albany
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 09:18:00 GMT+1
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: dieter britz <britz@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?

M. Guggenheim of SUNY Albany writes
>I have also read about the accusations and complaints regarding the conduct
>of the Biosphere 2 experiment. I think that Mr. Lacivita is right: Biosphere
>is clearly not perfect. He does raise an interesting question, though: Is
>a flawed experiment better than no experiment at all? It is to this issue
>that I would like to respond: ABOSOLUTELY NO.

Sorry, the answer is YES; it is the rare experiment that is not flawed in some
way. What in fact is objectionable in this case (if what has been said about
it on this list is indeed fact) is not that the experiment is flawed, but that
the experimenters have perhaps conspired to keep this secret - if this is
true. I have read (in either New Scientist or Science) that there has been a
steady and uncontrollable rise in carbon dioxide, which spells doom for the
experiment in some forseeable time. It would be a shame if measures taken to
circumvent this are denied or kept secret. It may well be that even with
artificial help, i.e. pumping in air, the experiment can still fulfill some of
its goals. Are you saying, Mr. Guggenheim, that they should dismantle it, just
because it is flawed to some degree? The history of science is replete with
flawed, stumblebum gropings towards better understanding. But by all means,
let's have openness.
This list often succumbs to what seems to me a definite anti-science bias.
Surely we are interested in science fraud because we are interested in science
- not because we enjoy pointing the finger at someone? I do see the
relationship between science and fund improprieties, though it is rather
tenuous, I reckon. But when Al implies something improper merely by naming the
unequal fund distribution - i.e. 'big' universities tend to get the fattest
grants - he implies too much. It needs to be shown that this inequality is in
fact unjustified. I have no trouble imagining that these places get more money
simply because they tend to be better. You ought not to imply that peer review
is unfair or biassed, without demonstrating at least a few cases of bias or
unfairness. What I know of refereeing, it seems to be fair in most cases.


Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.


Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 11:51:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mg5856@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?

Mr. Britz raises many important issues in his last posting. Most importantly
and germaine to this discussion of Biosphere is his query of whether or not
they should dismantle and presumably abandon this experiment because it is
allegedly suffering from flaws. This is a good question. Should they call
it quits?

I don't know.

I do think, as I hope to have made clear in my last posting, that IN GENERAL
flawed experiments are worse than no experiments because they lead to a flawed
or incorrect foundation for future experiments. If the Biosphere experiment
continues to its completion, then I do believe that AT THE VERY LEAST all
scientists who would seek to utilize the data look upon such information with
extreme skeptisism. As for whether or not I think it should continue, I point
out that this is a privately-owned corporation's experiment. The Smithsonian
has removed almost all of its ties from the project. In essence, the experiment
is not a "public endeavor." As long as other scientists appreciate the
Biosphere data (if there is any) for what it is, I don't think that the
continuation or discontinuation of the experiment is anyone's concern but the
company running it.

-M. Guggenheim
SUNY Albany
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 21:57:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Book Review

Book Review

Here is a review of a new publication on computer viruses.
It speaks clearly of the qualities of the book.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


from: in%"ach13@louise.albany.edu" "al higgins" 28-jan-1992 21:16:57.59
To: ach13@ALBNYVMS.BITNET
CC:
Subj: Forwarded message

Return-path: <ACH13@LOUISE.ALBANY.edu>
Return-path: ACH13@LOUISE.ALBANY.edu
received: from sarah.albany.edu by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240; tue, 28 jan
1992 21:16 EST
received: from malachi.albany.edu ({128.204.1.117}) by sarah.albany.edu
(4.1/SMI-3.2) id <AA22715@sarah.albany.edu>; Tue, 28 Jan 92 21:16:46 EST
received: from granite/workqueue by malachi.albany.edu via charon 3.4 with ipx
id 100.920128211630.256; 28 Jan 92 21:16:48 -0500
Date: 28 Jan 92 21:16:18 EDT
from: al higgins <ach13@louise.albany.edu>
Subject: Forwarded message
To: ach13@ALBNYVMS.BITNET
message-id: <mailqueue-101.920128211619.384@louise.albany.edu>
X-Envelope-to: ach13
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.2 (R2).

Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 92 22:04:15 CST
from: pols0%uhupvm1.bitnet@uacsc2.albany.edu
Subject: Book information
to: al <ach13@louise.albany.edu>

Date: 31 Dec 91 23:09:50 +0000
from: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (gene spafford)
Subject: Review: A Pathology of Computer Viruses

I recently received a copy of "A Pathology of Computer Viruses" by
David Ferbrache of the UK Defense Research Agency. The book is
copyrighted 1992, and is published by Springer-Verlag (ISBN
3-540-19610-2 and 0-387-19610-2). US price was $39.50. 300 pages.

This book is an extraordinarily comprehensive book on the history,
theory, and operation of computer viruses, and on virus
countermeasures. It is the most complete book I have seen on the
topic to date, and contains a very detailed description of how PC
viruses work and spread, including viruses in networked environments,
viruses in Amiga systems, and viruses in Unix. In fact, I expect
David to get some criticism for the detail he presents, but it serves
to make the subject matter much clearer.

Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the topic of viruses, worms,
and malware. Chapter 2 is devoted to the history of viruses and
"malware" starting from the 1960s and thru the end of 1990. It has a
very complete description of the earliest viruses, including some
events and activities that have not been generally reported elsewhere.
It also includes interesting information on related activities, such
as the founding of the Virus-L mailing list.

Chapter 3 is a nice introduction to the theory of computer viruses,
including discussion of how computer viruses relate to biological
viruses, and other related topics such as artificial life.

Chapter 4 is a detailed discussion of how viruses operate in an IBM PC
environment. This includes details on camouflage techniques and
signatures as well as spread and activation. Chapter 5 provides
extensive discussion of techniques to protect against computer
viruses. Chapter 6 is a description of how viruses work in the Apple
Macintosh. Chapter 7 discusses viruses in mainframes and Unix
systems.

Chapter 8 is devoted to "network viruses" -- worms. This includes
analysis of early work, the Morris Worm, WANK, Christma Exec, and even
a discussion of e-mail chain letters! The chapter also has a nice
discussion of Internet protocols that lend themselves to abuse byd
material that I wished to pursue further -- unfortunately, there were
no citations to allow me to seek original sources. I do not doubt the
accuracy of the information presented, but I feel that the lack of
specific citations is a flaw in such a scholarly work.

The book suffered from spotty copy-editing. I found many places where
there were quite obvious typos. In a few places, these typos obscured
the text's meaning or distorted some information. I am not sure
whether to fault the author or the publisher, but is is sad to see in
an otherwise excellent book by an established publisher.

Another minor complaint is that there is no presentation of formal
theory about viruses or worms. Although this is not an area that has
seen much good work, it would have been useful to have some coverage
of that material here to complement the higher-level descriptions.

The appendix listing other references was good, and contained some
references I have not seen before, but it did not give any indication
which of the many references were particularly noteworthy or why the
references were cited. For instance, a number of limited-availability
BBS postings and Usenet articles were cited without an indication of
why they were included. At the same time, the references did not list
either of the fine collections of readings by Professor Peter Denning
("Computers Under Attack" ACM Press/Addison Wesley) and Professor
Lance Hoffman ("Rogue Programs" Van Nostrand Reinhold), nor did it
reference any of the publications by the NCSA.

The book is written primarily for a British audience. This means that
the coverage of US-specific items, such as anti-virus legislation, is
briefer than a US reader might prefer. It also means that some small
translation of terms is necessary in spots; of course, this same
criticism can be made of many US-centric books being published in a
non-US market.

Despite these criticisms, I strongly recommend this book to anyone who
is interested in computer viruses and security. It presents material
clearly and comprehensively, and provides unbiased coverage of the
area (David is not involved with the marketing of anti-virus software
or seminars as are many other virus book authors).

- --
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone: (317) 494-7825
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1992 20:45:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Delayed Posting

Delayed Posting

Here is, delayed and slightly edited, a posting from a new
member of the SCIFRAUD community.

My apologies for the delay in getting this distributed.

Al Higgins
++++++++++++++++++


Fri, 24 Jan 92 23:27:39 EST
received: from brownvm (wunder) by brownvm.brown.edu (mailer r2.08 beta) with
BSMTP id 8889; Fri, 24 Jan 92 15:23:59 EST
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 14:56:53 EST
from: tom <wunder@brownvm>
Subject: Re: Replies and More
to: scifraud@albnyvm1

I'm a newcomer to the discussion about Stanford and their
costing practices but I've been involved a little with the
"accounting" side of this matter. Certainly the subject is
appropriate for scifraud!

Accepting that universities are in a no win situation on this
issue -- and probably rightfully so -- there, nevertheless are
some other facts to reflect on.... ONR's Mr. Biddle
(I believe) estimated the amount of "overcharges" at
Stanford to be in excess of $200M. The bulk of this is not in
yachts and sheets and Rosebowl tickets but rather accounting
methodologies, approved in advance by ONR, that charged more to
the government in indirect costs than the default methodology
suggested in federal guidelines. For example: A portion of a
University's library costs is included in indirect costs. I
believe Stanford had conducted a special cost analysis study of
library costs which resulted in the federal government being
charged more than they would have been charged following standard
guidelines. This cost analysis probably resulted in 8-12% of the
library costs being charged to the government instead of 1-3%
allowed by the standard formula. This process was, I believe,
followed in several of the indirect cost categories. Many
universities have, in good faith, performed special cost analysis
studies and received the approval from federal auditors to charge
these "higher" costs to the government. A determination was made
by the feds. that the charges were reasonable and equitable.
To now, several years after mutually agreeing on a different
accounting methodology, change the ground rules is a breach of
contract. This is where Pres. Kennedy claims Stanford is "legally
right". He's not trying, any longer, to defend the yacht...etc.,
but rather a different set of costs, with the library being one.
Most faculty researchers that I know rely heavily on the library
and are amazed that universities typically are only allowed to
charge the government 1-3%.
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 21:21:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Ethical Codes

Ethical Codes

The American Physics Society has issued its guidelines and
probably other professional organizations will do the same. The
issue of misconduct in science is still a struggle for everyone.
Here is a recent editorial in an NIH journal, the whole of it,
bearing on the topic.

++++++++++

\Barnes, Deborah M. "Still Struggling To Define
Scientific Misconduct," The Journal of NIH Research 4
(January, 1992), p. 10\

Those who follow cases of alleged scientific
misconduct might assume that governmental-level
investigations of the cases are anchored in a rigorous,
formal definition of the problem. Not quite. The
definition of scientific misconduct is a moving target,
and no consensus exists among federal agencies.

Furthermore, long-awaited guidance on the issue
from the National Academy of Sciences requires still
more waiting. A delayed report, initially scheduled
for December 1991, may contain two definitions of
scientific misconduct--a majority version and a
minority dissenting opinion.

Why is scientific misconduct so difficult to
define?

NIH, in ia 'Rules and Regulations" published in
the Aug. 8, 1989, Federal Registrar, offered this
definition:

...falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, or
other ractices that seriously deviate from those that
are accepted within the scientific community for
proposing, conducting, or reporting research.

But in mid-November, Public Health Service
officials proposed an alternative:

Scientific misconduct is the intentional
fabrication or falsification of data, research
procedures, or data analysis; plagiarism; and other
fraudulent activities in proposing, conducting,
reporting or reviewing the results of research.

Both definitions contain the 'FFP' core--
falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. But the
new definition is narrower. It specifies 'intent' to
deceive and indicates that non-FFP violations must be
'fraudulent,' not simply deviations from the
acceptable.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also
refocused its definition. In the May 14, 1991, Federal
Register, the agency says:

Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or
other serious deviation from accepted practices in
proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from
activities fundedby NSF; or retaliation of any kind
against a person who reported or provided information
about suspected or alleged misconduct and who has not
acted in bad faith.

NSF's revision is designed to protect
whistleblowers. NSF mentions intent only in a section
explaining the actions to be taken is misconduct is
found.

Several key questions drive debate about a
definition. Should it be broad or narrow? Where
should the burden of proof lie--with the accused or
with the accuser? And should the definition of
misconduct, like the legal definition of fraud, include
an intent to deceive?

In an interview, one scientist expressed concern
that a broad definition of misconduct would lead people
not familiar with the scientific process to see
misconduct where none exists. But a second scientists
advocated a broad approach, saying that a basic
principle of science is to find the truth and help
others find the truth, and any conduct that deviates
from the principle is improper.

Two attorneys with scientists as clients say the
burden of proof should be on the accuser, as it is in
civil and criminal cases, and that an essential
component of the definition of scientific misconduct
should be the intent to deceive.

Both scientists thought intent would be impossible
to prove and said that more effort should be directed
toward preventing misconduct. But one stated
unequivocally that the burden of proof should be on the
accused, saying a scientists who claims to have
obtained a particular result must be able to convince
someone who challenges the result.

Much of the debate concerns the nature of the
scientific enterprise. Is it intrinsically different
from other, non-research endeavors? If so, should the
procedures for investigating scientific misconduct be
different from those for investigating other kinds of
offenses? If the answer to the first question is
'yes,' does that mean that the answer to the second
question must also be 'yes'?


++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1992 19:43:03 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: richard ristow <ap430001@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Flawed experiments? (was Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?)

On Tue, 28 Jan 1992 11:51:00 EST
"M. Guggenheim"<MG5856%ALBNYVMS.bitnet@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU> wrote

>I do think, as I hope to have made clear in my last posting, that IN GENERAL
>flawed experiments are worse than no experiments because they lead to a
>flawed or incorrect foundation for future experiments.

Could this be elaborated upon? It seems to ignore or miss the point of
the Dieter Britz posting to which it responds. Britz takes 'flawed' to
mean something like 'run under conditions less than optimal conditions,
or with less knowledge than desirable of the conditions', and then argues
that the only choice is 'flawed' experiments or none: every experimental
condition will be less than optimal, and less than perfectly known, in
*some* respect. Perhaps that does mean every experiment leads to a flawed
or incorrect foundation for future experiments; does the poster truly
recommend abandoning experimentation altogether, or disagree with Britz's
definition of 'flawed', or what?

Now, the allegations about Biosphere II (I know nothing of the facts) go
beyond what Britz would call merely 'flawed'; Biosphere is accused of
deliberate deception about the conditions of the experiment. I see no
defense for such conduct, and if Guggenheim reserves 'flawed' for actual
dishonesty, I have no quarrel except to note that this departs from the
common meaning of the word. However, failure to make the experiment
function as the intended closed ecosystem, if disclosed and the problems
and compromises documented, does not seem to render the experiment worth-
less; have I missed a point, or are we truly in disagreement, and could
you say more about why?


Richard Ristow AP430001@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU Bitnet: AP430001@BROWNVM
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1992 17:01:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mg5856@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Flawed experiments? (was Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?)

Mr. Ristow's last posting requested some elaboration on my last posting
regarding flawed experiments and Biosphere and abandoning (or not) such
flawed experiments and I'm happy to oblige. . . .

First of all, I think that "flawed" is a word certainly open to definition.
Mr. Ristow rightfully points out that if flawed meant "less than optimal
conditons" almost every experiment could be considered so and, if I my
previous postings are to be believed, should be abandonded. Clearly, some
clarification is necessary.

Specifically in the Biosphere case the experiment's "flaws" range from carbon
dioxide purging machinery (which, I believe, goes against the spirit of the
experimient) to the allegedly smuggling in of materials and supplies to the
alleged tampering of data. Of course, it's extremely difficult to determine
whether or not the project suffers from negligence or fraud simply because we
don't know all the facts. All there are are accusations and denials. Thus, I
really can't say whether or not Biosphere should be cancelled. I don't have
all the facts. I'll simply repeat my belief that incorrect or fraudulent data
can only mean trouble for future experiments or applications.

In general, I don't consider an experiment "flawed" if it takes place under less
than optimum conditons. "The best laid plans of mice and men . . . ." and al
l
that. There exists a spectrum of mishaps. Somewhere a line exists between an
imperfect experiment which still has some scientific value and a negligent
experiment whose data could jeopardize further experiments. A advocate the
abandoning of an experiment when, for whatever reasons, that line is crossed.
I'll leave it to this board to try to discern where that line lies. . . .any
takers?

-M. Guggenheim
SUNY Albany
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 00:36:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Flawed experiments? (was Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?)

I rase another question in terms of the Biosphere II project. This project,
which if it succedes will provide a welth of data to ecologiests and others
is privately funded and is expected to produce a profit. My question is thus,
'does science have room for such 'capitalist exprementation?' The potenal for
new funds and new reaserch is vast. Also as vast is the possibility of monietar
er...monitary considerations given greater precidence than research objectivi
ty.Where or How does one draw the line?


Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca, N.Y.
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 00:55:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Flawed experiments? (was Re: Biosphere 2 Fraud?)

After thinking about it a bit I feel prepaired to answer Mr. Guggenheim's
question, when is an imperfect exprement (as all are) to be abandoned.
It would seem to me, that any exprement is benifical to science if it acc
...clearly and truthfully describes the accuracy of the data and any
potental flaws therein. Any exprement that passes itself of as more acu
accurate than the data collection alows is 'flawed' and should be dismissed.
If at the end of the exprement the owners of Biosphere II are forthcoming
with full descriptions of any problems they faced conducting the exprement
their data is still good. If However, they hide any alterations in the
conducting of the exprement as the process went on i.e. carbon dioxide pruging
etc. they will have done science a grave disservice.


Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca N.Y.
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1992 16:06:47 MEZ
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: suitbert <sertel@dgogwdg1.bitnet>
Subject: end of data theft

Discussants participating at solving my problems with the
"French lady" who had accused me of data theft (Oct-Nov.1991)
wanted to know about her reaction after my sending her a copy of
your e-mail contributions.

Well, she wrote me a long letter, apparently impressed by so
many people having got seriously involved in her and my
problems. She stressed that her intention had just been to
strictly bring to my attention that the data I had sent to a
colleague were hers/her husbands (you remember, her husband had
died early this year). She advised me how to make this clear to
any addressee to whom I might send the data in future. She
regretted that participants of the discussion group might have
gained the impression that her intervention had financial
reasons, and she even offered to reimburse the costs (about $
500) which I had paid 5 years ago to her husband for the data
which I had then transferred to the computer. She said that I
should have received the data free of charge since I had used
them for research only, other researchers had received them
without being billed. (Of course I did not accept her offer).

Thanks again for your helping me settle that problem, the result
of my letting her know your comments and ideas is simply marvellous.


Suitbert
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 11:33:49 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ted pedersen <theodore@uafsysb.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
in-reply-to: message of sat, 29 feb 1992 12:13:00 cst from <y13dxw1@niu>

Regarding the question is political science a science...

I think the topic has come up in the form of are the social sciences in
general sciences and there were some interesting points made. If you have
some strong convictions on the point please share them.

For my part I think science is largely a method. It's not the area that you
are in but the way in which you practice your profession. I can easily imagine
political scientists, journalists, economists, etc. being scientists. I can
also imagine chemists and physicists who are not. It's a pretty interesting
question. Please run with it. If there are some frauds in poly sci that would
be especially intersting...i suppose one could get into a "Marx was a fraud"
sort of thing...that's not really what I meant...

Ted Pedersen
University of Arkansas
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 15:32:08 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: niall johnson <john7552@mach1.wlu.ca>
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
in-reply-to: <9203011741.aa12856@mach1.wlu.ca>; from "ted pedersen" at mar 1,
92 11:33 am

Ted Pedersen said:
>
> Regarding the question is political science a science...
>
{stuff deleted}
>
> For my part I think science is largely a method. It's not the area that you
> are in but the way in which you practice your profession. I can easily imagine
> political scientists, journalists, economists, etc. being scientists. I can
> also imagine chemists and physicists who are not. It's a pretty interesting
> question. Please run with it.

When I read this I reminded me immediately of something James Bird (at
Southampton) had said.

Bird wrote "there is no agreed description of the scientific method. Just
imagine the situation if there were. A totalitarian world of procedures
would have to be learnt and obeyed. It is difficult to imagine such a
universal framework lasting gfor very long." I'd agree with both James and
Ted and add that rather science is more an approach to study than a
codified, strictly defined method.


Reference:
Bird, James, 1989 _The changing worlds of geography: A critical guide to
concepts and methods_, Clarendon Press, Oxford.



Ciao


Niall Johnson,
Dept. of Geography,
Wilfrid Laurier University.
john7552@mach1.wlu.ca
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 17:11:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Offshoot of Stanford Scandal--

An interesting little aside to the continuing Stanford scandal
appeared in today's (3/1/92) New York Times, on page 7 of the Week
In Review section. Apparently, a chairman at Stanford Med., Dr.
Gerald Silverberg, who had been previously singled out as something
of a chauvinist by a female co-worker, was asked to step down mainly
out of fear of adding to Stanford's bad press. He had been complained
about last year, and only now do they ask him to leave.

So, then, at least one good aspect has come of this investigation;
Stanford is having to clean up its act in other departments as well.
Maybe now sexism in Universities will be another point for administrators
to worry about, rather than disregard.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 21:58:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?

Damrong,

I don't feel political science is a science any more that any other socical
science is a "Science." True science is based on one principal, observingl
phenomon in a controled environment or manner. In otherwords, utalizing the
controlled variable. Some variables in socical "Science" are controllable,
most arn't.

Despite the preachings of the Enlightment human beings are far too complex
to be studied in a orginized and controlled fashion, there just too many
variables to account for. Therefore I beleve that calling socical sciences
"sciences" is misleading and perhapse innapropate.

Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca N.Y.
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1992 22:08:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?

Niall,

You said that science is more of an approach to a study than a strictly
defined methoid. To some extent I agree but I would argue the following
points.

Aspects of true science are strictly defined i.e. The quest for accuracy and
validity, elementing exprementer bias and finding direct cause --> effect
relationships amoung variables. These are the basic, unchanging tenements
of scientific practice. The approach you

Science has not progressed far enough to adiquetly deal with large numbers of
vairables present in the "human exprement." At this time it is impossible to
accurately measure or predect most aspects of human psychology. there

Socical Science is an oxymoron.

Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca N.Y.
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 09:31:31 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: cal <pryluck@templevm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Offshoot of Stanford Scandal--
in-reply-to: message of sun, 1 mar 1992 17:11:00 est from <ds7024@albnyvms>

I haven't been following the adventures of Dr. Silverberg closely and I may
be mixing him up with another med school Chair but when a distinguished
woman surgeon resigned rather than put up with her chair's harassment there
was much furor. She agreed to withdraw her resignation in a compromise that
allowed the chair to finish out the year (presumably to 'save face'). Why
this kind of guy should be allowed any slack is another matter. Anyway this
case stands on its own bottom as a matter where the offended party was willing
to pursue a grievance to the end. The resolution is only incidentally
related to Stanford's other problems.

Cal Pryluck <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 09:54:02 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: soclyman@umcvmb.bitnet
Subject: is political science a science

OPTIONS: NOACK LOG SHORT NOTEBOOK ALL
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 09:33:12 CST
from: soclyman@umcvmb
To: scifraud@albnyvm1
Subject: is political science a science

We have had this sort of discussion before and this time I will
throw in my two cents worth.
Jamie Lacivita states that 'true science is based on one principal,
observing phenomena in a controlled experiment or manner' (paraphrase).
I disagree that "controlled experiment" defines science, although I
would agree if "controlled manner" means some sort of systematic
method to research.
Re. the first criterion, controlled experiment. Many of the social
sciences, psychology and sociology, for example, used experimental
methods of various types. However, it seems to me that this criterion
would exclude several activities that we commonly take to be science --
geology and astronomy being the most obvious examples. These types of
phenomena encompass an extraordinary number of variables and the type
of controlled experiment they would use would be something like
computer simulation, which allows one to simplify, specify, manipulate
these many variables.
Many of the social sciences use simulations of one type or another.
The second criterion, controlled manner, (if I understand what Jamie
means) clearly includes those social sciences (or components thereof)
which engage in a programmatic, systematic investigation of their
subject matter with an object to producing reproducible results.
In general, however, I reject your criteria for distinguishing
a science from a non-science. I'm also not sure whether this sort
of discussion is some form of status turf war designed to give the
natural sciences some sort of preferred ranking. As far as fraud
in science goes, it seems to me that research which holds the potential
for (1) defrauding the state/public of funds, or (2) defrauding other
other researchers by "lying" about results, etc., is carried out in
all fields of "science", social and otherwise. Furthermore it is my
opinion that the potential harm to society and individuals is equally
great -- Head Start programs, to me, are as important as SDI.

Katherine Lyman
Sociology
UMissouri-Columbia
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 12:04:49 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: niall johnson <john7552@mach1.wlu.ca>
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
in-reply-to: <9203021244.aa00397@mach1.wlu.ca>; from
"SCIFRAUD@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU" at Mar 1, 92 10:08 pm

Jamie,

You responded to my message thus:
> You said that science is more of an approach to a study than a strictly
> defined methoid. To some extent I agree but I would argue the following
> points.
>
> Aspects of true science are strictly defined i.e. The quest for accuracy and
> validity, elementing exprementer bias and finding direct cause --> effect
> relationships amoung variables. These are the basic, unchanging tenements
> of scientific practice. The approach you
>
> Science has not progressed far enough to adiquetly deal with large numbers of
> vairables present in the "human exprement." At this time it is impossible to
> accurately measure or predect most aspects of human psychology. there
>
> Socical Science is an oxymoron.
>
> Jamie Lacivita
> Ithaca N.Y.
>

I have my doubts as to whether political science, indeed many of ths
'social' sciences, do constitute what we regard as science.

My point was admittedly somewhat tangential in that I was simply recalling
Bird's remarks on scientific method (particularly in modern geography).

With regard to your remarks about measurement of human behaviour, etc. I
heartily agree. I know full well how difficult it is to accomodate human
behaviour in models - having spent time over the last few years modelling
all sorts of human behaviours, including predictions of freeway usage for
proposed roads, examining perceptions of residential environmental quality
(what makes a good residential environment?), etc.

Ciao


Niall Johnson,
Dept. of Geography,
Wilfrid Laurier University.
john7552@mach1.wlu.ca
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 13:29:41 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bauerh@vtvm1.bitnet
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
in-reply-to: message of sat, 29 feb 1992 12:13:00 cst from <y13dxw1@niu>

First, there would need to be agreement on what defines a science.
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 15:59:15 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: robin hanson <hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
In-Reply-To: The message of 2 Mar 1992 10:29 PST from
BAUERH%VTVM1.bitnet@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU

Katherine Lyman writes:
"We have had this sort of discussion before ... I'm also not sure whether
this sort of discussion is some form of status turf war designed to give
the natural sciences some sort of preferred ranking."

I also feel a pang of nostalgia every time some group revisits yet
another "Is X a science?" question.

There is (and has been and will be) an incredibly diverse world of
people out there "studying" things. Some of them call their studies
"science" and are able to get away with this label to varying degrees in
varying contexts. What can explain the difference between when people
can and can't use this label with minimal fear of contradiction?

Is there is some more "objective" criteria that explains when the label
"science" is said to apply, similar to our explanations for when the
labels "expensive" or "controversial" are said to apply to some study?
Or is a better explanation more like that that for when a study is
labeled "interesting" or "insightful", labelings which clearly depend
much more on a local context of opinions and social competition.

There are many "objective" labels that correlate with some study being
labeled "science", such as "uses real numbers", "described in
jargon-laden article", "investigators wore white coat", and "refers to
observations of situations investigators could influence". And we could
conceive of the label "science" evolving to be considered co-extensive
with one such correlate label (or some simple combination of them).

But though there has been ample opportunity to do so, the label
"science" hasn't so evolved -- it is still rather fuzzy. Though there
is wide-spread sentiment that there should be a simple "definition" of
"science", different "Is X science?" debates propose many different such
definitions.

For me, the natural explanation for this phenomena is that what people
want to hold constant about the label "science" is the validity of
claims like "science has superior authority in answering the questions
to which it can apply", and especially "science should be funded". In
any particular rhetorical battle, each side then tries to "define"
science as one of the correlate labels described above, picking a label
that certainly includes them, and perhaps also excludes their opponents.
The current fuzzy use of "science" becomes a powerful rhetorical weapon
in the hands of whoever is accepted as an authority on "what `science'
means".

Given this situation, I think it best to avoid the label "science",
or to treat it inclusively, as whatever anyone wants to call "science".

Robin Hanson hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov "Stake Your Reputation"
415-604-3361 MS-269-2, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035
510-651-7483 47164 Male Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539-7921
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 16:13:00 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "damrong wathana" <y13dxw1@niu.bitnet>
Subject: Is "Political Science" a science?

I am convinced that any scientific enterprise has followed the
pattern Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, T. S. (1970) "The structure of
scientific revolutions." 2nd. ed.) documented. His notion of
"paradigm" provides a demarcation between science and non-science.
Science is defined by a "paradigm." "Paradigm" as Kuhn used it,
"is what the members of a scietific community consists of men who
share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of men who
share a paradigm" (Kuhn, 1970, p. 176). A scientific paradigm,
Kuhn explained, is a research tradition consisting of "universally
recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model
problems and solutions to a community of practitioners" (Kuhn,
1970, p. viii). This view of science indicates that there is no
specific methodology and no univeral conception of science.
Science tells us nothing about the truth, but only a view dominated
by a particular "paradigm." For example, scientists who adopt
Newton's "paradigm" would be different from those who are in
Eistein's "paradigm." Darwinian Scientists would be severely
attacked by non-Darwinain biologists.

Thus, if political science were to develope a coherent theoretical
framework (called "paradigm") it would become a science.
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1992 17:38:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Still More on Gallo

Patent Rights and Scientific Glory

The Times contains more on the continuing and growing number
of investigations of Robert C. Gallo of the National Institute of
Health. Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

\Hilts, Philip J. "American Scientist Who Found
H.I.V. Is Investigated Anew," New York Times, 2 March
1992, pp. 1, B9.\

"Dr. Robert Gallo, the American co-discoverer of
the virus that causes AIDS and the subject of a Federal
inquiry in connection with that discovery, is being
investigated once again, Federal officials say, this
time on charges of perjury and patent fraud." (p. 1)

"The United States and France now share the
royalties from the test and have arbitrarily split
credit for the discoveries 50-50 under a 1987
agreement. In light of new accusations against Dr.
Gallo and his colleagues, lawyers for the Pasteur
Institute in France, which researchers also claim to be
discoverers of the virus, are now seeking to reverse
that agreement and recover from Washington payments of
$20 million plus future royalties." (p. 1)

"The Inspector General at the Department of Health
and Human Services, the General Accounting Office of
Congress and the House Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations have all opened inquiries into the new
charges.
"They are asking whether statements by Dr. Gallo
in the patent application for the AIDS test were
knowingly false, especially the assertion that his work
in developing the AIDS test owed very little to the
French team.
"The three groups are also investigating whether
several senior officials of the Health Department had
reason at the time to know that Dr. Gallo's statements
in the patent application were false..." (p. B9)

"In early drafts of the 1984 paper, the report
says, Dr. Popovic (co-author of the 1984 paper and
collaborator of Gallo) gave considerable credit to the
French, acknowledging that the French virus was the one
that the Gallo laboratory used as its standard
references and saying that the French-discovered virus
was essentially the same as the one claimed by him and
Dr. Gallo as the cause of AIDS.
"In the margin of one draft, Dr. Gallo responded
vehemently to these admissions by Dr. Popovic with the
comment, 'Mika are you crazy?' and struck out the
references. (p. B9)

"The (OSI) report does not resolve the question
(of discovery and/or known or unknown contamination)
but it makes clear that the origin of the Gallo AIDS
virus is extremely murky." (p. B9)

There is evidence that right up until he filed the
patent application, Gallo was aware of the similarities
between his virus and the French virus. However, on
the patent application Dr. Gallo said, "'My colleagues
and I did not consider LAV and HTLV-III to be the same,
or even substantially the same, virus.'" And, "he 'was
satisfied that HTLV-III had been proved to be the cause
of AIDS, but I saw no evidence of this for LAV.'" (p.
B9)


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 12:20:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mg5856@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?

Jamie Lacivita writes "True science is based on one principal, observing
phenomenon in a controlled environment or manner. In otherwords, utilizing
the controlled vairable. . . . Therefore I believe that calling social sciences
'sciences' is misleading a perhaps innapropriate."

While I agree with Mr. Lacivita's belief that "human beings are far too complex
to be studied in an organized and controlled fashion," I'd like to point out
that there have been sociologists who have attempted such controlled
experiments and who have, it could be argued, succeeded in obtaining usable,
informative data. In fact, there is a branch of sociology (whose name,
unfortunately, escapes my bungled powers of recall) which prided (prides?)
itself on following and adhering to the scientific method. So . . . . are
sociologists who utilize the scientific method really scientists? If so, then
doesn't that open the door to other "non-scientists" who follow the method?
Or are sociologists who follow the scientific methody not scientists? If so,
why not?

-M. Guggenheim
SUNY Albany
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 13:37:12 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bauerh@vtvm1.bitnet

As to defining science....
Since "science" is commonly used to encompass astronomy, biology,
chemistry, geology and physics, any definition or characterization one
proposes for "science" ought to be consonant with what goes on in those
fields. So characterization or definition means, finding what's common to
those endeavors. About a century of philosophy of science, history of
science, and sociology of science hasn't succeeded in coming up with such
a definition or characterization that is agreed to by any consensus among
those interested in the matter. (As Ted Pedersen pointed out, citing James
Bird.) So to make suggestions about "controlled observation", "finding
cause-effect relationships", etc. is attempting to re-invent wheels that
have already been shown to be unworkable.
Common to the natural sciences is:
--dramatic knowledge gains since 17th century;
--enormously reliable knowledge of the sort, "if this happens, then that
follows";
--almost universal consensus on theories and interpretations within any
given specialty; overlapping consensus across specialties (wherever they
overlap).
Those are the reasons why science has become the societally-wide accepted
arbiter of what's so and what isn't so, why it has such high prestige.
Some other fields try to call themselves "science" in the effort to share
in that prestige. But if they don't have that sort of reliable knowledge
and wide consensus over what it means (i.e. consensus on theory), then
they don't qualify. Wanting to be called "science" is an example of
scientism, the belief that only science is capable of giving useful
advice. The "social sciences" belong to this group of scientistic non-
sciences.
| Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies |
| VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212 |
| (a.k.a. 'Josef Martin', author of TO RISE ABOVE PRINCIPLE) |
| Internet: BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1) |
| Phone: (703)231-4239(secretary)/951-2107(home) |
| FAX: (703)231-3255 |
| THE ONLY THING NECESSARY |
| FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL |
| IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING |
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 14:05:00 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "damrong wathana" <y13dxw1@niu.bitnet>
Subject: Is 'Political Science' a science?

To answer to question: Is "Political Science" a science?
I am convinced that any scientific enterprise has followed the
pattern Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, T. S. (1970) "The structure of
scientific revolutions." 2nd. ed.) documented. His notion of
"paradigm" provides a demarcation between science and non-science.
Science is defined by a "paradigm." "Paradigm" as Kuhn used it,
"is what the members of a scietific community consists of men who
share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of men who
share a paradigm" (Kuhn, 1970, p. 176). A scientific paradigm,
Kuhn explained, is a research tradition consisting of "universally
recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model
problems and solutions to a community of practitioners" (Kuhn,
1970, p. viii). This view of science indicates that there is no
specific methodology and no univeral conception of science.
Science tells us nothing about the truth, but only a view dominated
by a particular "paradigm." For example, scientists who adopt
Newton's "paradigm" would be different from those who are in
Eistein's "paradigm." Darwinian Scientists would be severely
attacked by non-Darwinain biologists.

Thus, if political science were to develope a coherent theoretical
framework (called "paradigm") it would become a science.
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 17:16:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?

Jamie,
Perhaps if you were to both use an editor and call people by
their last names, your points would be better taken. Although I was
thankful for the amusement that "basic, unchanging tenements of
scientific practice" brought me. Interesting image.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 17:01:00 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "damrong wathana" <y13dxw1@niu.bitnet>
Subject: Is 'Political Science' a Science?

Response to the question: 'Is 'Political Science' a science?
I am convinced that any scientific enterprise has followed the
pattern Thomas Kuhn (Kuhn, T. S. (1970) "The structure of
scientific revolutions." 2nd. ed.) documented. His notion of
"paradigm" provides a demarcation between science and non-science.
Science is defined by a "paradigm." "Paradigm" as Kuhn used it,
"is what the members of a scietific community consists of men who
share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of men who
share a paradigm" (Kuhn, 1970, p. 176). A scientific paradigm,
Kuhn explained, is a research tradition consisting of "universally
recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model
problems and solutions to a community of practitioners" (Kuhn,
1970, p. viii). This view of science indicates that there is no
specific methodology and no univeral conception of science.
Science tells us nothing about the truth, but only a view dominated
by a particular "paradigm." For example, scientists who adopt
Newton's "paradigm" would be different from those who are in
Eistein's "paradigm." Darwinian Scientists would be severely
attacked by non-Darwinain biologists.

Thus, if political science were to develope a coherent theoretical
framework (called "paradigm") it would become a science.


Damrong Wathana <y13dxw1@niu.bitnet>
Center for Governmental Studies
Dekalb, IL 60115
Tel: (815)753-0929
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 20:47:15 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: cal pryluck <pryluck@templevm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
in-reply-to: message of tue, 3 mar 1992 17:01:00 cst from <y13dxw1@niu>

Am I the only one who has received three copies of the message from Damrong
Wathana which analyzed the science issue according to Kuhn?

Now that I've had extra time to consider the analysis, may I suggest that
Kuhn was writing as a physicist turned historian? The paradigm as he
analyzes it is useful in the narrow confines of those sciences which he
applies it, yet the idea of a paradigm as a set of accepted procedures in the
context of certain conditions is useful in a much broader domain. I have
found the notions of paradigm and paradigm change useful in trying to under-
stand the history of the industrialization of show business which is my
current project.

Cal Pryluck <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1992 21:10:41 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: niall johnson <john7552@mach1.wlu.ca>
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?
in-reply-to: <9203040156.aa16898@mach1.wlu.ca>; from "cal pryluck" at mar 3,
92 8:47 pm

Cal Pryluck asked:
>
> Am I the only one who has received three copies of the message from Damrong
> Wathana which analyzed the science issue according to Kuhn?
>


Is it only 3 times? It seems that everytime I check my email (5-10 times a
day due to high traffic) there is another copy of this message awaiting me.

What gives?

Ciao


Niall Johnson,
Dept. of Geography,
Wilfrid Laurier University.
john7552@mach1.wlu.ca
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 17:47:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Psychiatrizing Science

More Pathological Science

Here is SCIFRAUD's annotation on a recent piece. It is
followed by a comment, not a part of the annotation, but a word
added as my judgment on the substance of the article.


\Rousseau, Denis L. "Case Studies in Pathological
Science," American Scientist 80 (January-February,
1992), pp. 54-63.\

Three events in science of interest to
SCIFRAUD readers--cold-fusion, polywater, homeopathy's
infinitely diluted medicines--are here retold and
reviewed. These three cases of flawed scientists are
explained using a modified framework developed by
Irving Langmuir, as described in his colloguium in 1953,
on "Pathological Science." Rousseau suggests, for
example, that the "loss of objectivity" by scientists
(which he identifies as "pathological" science) is
characterized by "...the effect being studied is often
at the limits of detectability or has a very low
statistical significence." (p. 54) Rousseau's second
characteristic is that the scientist(s) involved have
"...a readiness to disregard prevailing ideas and
theories." His third characteristic of pathological
science is that "crucial experiments are neglected."
(p. 55) Be clear on this: Rousseau's major point is
that pathological science is NOT a "portrait of
deliberately fraudulent behavior." And, "Pathological
science arises from self-delusion--cases where
scientists believe they are acting in a methodical,
scientific manner but instead have lost their
objectivity. The practitioners of pathological science
believe that their findings simply cannot be wrong."
(p. 54)

Rousseau is talking about "flawed science" not
"fraud in science." He argues, indeed, that
"...deliberate fraudulent work in rare. It is self-
delusion and the associated sloppiness that spawn most
errors in science." (p. 54) Rousseau is talking about
delusion and not deception. He explains the three
cases as instances of "unintentional bias." Thus, in
describing Benveniste's work on homeopathic dilution,
"Benveniste and his colleagues were not doing
fraudulent work. They observed the effects they
reported. But they so believed in the phenomenon that
they could ignore or reinterpret any questionable
findings." (p. 60)

Regarding polywater: "The polywater episode
illustrates the loss of objectivity that can accompany
the quest for great new discoveries. The quantities of
polywater available were so small that many useful
experiments could not be done. Many theories were put
forward to describe the structure of polywater without
even considering the thermodynamic difficulty of
accounting for its very existence. Finally, definitive
experiments showing high levels of contamination were
done but not accepted, until overwhelming evidence
showed that a new polymer of water had not been
discovered." (p. 57)

"Cold fusion was doomed from the start when a race
to be first took precedence over the desire to be
right." (p. 62) Pons and Fleischmann had lost their
objectivity and this is what was the flaw in their
science.

The conclusion: "There are many examples of
scientific projects in which objectivity was lost.
Self-delusion in scientific research was recognized
centuries ago, is evident today and will no doubt
continue into the future. Polywater, infinite dilution
and cold fusion received a great deal of attention
simply because they were scientifically and
technologically very important. In each of these
examples, the investigators could have avoided the trap
of nonobjectivity by doing the definitive experiments--
those experiments that given a decisive answer.
Definitive experiments existed for polywater, infinite
dilution and cold fusion; but those experiements were
either not done or not accepted when they were done.
The ability to define, carry out and accept definitive
experiemnts is the responsibility of every scientist, a
responsibility that must be fulfilled at all costs."
(p. 63)

++++++++++

A word or two on this article: to Rousseau, writing in the
journal for "The Scientific Research Society," there are no
problems with science. There are problems with people: cases,
merely, of flawed scientists. "Pathological science" refers to
"diseased scientists." Pathological science is an abuse of
scientific methods by someone who is delusional, diseased. The
reference is to mental illness, psychiatry, and psychiatric
disorder: the scientist who promotes and idea that turns out to
be a false step is a failed scientist: one who did not take the
proper precautions. And when Langmuir used "pathological," in
the early 1950s, that was a term with a much more specific
"diseased" meaning.

There is not a word here on Thereza Imanishi-Kari and her
collaborative work with David Baltimore now judged to have been
fradulent. There is not a word here about any of the cases of
fraudulent science investigated by the NIH's OSI. Not a word
about Steve Breuning or any of the rest of the rogues gallery who
have been found out to have practiced fraud in science. There is
the oft-repeated claim that fraud in science is rare. Well,
fraud in science is not that rare! And, frankly, it is fraud to
persist in the claim that it is rare.

One does not expect a single journal article to cover or
explain "everything." One does, however, expect a society
interested in investigating research practices to see beyond a
delusioned few to the practitioners of other forms of celebrated
deceptions in science. Rousseau's sure ain't the whole story!
Where are comments and explanations, non-psychological please, of
the behaviors of Robert Gallo?

Science is a very gutsy enterprise. It's practitioners are
engaged in priority battles and "making it to the top." To claim
that a few of the failures failed because they did not use the
proper methods of science is to miss, among other things, the
centrality of the values of science, to see that science PROMOTES
fraud. Rousseau's is a very selective telling of the games of
scientists. This is, to my way of thinking, a dated telling of
the games of scientists. My rougues--Newton, Darwin, Freud and
all the rest--are not to be counted as "pathological"; they
deserve better: they were gamesmen of the first order. It is
time to investigate the games they played rather than to
psychiatrize science.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 00:52:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: gu091jcl@ithaca.bitnet
Subject: Re: Is 'Political Science' a Science?

To: M. Guggenheim
Mr. Stackhouse
D. Wathana
Mr. Pryluck

To begin with I realize that this is a rather touchy subject. Most of us
on this listserv, I would gather, are active "fans" of the scientific
process. Many would consider my accusations ie you're not worthy of a
"scientific" title, somewhat abrasive. But, I'll stick to my guns.
This topic is very important to me. I consider presuing this question to
..er..a personal quest. I have sat through way too many lecutues given by
so-called media scientests, who claim to successfully use the scientific
methoid to determine how to better understand mass media. My conclusion,
based on the innane results from impossable to accurately cary out experments
"socical science is an oxymoron."

M. Guggenheim: I applaud those socical scientests who you say are successfuly
using the methoids of science. But, most dont. In this case there is no such
thing as "acceptance by assoication." I agree that in ALL endeviors some a
application of scientific principles takes place and these are valid. But,
a gole of science is a unified body of knowlege. Today, these pockets of
science in the vairous "other" decliplines are too few and far between to be
considered sinifigant.

D. Wathana & M. Pryluck: I read Kuhn's book a few years ago. Although I was
excited by his thesis and at the time was a strong believer in many of his
ideas, I have come to change my opinion of his work. "Paradigm" is used far
to indiscriminately in his work. It is never adquitely defined and I have seen
it crop up in the mostnusual places (sermons, pep-rallies, newspaper ads.)
His fundumental concept "paradigm" for me is far too vague to be of any practica
l use in defining science in concrete terms.

Mr. Stakchouse et. al.: I apologise for my horrable spelling and typing. I have
a learning disibality with greatly effects my ability to identify and correct
misspellings. I also am a poor typest. I am presently exprementing with ways
to use my wordprocessor (WordPerfect) with bitnet. I have had snifigant diffi
difficuties but, I will keep trying. Untill then, I ask you to please be
patent. It is somewhat difficult for me to summon up the guts to write
about subjects because I know my responses, as careful and well thought as
they may be will look silly and childish. I am working at the problem and
hope to arive at a solution soon.

- Jamie Lacivita
Ithaca, N.Y.

P.S. I am very intrested in this discussion and encuruage any further questions
or comments or statements regarding my somewhat radical views. I will be on
spring vacation untill Mar. 15 and will be unable to reply until after then.
I will happly answer any questions or comments at that time. Thank You. :)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 15:54:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Bureaucratized Demography

Bureaucratized Demography

There is a stink in the air, and, perhaps, a major flap.
Certainly this case has occasioned a stir during Bush's reelection
campaign. Bush's detractors will find a way of using it. This
story made national TV news last evening and a two-column item
in the Times today.

SCIFRAUD readers will see an instance of what Starr calls The
Politics of Numbers {See Alonzo, W. and Starr, P., editors. The
Politics of Numbers, New York: Russelll Sage, 1987.} Numbers can
be embarrassing and so one develops techniques to deal with them
as well as with the people who fabricate them. If some damn
analyst produces figures which are unlikable, just change the
numbers and display distain by getting rid of the analyst.
Diddling with the data in a bureaucracy is SOP. Nothing unusual
at all.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation:

\Andrews, Edmund L. "Census Bureau to Dismiss Analyst
Who Estimated Casualties," New York Times, 7 March
1992, p.9.\

Beth Osborne Daponte, a data analyst with the
Census Bureau, has been fired by the Bureau for
publishing materials which had not been "peer
reviewed." The data published are considered very
sensitive by the Bush Administration especially now,
during his reelection campaign. Here he is trying to
look good to the American people and she blows the lid
on his lie that there were but few civilian casualties
during the Persian Gulf War. By her estimate: 40,000
Iraqi solders and 13,000 civilians died in direct
military conflict. "In addition, she estimated that
30,000 people had died during the Shite and Kurdish
rebellions after the war and that 70,000 people from
health problems caused by the destruction of water
and power plants."

Daponte gave her estimates to a reporter for the
Associated Press in January.

Her sources have been investigated by the Bureau.
The conclusion is simple: "We just can't have people
saying that they know best and releasing things without
defending their work in from of the peers."

"In January, the Census Bureau discarded Ms.
Daponte's draft report and replaced it with one
prepared by her superior, Frank Hobbs, chief of the
population studies branch. That report matches Ms.
Daponte's estimates on the number of direct military
deaths during the war, and the number of deaths caused
by post-war violence. The chief differences are that
it sharply reduces her estimate for the number of
civilian deaths and omits some 5,000 deaths that Ms.
Daponte estimated occurred in military action after the
war."

"The Census Bureau said today that it intends to
dismiss an analyst who estimated that 13,000 Iraqi
civilians were killed by American-led forces during the
Persian Gulf War, an estimate that was more than twice
as high as the bureau's subsequent official
calculation."

The Politics of Numbers are absolutely
fascinating. And here is a bureaucratic bit of
terrorism: if the analysis provides figures which are
embarrassing, fire the analyst and emend the numbers,
especially in an election year.

+++++++++++++++

It will be interesting now to see how demographers respond to
this situation. Certainly demographers are, after the continuing flap
regarding the 1990 census, aware of the politics of their profession.
They know what happens when the figures are politically unpalatable.
Will they come to the rescue of this whistle-blower?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1992 18:17:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Note on Origins

Historical Note on Science

\Burman, Edward. The Templars: Knights of God. Rochester,
Vermont: Destiny Books, 1986.\

I must admit to being fascinated by the years of the
Templars: 1109-1314. It is a remarkable period of history. My
fascination stems in part from the myths of the age: Parcival,
Ivanhoe, the perfect heroic figure. Our scientists are expected
to be such men as those. Moreover, these myths pertain to the
early Renaissance of the 13th century, the early formulations of
empiricism and science, the myths of alchemy and lore of magic:
it is Roger Bacon and the House of Solomon, the promise of
empiricism. And a piece of all that is the lore of the Knights
Templars. They were accused of practicing the magical arts, among
other forms of heresy. I wondered what contemporary historians
had to say about these antecedents of Freemasonry, of the
Rosicrucians, and, for that matter, of science itself. Was the
suppression of the Knights Templars by the Church a matter of
witchery, alchemy, their practice of the Black Arts?

The source materials bearing on the Knights and alchemy,
protoscience and the like, are contained in a brief "Afterward,"
(pp. 177-181) at the end of this fascinating history. One can
skip the fascinating history of the Order and get right to the
bearing of the Knights on science in that appendix. And Burman's
description of the Knights makes it very clear that the Order was
brought down by political intrigue in which charges of heresy and
satanism were used by the Order's opponents for their own
benefit. If heresy were the only charge the Church took
seriously, then it was the charge with which the Order was
attacked. Heretic, as a label, was used but it was not, in any
way, descriptive of what the Order was doing at the time of its
condemnation.

"In the last analysis, belief about what the Templars
actually did or did not do regarding heretical and
magical practices must remain a matter of personal
opinion or taste.
Yet they continue to exert fascination. Just as
the aura of glory and heroism persisted in spite of
continuous military failures, so the taint of magic and
heresy remains in spite of scholarly demonstrations of
the absurdity of many of the charges. Part at least of
this perpetual fascination seems to derive from the
association in the mind of many people with the concept
of chivalry. The 'Templars' contribution to the
development of chivalry was encapsulated in seminal
literary works, and at the same time in the popular
historical imagination...
...Wolfram von Eschenbach (visited)... the Holy
Land around 1218 and was much impressed by the
activities of the Templars he saw there. In his
Parzival, the grail castle of Munsalvaesche was guarded
by Templar knights. This literary association of the
Templars with the grail legend provided fresh impulse
to the mystery of their downfall. It is easy to
understand how the eucharistic mysticism implicit in
the grail legend could spill over into heresy;
equally, the accusation of heresy might be taken as
evidence that there was some truth in connections
between the grail and the Templars.
...As the greatest, richest, and most feared of
the military orders--already semi-legendary in its own
day, as the concealed discrepancies between reputation
and achievement imply--the Templars attracted envy,
suspicion, and quasi-mythical awe as light attracts
moths.
...(T)he Templars may be perceived as a link in a
chain of more or less loose associations reaching back
to other semi-legendary knights. This perennial need
for historical justification, together with the mystery
concerning their suppression, makes the Order of the
Temple ideal materials for those who seek esoteric
secrets or simply inspiration. The fact is that these
aspects are more a matter of literary and pseudo-
scholarly embellishment than reality. We have seen
that the real achievement of the Templars was
surprisingly limited; but that does nothing to
diminish the fascination which surrounds them.
(pp. 177-180)

The Order of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon was
founded to protect the pilgrims in the Holy Land. The Order came
into existence as a bastard mix of knight and monk, an inherently
paradoxical combination, and lasted for two centuries. Its
founders were Hugues of Payen, but more importantly, Bernard of
the Abbey of Clairvaux, otherwise, St. Bernard. They were named
after the first home they were given in Jerusalem, the Temple.
Their ideology was the mix of warrior and monk, a strange
combination which contained inherent difficulties: the "pure"
warrior, the "armed" monk. They became, in a sense, the killers
for Christ. They were set up to kill Moslems, not Christians,
but during their fateful two centuries, they mixed their
religious vows and their knightly skills in various ways.

They were successful in various ways: 1) they became the
first truly international bankers and insurance company; 2)
they financed kings of England and of France as well as being the
personal financial agents for the pope; 3) they were given large
inheritances by sinners in the age of crusades--people buying
their way into heaven could finance others' pilgrimages; 4) they
became power brokers in the Middle East which then, as now, was a
political disaster area; 5) they became extraordinarily wealthy
by administrative acumen which allowed them to husband their huge
properties. In short, their successes made enemies.

By the 14th century, they had outlived their original
usefulness, their stated purpose--a meaningful one in the age of
crusades. But they could not find or would not find a new role,
a new ideology. Indeed, the stubbornness of the Master at the
time of their suppression was one of the Order's major faults.
Philip the Fair used them as an excuse: he claimed their wealth
in France and, politically, managed, through the French pope, to
pull off their suppression in 1314. Other princes would use the
same tactics during the Reformation.

So the history is less Romantic than the myths. That is
usually the case.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 13:18:52 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: soclyman@umcvmb.bitnet
Subject: Chemist publishes "Sociological" Paper

Folks,
The following discussion item was posted on another list, WISENET
(Women in Science and Engineering). I have asked the author, Lisa
Strugala, for permission to post her writing on SCIFRAUD because I
consider it a topic relevant to our list, and found her comments very
thoughtful.
I have obtained and read a copy of the Freeman article. I have yet
to get a copy of the Science article.
As a social researcher (I will avoid saying "scientist") I find the
controversy represents an interesting twist on the "what's a science,
who's a scientist" question and, in my personal opinion, a reprehensible
infringement by a "scientist" into a social (non)science.

First comes Lisa's review of the article in question, followed by the
qualifications she asked me to make explicit in posting her review here.

Katherine Lyman
Sociology
UMissouri-Columbia

received: from uicvm by umcvmb.bitnet (mailer r2.08) with bsmtp id 3709; thu,
12 Mar 92 16:57:35 CST
Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 9460; Thu, 12 Mar 92 16:54:37 CST
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1992 22:10:45 -0800
reply-to: women in science and engineering network <wisenet@uicvm.bitnet>
sender: women in science and engineering network <wisenet@uicvm.bitnet>
from: "strugala@galaxy.decnet.lockheed.com"
<strugala@GALAXY.DECNET.LOCKHEED.COM>
Subject: Analysis of Freeman's Paper
X-To: ewisent@eagle.is.lmsc.lockheed.com,
ewiti@eagle.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
to: "katherine l. lyman u.missouri-columbia" <soclyman@umcvmb.bitnet>

Analysis of Freeman Paper:

"Kinetics of nonhomogeneous processes in human society: Unethical behavior
and Societal chaos" Canadian Journal of Physics (68:794-798)

Ref:(1) Canadian Journal of Physics (68:794-798)
(2) Science 28 Feb 1992 (255:1065-1066)

Gordon Freeman, a "respected" chemist at the University of Alberta, is the
author of Ref (1). Reference (2) details the paper in an article titled
"Canadian Chemist Takes on Working Women". The article was submitted as
part of a conference proceedings in the area of the kinetics of
non-homogeneous processes (chaos theory.)

The paper attempts to apply the concepts of stochastics and deterministic
chaos to unethical behavior. Freeman concludes that an observed increase
of unethical behavior in the period 1958 to 1992 (present) is due to
a state of mind inculcated in children by working mothers. He claims this
same state of mind is the causual factor in drug use, insider trading,
infidelity, embezzlement, teenage sex, and corrupt political practices.
He states as fact that women with children do not belong in the work force
because nature eqipped the majority of women with nurturing capabilities
and did not equip the majority of men with such. He concludes that half
the children of working women suffer severe psychological damage as a
result of this lack of female nurturing. He states as statistical fact that
women work because they distrust the capacity of males to make a
commitment to marriage. He states as statistical fact that men fear
commitment for reasons that include nuclear holocaust, the availability
of birth control and the socialist leanings of feminists. He states as
statistical fact that today's children and youth lack self-esteem. He
concludes that this lack is caused by lack of nurturing on the part of
working mothers.

Freeman claims the concepts of stochastics and deterministic chaos as
a basis for this study. He then states he did not use surveys and
experiments with controls due to the distortion of information created
by the artificiality of the gathering situation. As a result, he has
no way of claiming that his observations comprise randomly determined
samples of elements of a probability distribution. So much for
stochastics. He also violates a rule of analysis of chaotic systems
that deals with requiring small dimensions to avoid noise and appropriate
time lags to properly characterize attractors. Although the time lag choice
is relatively independent, it is often related to the degrees of freedom
of the system. In the analysis of chaotic systems, one must start with
high enough dynamics to properly unfold dimensions. One then chooses
the smallest dimension that properly rejects false neighbors. Freeman
starts by reducing the dimensions to two using his non-stochastic sampling
methodology. He makes no attempt to relate the degrees of freedom of
this system to the analysis time frame (a period of 34 years). He does
not discuss noise effects on the system at all. Although noise reduction
in chaotic system depends upon knowledge of the dynamics, he states
that he has no detailed understanding of the mechanisms that connect cause
and effect in human society. He bases his study conclusions upon
empirical correlations, but fails to note that autocorrelations are
less robust for chaotic systems (as contrasted to linear.) There is no
mention of any cross-correlation analysis as a check on his degree of
freedom choice. He chooses the nurturing equipment of women as an
invariant over the dynamics (ergodicity), but then states that working
women have a lower amount of nurturing equipment (ie, the decrease of
loyalty of mother to child in working women.) So much for deterministic
chaos.

The paper, presented in a respected physics journal, has a
"sociology" caption. One might expect the focus to be on cultural and
environmental factors, rather than personal characteristics. Freeman
addresses children's/adult's self-esteem (or lack thereof.) Leaving
aside the aspect of self-esteem that is a personal psychological factor,
let's examine the environmental factors he uses in his arguments.
He states that low self-esteem exists in children due to lack of
nurturing by the female. He claims that nurturing by the female leads
to high self-esteem. He then states that uncommitted sex leads to
a male lack of respect for women, which then bothered women ostensibly
raised in the past with a much higher level of self-esteem. He also
claims that these women with high levels of self-esteem (in the past)
entered the work force because they feared abandonment by males, which
would seem the last thing a women with high self esteem would fear.
He equates loyalty with nurturing and betrayal with lack of nurturing,
but fails to note that persons with high self esteem are not generally
"at effect" of betrayal or loyalty but are rather "informed" by such.
Both loyalty and betrayal would then seem to be issues for people with
low self-esteem (by way of being externalized values), as opposed to
love as the internalized decision-commitment of a person with high self-
esteem. Freeman therefore uses a low-esteem value to measure a
high-esteem state.

There is not a single mathematical equation or any scientifically
derived data to support Freeman's so-called scientific conclusions.
Aside from issues of whether a sociology paper belongs in a physics
journal (peer review of a sociology article would seem better
obtained in a sociology journal), this paper has no scientific basis
that is supportable by the material presented and as such does not
belong in any physics journal -- peer reviewed or not. It is a fine
example of so-called backlash journalism, however, with regard to
Freeman's mixing of fact and distortions. I consider submittal to a
political "journal" appropriate for this piece.

Nicholls, the editor of CJP, argues that the protest against Freeman's
article is motivated by political correctness. This would seem an
odd observation for the editor of a physics journal to make; the
editor of a physics is expected to judge the scientific merit of
articles and responses to them, not the political correctness of
such. Freeman claims his paper is "probably the first article in
a new era of sociology" and cited the article in a letter published
in the January 1992 issue of Physics in Canada. He describes his
critics as shrill, pro-feminist and probably married to working
mothers. One might expect a scientist to be concerned with the
merits of scientific responses to one's work, as opposed to the
identity of the respondents.

I welcome "peer" review of my article. If you think I have distorted
facts or wish to comment in other ways, please jump in.


You may pass the analysis on with restrictions as follows:

(1) this analysis has not been peer reviewed, and is being submitted for
open forum discussion;

(2) I am a scientist and I work in the area of atmospheric physics (stochastic
structure). I have done reading in the deterministic chaos area, but
I do not claim to be an expert in this area;

(3) I strongly suggest that readers obtain copies of both articles and
read them personally.

Other than that, my objective was wide dissemination of this news for other
experts (math, sociology, psychology, physics etc) to review. You sound
exactly like the type of person I was trying to reach. Thanks!

Lisa Strugala
Strugala@galaxy.decnet.lockheed.com
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1992 18:28:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Note In Geography

A Note In Geography

In the years 1947-51, Harvard "lost" its geography program.
At a time when one would have expected geography to have achieved
Department status, Harvard, in the name of cost-cutting, dropped
its program. It was a major blow to geography as a
university subject. Harvard's president at the time, James
Conant, argued that the field was "not fit for a university
subject." This, at a time when the United States was becoming a
world leader and very much in need of geographic information and
data. It was a decision which did not make sense: it was not a
large program which would save vast sums for Harvard. That
claim was a clear rationalization.

There are the usual ingredients to this tale: personalities
galore, (even a millionaire-lecturer) but I am not sure the
entire issue can be described in those terms. There is
homophobia doubtless and the issue could be argued in terms of
political correctness. But the issues involved are of interest
to all in a day when, for example, cost cutters at Yale, for one
example, are threatening similar Draconian measures. What goes
on in the hallowed halls of academia is a fascinating topic. Here
is an application of some academic values.

Is this an appropriate forum for a discussion of Harvard's
loss, or perhaps better, mistake? I expect that some will have a
great deal to say. Are "politics" and "fraud" synonymous?

Here is the SCIFRAUD posting.


\Smith, Neil. "'Academic War Over the Field of
Geography': The Elimination of Geography at Harvard,
1947-1951," Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 77 (June, 1987), pp. 155-172.\

In the late 1940s, Harvard University discontinued
its geography program in spite of the fact that it had
apparently made a commitment to the field in the late
1930s and early 1940s. Moreover, following WWII, there
appeared to be a very real need for geographers. The
blow to the profession was crippling when James Conant
declared that geography was "not an appropriate university
subject." The termination of Harvard's program raises
several issues which are of more than historical
interest.

Why the program died concerns the principals in
the action at the time. Some of the principals are:
Derwent Whittlesey who led geography in the 1930s and
40s. His problem was that he was gay. Another
character in the action was Alexander Hamilton Rice
whose Institute for Geographical Discovery apparently
brought money but also discredit on the Department and
the University. The Provost and Dean was Paul Buck,
the administrator most directly responsible for ruling
against geography. Finally, there is James Conant,
President of Harvard, politician and chemist. Then
there was Isaiah Bowman, President of Johns Hopkins,
Overseer at Harvard, and geographer himself: he
remained silent when he should have spoken out to save
geography. One can weave a personal account of the
demise of geography in the personalities mentioned but
more should be made of this history than a recounting
of personalities.

Geography was a part of the Geology Department at
Harvard. But Whittlesey was appointed specifically to
strengthen the geography side of the Department and, by
the end of WWII, it was expected that Harvard would
have its own Department reflecting the American
hegemony after the war. In 1947, other appointments
were made, that of Edward Ackerman and Edward Ullman
and things were looking up for geography.

In 1948, Ackerman was up for an Associate
Professorship. The Geology Department voted in favor
but the Chair, Marland Billings, saw the promotion as a
loss for his Department of Geology. He resented it.
Billings had never endorsed the expansion of geography
as such. He set about to outmaneuver the Department's
majority. He curried favor with Provost Buck who was
doing much of the running of the University while
Conant was off in Washington. Whether Buck used
Billings arguments to reinforce decisions he had
already made, it became clear that Ackerman was not
going to be promoted.

Buck, with Conant's agreement, made the decision
to cut geography as a money-saving move for Harvard.

There were three issues: a) Harvard was in
financial trouble; b) geography at Harvard; and c)
geography in general at the university. Bowman, the
Overseer who could have done more for geography,
refused to speak out for Whittlesey and his colleagues.
He focused, instead, on the second and third arguments
and found that he could not support geography at
Harvard. For one thing, he intensely disliked
A. H. Rice. Then, too, he was homophobic and Derwent
Whittlesey was gay. Moreover, the Rices, husband
and wife, had tried to oust Bowman from the presidency
of the AGS when Rice wanted the office. It was in
large part, then, purely personal. When, as an
Overseer, he has asked to do something about
geography, he did nothing. Finally, he appears to
have been willing to go along with what Conant wanted
regarding geography: he kept his mouth shut
apparently to please Conant.

"Why was geography so vulnerable that it could
lose its position with the first shot fired? There are
two reasons: the first has to do with the lack of
clear intellectual terrain and a set of goals for the
field; the second is the alleged low caliber of
geography at Harvard. Certainly there was a service
function to geography in both the mid-Western and the
Coastal schools. But the intellectual tradition was
not there and, as a consequence, its service function
(was) taken for granted, its intellectual tradition
(had) to be strenuously built." (p. 168) The only
members of the Department were Whittlesey, Ullman and
Ackerman. This administrative weakness was capitalized
on by Billings who had great skepticism regarding human
(soft) geography. The field suffered from in inability
to convey to outsiders just what its intellectual
heritage was.

Geography was cut because it was not strong enough
at Harvard to and its opponents.

(See also, Tenner, Edward. "Harvard, Bring Back
Geography!" Harvard Magazine 90 (May-June, 1988), pp.
27-30).

++++++++++

The loss of geography as a "fit discipline for university
curricula" is a fascinating topic. How does one decide what is
fit and what is not? What are the values used in making such
determinations? Yale has threatened, among others, its sociology
program with loss of half its membership. And one can think of
other areas which might well be scrapped in the name of "cost-
cutting but, more likely, for other, less rational, arguments.

Americans have belittled geography for years as in New
York State where the last geography course taught in school
is in the seventh grade, in grammar school. And as so many
newspaper articles reveal, Americans are woefully poor
geographers as a result. The values Americans display
concerning the field are ambiguous, to say the very least.

Finally, the person of Alexander Hamilton Rice (1875-1956)
and his work at Harvard as a gentleman-scholar is fascinating.
If any have any special information about the man, I would
appreciate hearing more about him. He is one of those fascinating
persons in academe: the fabulously wealthy who play in academia
for their own reasons. There are several such people (H.F.
Osborne is my favorite) and they deserve special attention.
Anyone with information on Rice is asked to share it with me.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 10:04:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: A Note In Geography

Departments at universities do come and go, and not always because the
personnel are gay. I am reminded of the demise of astronomy at SUNYA
as a separate discipline, for reasons which had to do with finances,
and the success of the program in producing doctorates which were salable.
Undoubtedly there were other reasons. I was on a committee which looked
at doctoral programs in physics in all institutions in the state. Some of
the universities dropped their physics graduate programs as soon as it was
known that a committee of peers was going to go into these programs in
some detail. Are there any geography departments in any institution in
NY state?

Ralph
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 11:21:16 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "brian p. watson" <bwatson@stlawu.bitnet>
Subject: RE: A Note In Geography
in-reply-to: message of tue, 17 mar 1992 10:04:00 edt from <alpherr@union>

In response to Ralph Alpher's question about geography departments in
New York State, St. Lawrence University at present has a geography depart-
ment comprising about 2.5 full-time equivalent positions. It is on the way
out in a few years when the current members retire. As far as I can tell
the reason is purely financial. Geography split off from geology here about
ten years ago after a nasty battle about educational goals and methods.
Brian Watson bwatson@stlawu
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 13:49:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: GEOGRAPHY

Al, In response to your request for information about Rice, I recall an
article in The American Scholar within the last couple of years about
the loss of geography departments in academia in general. The article
had the same cast of characters: Whittlesey, Bowman, et al, and may have
been specifically about Harvard. Perhaps someone has ready access to the
article. It would take me a while to dig through old issues of the Scholar
to find it, but a note to the office in Washington would probably turn it
up immediately.
Bob Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 13:59:36 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: henry bauer <bauerh@vtvm1.bitnet>
Subject: RE: A Note In Geography
in-reply-to: message of tue, 17 mar 1992 10:04:00 edt from <alpherr@union>

It's always easy to find good academic reasons for keeping a program or for
starting one. The meaningful context, however, is this: we are short a certain
sum of money. What shall we cut? Geography or sociology or physics?
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 22:09:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Who Gets Cut?

Who Gets Cut?

Some 25 years ago, as a faculty member at Syracuse
University, I had an opportunity to do a bit of research
regarding faculty members' regard for academic departments at
that University. Using a variation of the justly famous Paul
Hatt and Cecil North "Occupational Prestige" ranking of
occupations, completed originally for National Opinion Research
Center (NORC) in the mid-1940s, we asked some 800 faculty members
to rate 26 departments at the University in terms of prestige.

The results were submitted to various journals and did not
survive the peer review process in spite of what I thought should
have been a great deal of interest. The results were never
published but they were repeated by my students at other schools
including Purdue, and, forgive me, several others I cannot
remember. The replications uncovered essentially the same
distribution of prestige as was found at Syracuse: there was a
relatively consistent scale of academic prestige with, as one
might guess, the natural sciences at the top, the social sciences
in the middle and three departments (schools) at the bottom. The
three at the bottom were Nursing, Education and Social Work:
faculty members thought the least of them.

This is fascinating: the departments regarding the
manipulation of the mysterious are highly regarded, the arcane is
well thought of. At the same time, the serious problems
confronting the race (health, education, and poverty) are thought
of as low in prestige. One must notice immediately that the
three at the bottom are "female" specialties while physics,
chemistry and mathematics are unashamedly "male."

Unfortunately, I did not include Syracuse's Department of
Geography in the survey. That successful program was just
overlooked.

The values of academics are consistent, to some extent
anyway: at Purdue and the other schools, the results were
essentially the same.

That was a long time ago in a study which was not thought
worth publishing. (I remember Science turned it down with a note
that no one was interested in this sort of thing and, since the
research was confined to a single university, it could not be
considered representative.) I present these data now and here to
suggest that high and low prestige departments are, as Professor
Bauer suggests, differentially subject to "cost-cutting
efficiencies" at any university.

Frankly, there is something very wrong here.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 23:45:37 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: cal pryluck <pryluck@templevm.bitnet>
Subject: Who does get cut?

My subject heading is a variation on a recent posting which dealt with relative
prestige. Sorry, but one does not need to be a rocket scientist (as the cliche
goes) to know that the "hard" sciences rank high, the "touchie-feelie"
disciplines rank low. This is not to overlook the clear fact that the low
ranking departments are heavily women's professions.

This kind of prestige ranking exercise ignores the more crucial issue: what are
the appropriate criteria for retrenchment? Assuming, as one must, in this era
of industrialized university management that there will be the equivalent of
factory layoffs, how should the decision be made.

Departments like mine are, at the moment, still relatively strong. We are
profit centers for the university (not only mine, but every one I know of).
For reasons that you can fill-in for yourself, students enroll in our courses
in an inverse proportion to the enrollments in, say, Classics. Personally,
I think my currently profitable department has an obligation to help support
the Classics department.

This is, admitedly a gut response. I can't tell you why I think Classics
should be taught and research supported. I have no personal interest in
this particular area; yet if we -- all of us -- don't support such "quaint"
disciplines they could easily become extinct. Well, maybe they deserve it.

Again, I doubt it. In particular I'm not willing to place the intellectual
enterprise on a marketplace basis.
This year classics, next year, who knows. Maybe even
geology. Or some obscure corner of physics department. (I sense that there
are many such corners, but know little about them.)

So we're back to where I started: Who does get cut? What are the appropriate
criteria?

Cal Pryluck <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 16:30:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on Cutting

Questions and answers about cutting departments.
Regarding Geography:

Professor Ralph Alpher (Physics, Union College) asks:

Are there any geography departments in any institution in
NY state?

Professor John Pipkin (Geography, SUNYA) responds:

Here is a list of university level Geography programs in
New York State. There are twenty-two in all.

* = masters level, ** doctoral level

Source: Guide to Programs of Geography in the United States
and Canada, 1991-1992, Association of American Geographers

Barnard College
Colgate University
City College CUNY
**Columbia University
Hofstra University
*Hunter College, CUNY
Lehman College, CUNY
C.W. Post College, Long Island University
*SUNY Albany
*SUNY Binghamton
**SUNY Buffalo
SUC Buffalo
SUC Cortland
SUC Geneseo
SUC Plattsburgh
SUC Potsdam
SUC New Paltz
SUC Oneonta
St. Lawrence University
**Syracuse University
US Military Academy, West Point
Vassar College


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 14:36:36 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: henry bauer <bauerh@vtvm1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Who Gets Cut?
in-reply-to: message of tue, 17 mar 1992 22:09:00 est from <ach13@albnyvms>

That departments are concerned with the major problems confronting the human
race does not entail that any of the work being done in them is useful.
I happen also to have a low opinion of much that goes on in Colleges of
Education; based, for example, on sitting on promotion-tenure committees for
Education faculty. Nevertheless I think education is of the highest importance,
and I'm delighted that my daughters have decided to become teachers, and I
think they will do valuable work for the human race. And still, much of what
goes on in Colleges of Education is useless garbage.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 14:40:53 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: henry bauer <bauerh@vtvm1.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Who does get cut?
in-reply-to: message of tue, 17 mar 1992 23:45:37 est from <pryluck@templevm>

What gets cut reveals the values of the cutters.
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 17:50:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Note on Values

On Values

Professor Bauer is precisely on the point: the cutting is
done by persons with values. Frequently those values are
disguised, as in the case of Geography at Harvard when the
Overseer kept his mouth shut and allowed President Conant to cut
Geography for financial reasons. However, Conant felt that
Geography was not an academic subject and Bowman felt that it had
to go because of the homosexual in the Department. Both used
rationalizations for their cutting.

Departments get cut for stated reasons (rationalizations)
and because of hidden values. The student of fraud is stuck with
ferreting out the "hidden values" if h/she wants to understand
what is going on.

The disguised values of scientists/scholars are of great
interest to students of science. Scientists, like other human
beings, operate on several different levels simultaneously. Bauer
feels that teaching is a great profession and getting into it is a
great thing for his children but, simultaneously, what goes on the
school of education is a waste of time. That is probably about
average for a man of science.

Other paradoxical values operate in science.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 18:10:08 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: cal <pryluck@templevm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: A Note on Values
in-reply-to: message of thu, 19 mar 1992 17:50:00 est from <ach13@albnyvms>

I see no paradox in loving the teacher and hating the educational establish-
ment. A case could be made that the Schools of Education are vacuous and
self-serving. Can anyone take seriously some of what gets published as
research in education?

This is not to say that there isn't something to be learned about teaching as
as skill. But from what I've seen, not nearly so much as the educationists
would have the rest of us believe. Especially when the time required to take
those courses is time taken away from the subject being taught.

Cal Pryluck <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 17:08:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Mail Problems

NOTICE

SCIFRAUD members should be aware of a local hardware
problem on the VAX mainframes here at the University at Albany.
We have a major component of our mail system down. Until further
notice, members wishing to post items to the board or to
communicate with this node should use the BITNET address:

ach13@albnyvms or scifraud@albnyvm1

rather than the INTERNET addresses. I regret any inconvenience.

Thanks.

Al Higgins
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1992 17:16:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Contextualizing Science

Contextualizing Science

Here is an excellent resource: a careful analysis of the
construction of a "scientific history." It is an in-depth case
study of molecular biology and focuses on a failure and tries to
explain the process of creating him. Here is a failed identity
claim, that of Franz Moewus, as the Founding Father of Molecular
Biology. Molecular Biology has its heroes and he is not one of
them. The question: how did that happen? What is the process
of fabricating a history of the science of molecular biology?

Here is the annotation from the SCIFRAUD database.

\Sapp, Jan. Where the Truth Lies: Franz Moewus and
the Origins of Molecular Biology. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.\

The pun in the title is indicative of the thrust
of this author. His in-depth case study of the
contributions of Franz Moewus raises more questions
than it answers, and it designed to do just that. This
is no celebration of science but a recounting of the
gradual construction of a professionally acceptable
history of molecular biology. The story focuses on one
player in that history: Franz Moewus, a German
biologist who, in the 1930s, did research which
significantly preceded the work of Beetle and Tatum,
the duo generally credited as the Founding Fathers of
Molecular Biology.

Finding the truth in the mess of fable, fiction
and fraud which is science is nearly impossible. Where
the truth lies in the midst of founding-father fables,
tales of discovery, scheming for the Nobel prize,
Rockefeller politicking, claims of genius, priority
disputes, and all the rest of the typical "history" of
science, is difficult. Interpretations are all one has
and all one is ever likely to obtain.

No matter the claims to objective truth, the use
of "the scientific method," and the honesty of
individuals. Ignore the putative normative structure
of science, a la Merton. What one finds in this
careful analysis is that the construction of the
"history of molecular biology" is a function of the
process of doing science. As the author puts it: "...
the controversy surrounding Moewus is not a matter of
fraud and ideology on the one hand, versus science and
truth, on the other. It is not a matter of how a
'criminal' slipped through the 'policing mechanisms' of
science. On the contrary, it is a story about how a
scientist's work came to be the object of a great deal
of scrutiny and controversy. It is a story of how a
biologist working on arcane problems of sexuality in
microorganisms came to be at the center of protests and
demonstrations over the foundations of molecular
biology. It is about the generation of degeneration of
a scientific controversy; about the strengths and
weaknesses, strategies, and tactics of the contestants.
In short, it is about the politics of scientific
truth." (p. 297) That is it in a nutshell: the
politics of this gutsy enterprise are such as to merit
careful attention.

And more: "In the course of this investigation,
we have seen where the truth lies on both sides of the
controversy. Herein is the second important lesson to
be learned from the Moewus controversy. 'Cooking' and
'trimming' are not exclusively the activities of
'deviant' scientists; the are intrinsic features of
the scientific knowledge-making process. Fiction
itself is a crucial and often inescapable part of the
truth-telling mode. Those who postulate a science
without fiction postulate a fictitious science.
Scientific arguments are not based simply on an
accumulation of the 'facts' that are piled on top of
one another. Instead, the facts themselves are often
selected to suit theoretical expectations. Sometimes
they are transformed slightly and shaped to fit the
particular edifice a scientist constructs. Scientific
facts do not speak for themselves; scientific reports
cannot be taken too literally." (pp. 297-298)

"Scientists and historians of science have
occasionally discussed the differences in the knowledge
they produce and the merits of using the writings of
historians of science in training science students.
Sometimes the discussion have become quite heated.
Much of the difference depends on conflicting notions
of truth the historian and the scientist employ.
Scientists often portray truth as something that lies
out there in 'reality'; to be unveiled of 'discovered.'
Scientists who look back on the writings of their
predecessors often do so only to search for bit of this
truth. To this historian, on the other hand, truth is
something that is constructed and won in certain
social, theoretical, and technical contexts; it is not
discovered. Whereas the scientist is often engaged in
decontextualizing knowledge, it is the historian's job
to recontextualize it." (p. 301)

"...(W)riters of scientific textbooks seem to be
able to take great liberties when dealing with the
historical process of knowledge production. If
scientists who write textbooks were responsible for
contextualizing the scientific knowledge -- by
examining the strategies and tactics through which
controversies are won -- the knowledge in their domains
might appear to be much more open-ended. The extent to
which scientists use contextalist history of science
therefore depends on their own teaching strategies.
Those who want their students to challenge orthodoxy,
or want to convey some understanding of science as a
social activity, have found some stimulation in recent
writings in the history of science. On the other hand,
the science teacher who wants to train students into
accepted theory, indoctrinate them into the role of a
'fact finder,' and make pronouncements about 'the
correct scientific method' is better off avoiding
contextualist history of science; it might only make
students 'deviants.' They are better off using the
'fictionalized' history of science textbooks. Thus, if
scientists' accounts of the history of their domains
are often 'trimmed, cooked, and forged' to suit
theoretical expectations, it is precisely because
fiction often holds more 'truth' than does fact." (pp.
302-303)

For all of this, the Moewus case is exemplary. A
masterful job of historical reconstruction.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 17:09:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Pornographic Science

Pornographic Science

There are, of course, many tellings of heroes in science.
Many in my generation, for example, cut their teeth on deKruif's
wonderful Microbe Hunters; that was our image of science. Other
ages have produced other images and the 1980s might be expected
to have produced its special appreciation of success. Here is
one such telling.

The annotation is from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Taubes, Gary. Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit and the
Ultimate Experiment. Redmond, Washington: Tempus
Books, 1987 (Originally, Random House, 1986).\

Here is a description of the life-style of the rich
and famous in high energy physicists in general and of
Carlo Rubbia (Nobel laureate, physics, 1985) in
particular. To be fair, one must appreciate that the
original copyright date suggests the book was written
in 1985 and should best be regarded as a "period
piece." That year we heard Madonna singing "Material
Woman," while Donald Trump was still putting together
his "empire" and Leona Helmsley reigned as the Queen of
the Hotel industry in New York City; Ronald Reagan had
begun his second term as president and the Iran scandal
had not tarnished his image. It was a particular time,
a peculiar age, and this book reflects its background.
Today, to be most kind, one can say that the book is
dated, an unfortunate period piece.

There is no doubt that Big Science is Big Science
and that the federal government spends something of the
order of 90 billion dollars a year on research and
development. There is no doubt that there are
megabucks being spent and all kinds of characters are
drawn to that kind of money. This kind of science is
revolting. Indeed, this is not in any way a
conceptualization of science: this is hustling, pure
and simple. It bears the same relation to science as
does prostitution to love.

Prima Donnas in opera can sometimes be forgiven
for their abuse of co-performers precisely because they
are so good; they can be forgiven much because they
are so talented. But after reading of these gambits
ploys, gaming, showmanship and tactics of winning the
Nobel prize, one is merely bored with its being won.
All that hustling was "successful." One does not
experience a sense of accomplishment so much as a sense
of frustration: Alfred Nobel exactly what he bought:
glory for Alfred Nobel and glory for the hustlers his
money has legitimated!

One can forget that Nobel tried to buy a kind of
immortality with his money: he would recognize the
best and brightest in science (in an age dominated by
materialistic science) and, by his recognition of them,
continue to be recognized himself. So long as the name
Nobel could be identified with the best and the
brightest, it would bask in the glory associated with
being the best and the brightest. One can cynically
look at the Nobel prizes in that way. And one can see
the hustlers out there conning their way to the prize,
working for recognition.

One can look at science in that way. But one can
also see science in another way, a gentler way. The
prize goes to those who have worked hard and
contributed to the welfare of personkind. The prize
symbolizes the best and the brightest of the species.
The prize is a celebration of the achievements of this
civilization, not the achievements of this scientist
and that producer of dynamite! There are better images
of science than the one given out here.

The imagery of doing science here is war.
The laboratory, the accelerator, the battleground.
Competitors are enemies. The battle plan is the
experimental confirmation of the existence of the W and
Z particles predicted by the theorists' "standard
model." The weapon is the CERN accelerator. One's
students and colleagues are a means of obtaining the
Nobel prize and if abusing them is necessary, they get
abused. It is a matter, this thing called science,
of screwing or being screwed. And this story is the
story of a "champion" who managed to screw everyone
else and win the prize. It is a "success story" in
science right out of the Reagan years.

There are so many other tellings of the story of
science that one hopes this genre of science will
remain a small, historically isolated one. As a
negative reference, it might be worth keeping in mind.
Otherwise it has no redeeming social features.

++++++++++

Does this story have a place in the history of science?
Unfortunately, it does. It is a legitimate view of science as it
is practiced by some here in the United States and elsewhere.
This is one of the ideologies of science currently available to
young scientists. It is an imagery which is an unfortunate
consequence of a $90 billion budget.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 12:55:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Survey of Fraud

A Survey on Fraud

The AAAS has conducted a survey of 1500 members of that
Association. Only 469 replies were received. Responses are
reported on in the latest issue of Science.

Today's New York Times has a brief article on the substance
of the survey and I here reproduce it in its entirety.

++++++++++

\Broad, William J. "One in 4 Scientists Said to
Suspect Fraud by Peers," New York Times, 27 March
1992, p. A16\

A surprising one in four scientists suspect their
peers of engaging in intellectual fakery, according to
a new survey.
Driving the suspicious acts, respondents said, was
the rat race atmosphere of modern science.
A decade ago science leaders often dismissed
scientific charlatans as "bad apples" that were
extraordinarily rare. But since then the annals of
scientific crime have grown greatly, as have questions
about whether fraud in actually on the rise is simply
being publicly reported more often.
To explore the issue, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general
scientific society, surveyed 1,500 of its members in
November.
A summary of the 469 replies appears in the
current issue of the association's magazine, Science,
under the headline: "In the Trenches, Doubts About
Scientific Integrity."
Some 27 percent of the respondents said they
believed they had personally encountered the
fabrication, falsification or theft of research in the
past decade. Moreover, these respondents said they
have witnessed, on average, 2.5 cases of suspected
fakery in that period.
Michael P. Spinella, the association's director of
membership, cautioned in an interview that the one-in-
four number did not necessarily represent an accurate
fraud rate, since people who encountered deceit were
probably more likely to respond to the survey than
those who did not.
"I think the survey is very interesting," he said.
"Not a whole lot has been done in this area, in trying
to gather data."
Only 2 percent of respondents said the incidence
of fraud was declining. Some 44 percent said levels
had stayed the same in the last 10 years, while 37
percent said fraud was on the rise. Scientists
employed in industry were more likely to see an
increase than those in academia, the survey found.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of respondents
said they believed that the incidence of scientific
crime, whatever its actual dimensions, had been
exaggerated by news organizations.
Of respondents who said they encountered fraud, 27
percent said they had done nothing at all about it. An
additional 37 percent said they had spoken privately
with the suspect, and 23 percent said they had reviewed
the suspect data themselves. Only 23 percent said they
had reported their suspicious to their superior, who 20
percent went to the authorities in the own
institutions. A paultry 2 percent said they had
publicly challenged suspect data.
The association's membership includes scientists
in academic, government and industry. The academics
appeared less likely to report suspicions of fraud to
their superior and more likely to do nothing about it,
the survey found.
Only 27 percent of the respondents said a
suspected case resulted in admission or determination
of guilt. Some 21 percent said the suspect had left
the institution.
A majority of the respondents, 54 percent, said
universities are lax in their fraud investigations.
Yet the vast majority also say they believe that the
problems should be handled by the research institutions
in which they occur rather than government agencies or
Congress.
Only 19 percent of the respondents felt that a
recent spate of Congressional investigation of
scientific fraud had helped improve the profession's
ethical climate.
A surprising 60 percent of respondents believe
that a scientific team should share the blame if the
work of one team member is found to be fraudulent. As
one respondent put it, "All people should try very hard
to know the details of any work their name is on."


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 21:27:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Gardner's Anthology

Gardner's New Anthology

Martin Gardner has been contributing to the literature on
science for the last 40 years at least. His 1952 publication, In
The Name of Science was reprinted in an abridgement entitled Fads
and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957) and, in that format,
is still selling well. Forty years in print and still selling
well. That is no mean accomplishment!

Found a new paperback by him. Here is the SCIFRAUD
annotation.

++++++++++

\Gardner, Martin. The New Age: Notes of a Fringe Watcher.
Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991.\

These essays consist of a reprinting of the first 19 columns
of Gardner's columns in Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine he
describes as "...a lively, fast-growing quarterly devoted to
reporting and debunking fringe science" (Preface). It also
includes 14 articles and book reviews about pseudoscience which
have appeared in various magazines.

One familiar with Gardner's work (for example, Science:
Good, Bad and Bogus, and In The Name of Science, Great Essays in
Science, The Ambidexterous Universe), will recognize what is here:
Gardner's persistent attacks on occultism and his debunking of ESP
and the paranormal, are continued in this volume. Just so, he
repeated rejection of Creationist Science, so called, is a
recurrent theme. There is also a review of Broad and Wade's
Betrayers of the Truth, which includes, among other telling
comments:


There are other mystifying gaps (in Betrayers...).
Several paragraphs tell of the cheating of Walter Levy,
an obscure parapsychologist, but there is no reference
to the far greater scandal over the skulduggery of
England's most eminent parapsychologist, S. G. Soal.
There are examples of how a strong desire can cause a
scientist to "see" what is not there, but the
outstanding case of this in modern times, Percival
Lowell's detailed maps of Martian canals, is not
mentioned. Lysenko's destruction of Soviet genetics is
well described. Not a word about the humbug Nazi
anthropologists who did so much greater harm to
humanity." (p. 183)


He does a blistering essay on L. Ron Hubbard (pp. 246-251)
and another on "Prime Time Preachers," (pp. 223-245) the TV
evangelists who mix their creationism/fundamentalist dogma and
their fund raising in more or less equally distasteful amounts.
But for all his criticism, he is a believer in the power of
science, in the lore of the scientist. He is against opposed to
Creationism and the fakir who would abuse science; he cares
little for exposing the hustler in science, though, Lord knows,
he knows enough about them.

But, again, Gardner seems to focus mostly on the Creationist
dogma, fundamentalism in all its guises, and on occultism,
particularly. His dislike of Uri Geller comes through loud and
clear and often.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 11:46:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bienkows@qcvax.bitnet
Subject: The Bluestone-Cantekin Affair

Greetings-

has anyone on this list heard anything recently about the Bluestone-Cantekin
Affair at Unive Pttsburgh/Pittsburgh Children's Hospital?

In 1987 Bluestone and his colleagues (Mandel et al) published a paper in NEJM
reporeing that a commonly used antibiotic, amoxicillin, was useful in treating
a relatively mild ear condition known as serous otitis media.

In Dec 1991, Cantekin published a paper in JAMA analyzing the same data set
that Bluestone used and came to the oopposite conclusion: amoxicillin is no
more effective than placebo.

Cantekin had been a senior member of Bluestone's group (he directs a large
center for otitis media research in Pittsburgh). He disagreed with the
original anas, and attempted to submit his ms to NEJM at the same time
Bluestone did. The editor of NEJM declined to review Cantekin's paper.

Cantekin was subjected to some sort of administartive censure at Pitt (I think
it was for "uncollegial behavior"), and Bluestone has been cited by NIH
for not disclosing ties (=honoraria and research grants) to a drug company.

The case was discussed in the NY Times in December, but I have heard nothing
since.

Has anybody heard anything else?

Bob Bienkowski
BIENKOWS@QCVAX
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 14:27:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: ABC on Robert Gallo

ABC on Robert Gallo


ABC did quite a number on NIH's Robert C. Gallo last
evening. The show broadcast on 2 April, Primetime, Live, at 10
o'clock, EST, was straightforward: Gallo was certainly guilty of
something or other. At the very least, he cheated the French of
out their priority in the discovery of the AIDS virus. By
implication, he was probably guilty of several violations of law.

ABC certainly seemed to have made up its mind regarding Gallo.
OSI's investigation continues to drag on seemingly interminably.

Any comments from members of the SCIFRAUD board on the ABC
show?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 14:41:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: ABC on Robert Gallo

I saw the show on Gallo. ABC, pardon the pun, put this man on the Gallows.
They presented the case against him as though it had already been settled,
and guilt assigned. It appears to me that it would have more appropriate
for such a show to have been done when the matter was settled, at which
time, if Gallw is guilty as charged, he would probably leave NIH. I could
argue that Gallo was right to be annoyed, since the matter is still in
litigation. I must say it looks bad for him and his superiors at NIH.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 12:38:58 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bart simon <bssimon%helix.ucsd.edu@sdsc.bitnet>
Subject: re: ABC on Gallo

What was interesting to me about the ABC show was their willingness to implicate
the NIH administration and the U.S. government in some sort of scandel. This e
specially given the comment about how Gallo`s actions may have cost lives. The
other side story about how the NIH investigator of the Gallo affair was herself
being investigated was also interesting.

The ABC story seems to be part of a new phase of media interest in the affairs o
f fraud and scientific practice. Indeed, the media seems to be taking a new int
erest in all sorts of 'behind closed doors' activities (remember Anita Hill and
the Kennedy trial). It would be interesting to
know if the recent flourish of media interest in scientific controversy is a dir
ect offshoot of the cold fusion events of 1989. Certainly, for those of us in S
cience Studies, shows like the one on Gallo must be taken seriously in any attem
pt to understand how today's scientific controversies
come to be resolved.

Bart Simon
Science Studies Program - UCSD
(bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 17:57:42 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Origins of media interest in closed-door deliberations

Bart Simon has a good idea when he suggests that media interest in
scifraud issues comes from the cold fusion brouhaha. Surely the
widespread popular interest in C.F. has focused media attention
on science disputes somewhat. (Was there a similar aftereffect
following Piltdown Man, or N-rays, or the Midwife Toad? I bet
there was, as there was after Alamogordo and other spectacular
"successes".)
Nonetheless, my suspicions run beyond that to a much more
pervasive cause. I'd argue that we're not simply seeing an
awakening about spectacular scientific controversy and about
fraudulent scientists. Rather, we are seeing widespread loss
of faith in the old "Progress Is Our Most Important Product,"
objectivist public view of science. Mostly because of technological
disasters of one sort or another (e.g., smog in L.A., Bhopal, phosphate
suds in suburban streams, TMI and Chernobyl, DC-10 crashes, clumsy
computerization of the workplace, life-support fiascos involving
aged or terminal loved ones), a broad spectrum of the population
has had both everyday, firsthand experience and vicarious TV experience
indicating that "the future" doesn't work. Despite the continuing
popularity of Epcot, far fewer people blindly follow along any more
when they hear that "science sez". Thus they're much more willing
to even entertain the notion that scientists have warts, etcetera.
I think this background loss of faith in objective science is far
more important that cold fusion here. C.F. is a mere precipitator.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
P.S. Lots of scientists lament said loss of faith, of course.
I suspect that Al Higgins, among others, shares my own feeling
that it's a healthy step, putting scientific work in much better
perspective.
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 21:21:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Mikulas and Margot

Mikulas and Margot

The Baltimore and Gallo affairs have involved a variety of
people, a variety of issues. One which was brought home to me by
my colleague Felix Wu struck me as particularly insightful: the
difference between the whistle-blower in the Baltimore case
(Margot O'Toole) and the evidence now presented by Mikulas
Popovic regarding Gallo's wrongdoing. Popovic has a draft of a
paper, edited by Gallo, which suggests that Gallo knew exactly
what he was doing when he claimed priority over the Institute
Pasteur team in the discovery of HIV. Popovic, as the expression
has it, covered his behind by saving that paper, carefully hiding
it down through the years. He hid the draft in case it was
needed later. With it, if the need ever arose, he could
demonstrate that he was not the fall guy in the laboratory headed
by Robert Gallo. His was the course of industrialized-
bureaucratized science: cover your behind. He sought safety:
he wasn't going to take the rap. He had evidence that the guilty
party was his boss.

Margot O'Toole blew the whistle on David Baltimore as a
post-doc, a glorified graduate student, and did so with the
expectation that the system of science would work, that David
Baltimore would see the fudging of his colleague and take the
right steps to see that science remained pure. Margot O'Toole
did the right thing in terms of the ideals of science, the best
interests of the institution, rather than in terms of the
expedience. She did not keep her mouth shut to see if her boss'
ploy would work: she blew the whistle on her boss because, as
she saw it, the system was not supposed to work that way.

Of course, David Baltimore remained faithful to his colleague
and tried to destroy the post-doc. One of the most telling
moments in the entire Baltimore affair is at that May 1989 meeting
of John Dingle's subcommittee at which Baltimore had assembled
Nobel prize winners and they, as if on cue, hissed when the name
of Margot O'Toole was mentioned. Nobel laureates hissing at the
idealism of a post-doc! That is telling symbolism.

Mikulas Popovic may extricate himself from the accusations
of the OSI and the other investigators who have looked into the
Gallo problem. He may hang the crime on his boss and save
himself but he has done science no service. He has merely saved
himself with his "rationality."

For her part, O'Toole kept alive a dream.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1992 22:41:46 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: w schipper <schipper@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
Subject: Grimm Brothers

Recently I have been reading John M. Ellis, _One Fairy Story Too
Many_(Chicago UP, 1983), in which he discusses the deliberate
falsification of evidence by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in compiling their
celebrated _Kinder- und Hausma"rchen_ {Grimms's Fairy Tales}. They led
everyone to believe that these tales had been collected by them from a
large variety of story tellers from around Germany, all of them from the
peasant classes, and that they presented these tales in an unadorned
manner, just the way they had been told to them. In fact, as Ellis
demonstrates, and as had been known (though not acknowledged) for half a
century, the Grimm's informants were members of their own family (i.e.
the middle class) and several were not "German" at all but French
Huguenots who had settled in Germany. Moreover, the tales as published
were heavily edited.

This seems to be a case of plus ca change, except that the myths the
Grimms fabricated about the sources of their myths have been glossed
over by researchers in folklore and Germanic studies for many decades,
even after the evidence pointing to this fabrication had been published.

Has there been any discussion of this on SCIFRAUD?

Bill Schipper
schipper@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1992 18:36:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Reply to Carroll

Reply To Carroll

Professor P. Thomas Carroll writes, regarding an apparent
growing skepticism toward science, a "loss of faith" in the
dreams of reason:


Lots of scientists lament said loss of faith, of
course. I suspect that Al Higgins, among others,
shares my own feeling that it's a healthy step, putting
scientific work in much better perspective.


I certainly do share the appreciation of skepticism toward
Big Science. Big Science's "side effects" can be enormously
dangerous and the bigger the science, the more potentially
dangerous the "side effects." Consider, for example, the
pollution of thousands of square miles of land and water by the
Atomic Energy Commission, all in the name of national security,
and all of it done in the construction of atomic weapons. This
pollution will costs hundreds of billions to clean up if, indeed,
it can ever be cleaned up.

Let me elaborate on the implicit metaphor above: just as
any reasonable adult must be skeptical of medical care and of the
medical profession regarding one's own health, so too must the
community be aware of the limitations and dangers of science. One
must critical and make personal judgments about medical care;
medicine has "unfortunate consequences" and science, just so,
costs plenty. Quite frankly, its meager rewards may not be worth
the sacrifices the community is called on to endure. Reasonable
men and women must make critical judgments about the enthusiasms
of scientists.

If this board has, at times, seemed overly focused on the
seamy side of science, it is because the pro-science bias of this
age requires a counter. There has been too much written by sages
of science concerning the powers of science, the successes of
science. The ideology of science needs correcting. Science is
no panacea! The sooner the public learns to be critical, the
better.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:56:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: On Dr. Frances Conley

A Note on Dr. Frances Conley

There was comment, briefly, some time ago on this board of
one happy outcome of Stanford's scandals: that Dr. Frances
Conley, Neurosurgeon at the Medical School, had been allowed to
withdraw her resignation as Professor. You may recall the case:
Dr. Conley had resigned in protest of the appointment of a male
harasser as chair of her department. She had, she claimed, been
the subject of years of sexual harassment by male surgeons, a
victim of subtle aggression, and she would have no more of it.
Since the person appointed to the chair of her department was one
of the worst offenders, she was resigning. The new chair of her
department was, eventually, replaced and her resignation brought
her a great deal of media attention.

Dr. Conley was here in the Albany area last week addressing
various university audiences on her resignation and reinstatement
and their meaning for the struggle against harassment.

After her talk at Albany, I asked her if she contextualized
her reinstatement in terms of the other scandals at Stanford. Her
reply was straightforward and very clear: in no way was her
reinstatement the result of Stanford's embarrassment over indirect
costs or anything else. Her case, she insisted, was an example of
the growing awareness in medicine generally and at Stanford in
particular of the invidiousness of sexual harassment.

There may have been some in the enthusiastic audience who
found Dr. Conley's reply to my question to their liking. They
want to believe that the medical school is changing, that the
University is finally taking steps in the right direction
regarding this persistent problem. Unfortunately, I found her
reply unduely optimistic. To me, President Kennedy and Dean Korn
of the Medical College used the Conley case, and Dr. Conley
herself, to their own advantage: she represented good public
relations in an era of otherwise disastrous public relations. It
was not an achievement of the Women's Movement but the abuse of
her fine political gesture. Her resignation was co-opted by the
people in power and used by them. Unfortunately, her victory
probably has little meaning in terms of sexual harassment but
believers wish to believe.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:12:45 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: cal <pryluck@templevm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: On Dr. Frances Conley
in-reply-to: message of mon, 6 apr 1992 17:56:00 edt from <ach13@albnyvms>

Why can't Al Higgins take Dr. Conley at her word? Am I being unduly sensitive?
Would one be equally skeptical of the same kind of assertion made by a male?

Without having read every word coming out of the west on Stanford's problems,
I independently came to the conclusion that Dr. Conley asserted.

One conclusion that I reached is that she is not so naive as to allow herself
be used for other people's purposes. Let's leave it at that.

Cal Pryluck <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 09:42:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: Frances Conley, MD

For what it is worth, I heard a presentation by Dr. Conley here at Union
College. She dealt quite specifically with the interaction between her
situation at the Stanford Medical School, and the more general problem
at Stanford University concerning possibly misuse of overhead monies.
She was adamant that there was no connection. What did come through
quite clearly was the similarity between her keeping her mouth shut
for so long concerning sexual harassment and the actions of Anita Hill.
When Conley took the deliberate step of resigning to emphasize the
situation she had been living with, it was really no different than
Hill finally going public. It took courage and a willingness to risk
a career for both of these women. The results were quite different;
Conley successfully blocked the appointment of her tormenter to the p
osition of department chair, while Hill did not stop the approval of
Thomas to the Supreme Court. Too bad.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 10:23:28 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Logic

Hasn't anybody on this board ever heard of the "fallacy of the
false dichotomous question"? Why must it be EITHER all sexual
harassment OR all Stanford's financial embarrassment that figures
in the decision to oust Conley's tormentor and to reinstate her?
After all, these policies were promulgated by flesh-and-blood humans,
and all their thoughts and experiences are intermingled in their heads.
It's inconceivable that anyone in such a post at Stanford was utterly
ignorant about and uninfluenced by the financial morass. I'll take
Conley and those who handled her case at their word and credit the
decisions to a sincere response to a charge of sexual harassment--
I consider cynicism, like conspiracy theory, to be a last-resort
interpretive aid--but let's not be so sophomoric as to say it had
to be one OR the other exclusively. It's like the moronic debate
in my field of American history about whether the creators of big
business in the late nineteenth century USA were "robber barons"
or "captains of industry", or, closer to SCIFRAUD, the foolish
squabble about whether a scientist conducts research to further
her or his personal career OR to satisfy curiosity OR to help
society. Can't we move a little farther away from the kinds of
"controversies" I encounter while grading undergraduate essays?
Whether they are conscious of it or not, people act from mixed
motives, always. That's a rudimentary principle for people like
me who interpret human behavior for a living. (For a standard
reference on the fallacy of the false dichotomous question in
its historical manifestations, see David Hackett Fischer,
HISTORIANS' FALLACIES, pp. 8ff.)
This little incident, by the way, sheds some light on the
equally silly debate on this board about whether the humanities
and social sciences are in any way "scientific" or are "just
opinion".
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:05:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: Logic

The final decision of the Stanford administration to not offer the
department chairmanship to the man who was accused by Conley of sexual
harassment may well have been coloured by the bad press that Stanford has
been subject to for its probable mishandling of overhead. I was reporting
my impression of Conley's talk, in which she stated that she saw no linkage
between the two problems.

Were I in the Stanford administration, I would have also bent over backward
to avoid further bad press.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:49:04 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Logic

Right you are, Ralph Alpher. I didn't intend to accuse you
personally of faulty logic, and I'm sorry if I created that
impression. Why Conley feels it important to attribute the
decisions to a single cause is indeed worthy of analysis,
but I've sensed that our discussion here has tended to
join in the fray about which cause to anoint, rather than
to discuss the unicausalism underlying the fray.
If we switch to a discussion of unicausalism, then
there may be something here of relevance to SCIFRAUD.
Why is it that scientists (not to mention many others
with Western world-views) tend, in relatively unthinking
moments, to seek the "one true" cause of something? I think
that embarking on that quest can contribute to the tendency
of people to engage in scientific fraud. How many times,
for example, has someone like Mendel "cooked" data to produce
nice, clean, unambiguous results, when it may well be that the
underlying phenomena are a good deal more complicated than the
theory the experimenter is forwarding to explain them? Why
is there such a premium on doing something "conclusively" and
such a stigma placed upon being "tentative" or "partial"?
There is a residuum of nineteenth-century confidence in
certain knowledge underlying a lot of false-dichotomy debates,
and I think there is also the same residuum in there somewhere
in many cases of scientific fraud. To attribute scientific
fraud largely to the venality of specific individuals bent
on furthering their careers or padding their wallets is to
miss entire realms of motivation.
In the case of Conley, I suspect that a good deal of her
insistence may derive from a keenness to dispel accusations
that her charges of harassment are unfounded. As Alpher
says, we can expect any typical Stanford administrator
to bend over backward to avoid further bad press. Would
that bending over backward extend to the point of finding
grounds for a charge of harassment where the evidence is
questionable? I personally don't think that is the case
at Stanford, based on the little I've read on the subject,
but I'm sure there are people out there (e.g., close, long-
time friends of the accused) who do think that, and Conley's
emphasis on there being only one cause may well derive largely
from a desire to repudiate claims of such "contaminating" causes.
We Western moderns pay a high price for our unwillingness to
admit regularly just how feeble our causal modeling probably is.
Part of that price is paid in scientific fraud.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:25:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: Logic

If I am to believe Conley, the evidence for sexual harassment went well
beyond her personal experience; this evidence appeared after she went
public, and if I recall there were some 40 people who testified of at
the very least insensitivity to much more.

The discussion about scientific fraud merits more thought than I can
give the topic at the moment. When I have something which I think is
useful to say, I will send it on. I will relate one incident which
some may find interesting. Many years ago I read a thesis written
by an Indian student in England; his mentor was a well known scientist.
The topic was one of considerable interest to me, given that I was at
the time writing a comprehensive review paper. Some parts of the thesis
seemed familiar to me; I checked it out and found that much of the paper
was lifted from the work of another scientist (also Indian, but the
coincidence was surely irrelevant). My colleague and I decided to do
nothing about this plagiarism, in the hope that in the fullness of time
the ordinary workings of science would somehow take care of it. Well,
nothing happened. No one else picked it up. The scientist committing
the plagiarism came to the U.S., had a moderately successful career,
which I did not follow since he switched fields. I noted recently that
he died. Certainly now there is no point in pursuing this case, since
nothing is to be gained. Were it to happen today, I would be more inclined
to blow the whistle.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:31:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Dichotomies.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but with all this talk of
dichotomy and current issues, a problem in human nature occured to
me; is it not so that we tend to view things in terms of opposites?
Good and bad are two major ways to describe things, but surely there
is no pure good or pure bad among humans; after all, Hitler loved dogs,
and I'm sure mother Theresa has her bad days. I agree with Dr. Carroll
that Stanford did not act on ethical or public relations concerns alone,
but perhaps the reason people think of the situation as being one or
the other is inbred. For example, I class myself as a Democrat, but
I agree with some Republican ideas. It is simply easier and perhaps
more instinctive to give myself one label or the other rather than
break things down entirely, which would probably yield fractal-type
results. Thus, it seems to me that we, as a species, translate analog
data into digital code, and simplify things that way. Thus the problems
with the current Conley debate.
And as for what this might have to do with scientific fraud, I
propose that not one scientist has ever acted _solely_ out of selfishness,
philanthropy, or the pursuit of truth. Naturally, getting the exact
motivations for anyone's actions is similar to getting the exact length
of the British coastline. As usual, I have no answers.

Dan X. Stackhouse,
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 08:34:28 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Origin of tendency to dichotomize

Dan X. Stackhouse and I agree on the issue of dichotomous tendencies,
with one exception. He attributes that tendency to instinct: "...we,
as a species, translate analog data into digital code...." I'm not so
sure of that. I'm no anthropologist, but what little study I _have_ made
of non-western cultures (most of it undergraduate courses on the history
of India) emboldens me to claim that there's nothing all that innate
in human beings that encourages dichotomy, at least in the rather stark
terms used in the USA in the 20c. There are indeed some "natural"
dichotomies in all human life on earth: day and night, female and male,
alive and dead. These tend to encourage some yes/no patterns in all
cultures. But Western cultures seem to be a good bit more pronounced
about yes/no. Most who have studied the subject, I think, tend to attribute
it to one or the other, or both, of two things: our Judeo-Christian
religious heritage, and Cartesian dualism. In their monotheism,
Judeo-Christian religions tend to authoritarianism. There is only
one true God, and only one authoritative truth from that God. One
either follows it, goes to heaven, and is with God, or rejects it,
goes to hell, and is with Satan. End of story. The various dieties
on Mount Olympus, to give but one counterexample, never manifested
themselves to the classical Greeks with such an absolute system.
Similarly, Descartes posed a stark division between mind and body,
and that mind-body dualism has had a strong influence upon western
thought. (Some, of course, relate Cartesian dualism to Judeo-Christian
distinctions between body and soul.)
In our century of total war, these tendencies have been heightened
even further by the propaganda aspects of unconditional, total warfare.
Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR captures the point well. Our side is
always the side doing all the right things, for noble causes, with
God on our side. Theirs is utterly depraved, the agent of the devil,
barbarian, and subhuman, deserving of complete annihilation. We buy
into such tactical expediencies at great cost.
Is not the western assumption that science is a path to Truth with
a capital T just possibly connected to these cultural things? Might
this not affect one's tendency to expect clear-cut and discernible
causation in one's experimental work? And might that expectation
not lead one to "fudge" when nature fails to fit our cultural mold?
In other words, is not our scientific practice a cultural artifact
in many respects, a dance between our cultural biases and the natural
world, and not something hardwired into our instincts, such as
Stackhouse's theory about H. sapiens sapiens's tendency to digitize?
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:48:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: DICHOTOMIES

"Nature in her inmost self divides......." - Robert Frost. A thing
cannot be A and not-A at the same time.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:39:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Robert Frost, A, and not-A

It's not the fallacy of ALL dichotomous questions. It's
the fallacy of the FALSE dichotomous question. There's
nothing there to detract from Robert Frost.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:37:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: MORE ON DICHOTOMY

Isn't it interesting that in questioning whether dualism is so
necessary, Professor Carroll challenged the notion of analog to
digital transformation by saying "it's not this, but this"? I
certainly agree with him, and others, that most events are
multi-determined, but I think we give ourselves a bum-rap when
we condemn our capacity for dualistic thinking as the result of
having been influenced by a faulty culture. The capacity for
"dualistic thinking" seems to be manifest up and down the
evolutionary scale; in fact, we may be the species that is least
enslaved by it. Other mammals divide the phenomenal world into
good and bad objects, safe and unsafe places, mine and not mine,
etc., and are far less amenable to examining their "ideas" than
are (at least some) humans. Examples of such dualistic "thinking"
on the part of mammals are easily observable among both wild and
domestic species.
ROBERT BARASCH
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:05:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Re: DICHOTOMIES

Thomas Aquinas believed he had achieved ABSOLUTE TRUTH
with his famous Principle of Contradiction: being is, non-being
is not. It became the cornerstone of his philosophy. As several
of the 19th century pointed out: the process medicating these two
states of being is "Becoming." It is possible to build upon
processes, to see the world in a different way.

Al Higgins
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:14:14 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Dichotomizing again

You overinterpret my emphasis upon cultural influences,
Professor Barasch. I most assuredly did NOT say "it's
not this, but this" concerning analog to digital transformation.
Concerning Stackhouse's original assertion of instinct as the
origin of dichotomization, I said "I'm not so sure of that."
I then proceeded to admit readily that there are plenty of
"natural" dichotomies in everyday life, and I never said that
there's NO instinctive urge in that direction at all. I'm a
believer, for example, in the fight-or-flight response to a
threat. When you quoted Frost's "Nature in her inmost self
divides," I replied that there's "nothing there ‚i.e., in
my argument’ to detract from Robert Frost."
So, okay already, there are LOTS of reasons why people
dichotomize. I'm a historian. I'm leery of ANY unicausal
explanation of complex human behavior. I still would contend,
though, that Western cultures have dichotomized more than most
human cultures, and that there have been strong cultural influences,
perhaps especially so in the century of totalitarianism, that have
encouraged that. Furthermore--to get back to SCIFRAUD (please)--
I'd say that the dichotomizing in the Conley case is a good springboard
to a discussion of how unrealistic dichotomous expectations in Western
science can encourage "fraud".
How about somebody talking about whether or not scientists have
unrealistically simplistic expectations of their experiments? Was
Mendel a victim of such a mismatch between world-view and experimental
results? I regularly find, for example, that students of mine who end
up cheating do so because they have preposterously unrealistic expectations
of what's expected of them in an essay assignment. They think that they
simply must write the definitive work on something-or-other to get an "A".
When I show them a sampling of typical good essays, they're quite
surprised; only then do they realize that they could well have gotten
a very fine grade by doing their own work. Similarly, do not scientists
do odd things when their expectations are seriously out of whack with
what happens in the lab or in the field?
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:30:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: ANOTHER ON DICHOTOMIES

Professor Carrol, you are correct; I did fail to credit you with
the nonabsolutist strand in your discussion. My strongest
objection to your message was, and is again, the implication
that Western culture is the worse offender in the arena of
reasonable discourse, the result of the Cartesian fallacy. I
have been told that Easterners (real, far-Easterners) are less
dualistic and that quantum mechanics, for example, is more
easily understood by Easterners than Westerners because of its
nonlinear components. I don't know enough about quantum mechanics
to discuss this rationally, but you know, from history, that the
principle was enunciated in the West, as was the uncertainty
principle, and lots of funny notions about mathematics and
particle physics. I don't know if this is the place to go into
why these problems continue to intrigue us (mind-body;
Plato-Aristotle; thought-action, etc.), but I believe the
persistance of the problem is a function of our cognitive
organization being multileveled, ranging from the highly
abstract to the concrete, with forms ranging from the deductive
to the intuitive (and perhaps further in both directions, poorly
understood), so that we have all had a glimpse of both highly
dichotomous thinking and global, fluid thinking, both of which
are frightening in their purist forms.

Why do scientists commit fraud? I think the ones who commit
blatant fraud are driven by impulses similar, if not identical,
to those driving your students who cheat: they all want to get
"A's." Isn't it sad that these folks, so driven to do the things
that make people like them become, at the denouement, objects of
scorn?
Robert Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:05:37 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bauerh@vtvm1.bitnet

(Prompted by Bart Simon) The fuss about misconduct in science has been
going on from much before the cold fusion affair. Broad & Wade's BETRAYERS
OF THE TRUTH was maybe the first really public assault, asserting that
evil doings are an inherent part of scientific activity (see my review of
it in 4S REVIEW, 1 (#3, Fall 1983) 17-23). The Pacific Division of the
AAAS had a symposium in 1982, SCIENCE, DEVIANCE, AND SOCIETY, published in
1983 as THE DARK SIDE OF SCIENCE, ed. Brock K. & Maria T. Kilbourne.
(Prompted by Thomas Carroll) There's a widespread loss of faith not only
in Science as Progress and Truth: there's a widespread loss of faith in
our leaders and our authorities, Congress and the president, Wall Street
and the captains of industry.
I suspect that the general public is still more prone to accept the
authority of science than of other institutions; the really bitter attacks
on scientific authorities come from some sectors of the social sciences
rather than from the media or the public. Reading about the Reformation a
couple of years ago, I was struck by the analogy with the present:
widespread public faith in Science (God, religion) still persists, but
there is widespread dismay at the actions of scientISTS and academics
(earlier, the priests and bishops).
| Henry H. Bauer, Professor of Chemistry & Science Studies |
| VPI&SU, Blacksburg VA 24061-0212 |
| (a.k.a. 'Josef Martin', author of TO RISE ABOVE PRINCIPLE) |
| Internet: BAUERH @ VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (Bitnet: BAUERH @ VTVM1) |
| Phone: (703)231-4239(secretary)/951-2107(home) |
| FAX: (703)231-3255 |
| THE ONLY THING NECESSARY |
| FOR THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL |
| IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING |
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:46:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Science's Dark Side

Science's Dark Side

Professor Bauer's last note provides me an opportunity to
write of early work, of students and friends, and of the doleful
costs of some of the games in science. It has been ten years
since the meeting at Santa Barbara which resulted in the
publication of The Dark Side of Science, ten years of continuing
work on fraud and fakery in science, of watching what happens in a
field such as this. No one could have dreamed, back then, of the
changes that would occur by 1992. Yet, one had hopes that some
things might change, that some obvious wrongs might be righted.
Some things never change.

The Dark Side of Science was edited by two former graduate
students here at the University at Albany. One, Maria, was my TA
and I got to know her very well. Brock was in another department
but I got to know him through Maria. They left this University
under trying circumstances, under a cloud. They left hoping
that what they had experienced here would not be repeated
elsewhere, would not predict their future. They left hopeful
that their label as "whistle-blowers" would be overcome, that
they would continue in their careers unimpeded by a millstone
hung round their professional necks: they hoped to live down
their records as whistle-blowers.

The case of Brock Kilbourne and the University at Albany is
still, to me, outrageous. Brock as a graduate student was a TA
to a senior professor in his department. That senior professor
had been engaged in research involving student subjects and,
according to Brock, had endangered the lives of those students.
Young Brock "blew the whistle" on his professor. The department
involved stood behind the professor and the University at Albany
tried to stonewall the investigation by the NY State Health
Department, the agency charged with investigating the charges.
The heroic behavior of the whistle-blower in this case was
completely ignored: what has never been forgotten was that he
had been a whistle-blower.

Eventually, the University was found to be guilty of abuse
of students and severely fined. Brock, as whistle-blower, got
nothing: nothing from his department, nothing from the
University. He was forced out of the graduate program. The
idealist who did what he thought was right slipped between the
cracks and was ignored by the University and the department. Far
from helping him, the University and the department tried to
weasel their ways out of their difficulties and, as they saw it,
Brock Kilbourne was one of their difficulties: he was no hero to
the department and no hero to the NY State Department of Health.
Brock, for blowing the whistle, was at best forgotten, at worst,
as he learned later, to continue to pay for his whistle-blowing.

I was able, through friends, to get Brock another graduate
appointment and he did finish his Ph.D. He went on to marry
Maria. They left for the other school and were told, several
months after their acceptance into that program: "If we had known
what you did back at Albany, we never would have accepted you
here." Then, as now, Brock's whistle-blowing continues to cost
him dearly: he has been unable to find work in his chosen field.
At the present time, he is working for the United States Navy.

There are several things to be noted about this: Brock and
Maria got involved in scientific dishonesty at a PERSONAL LEVEL.
Their book, then, is not an impersonal and intellectual document
so much as it is a heartfelt and reasonable one. They
experienced scientific and academic gamesmanship in ways that few
others have. To them scientific fraud is REAL. It is not
something to be talked about in the abstract, nor is there work
to be considered the work of ethicists. The games of scientists
are most personally felt. Brock and Maria suffered personally for
their beliefs in science and the honesty of scientists.

One should understand their book in that way: a heartfelt
document about dishonesty. Please understand: they never
published the name of the person who hurt them here at the
University at Albany, their intention was not scandalmongering.
They never tried to hurt anyone in return for their being hurt.
They tried to show "scientific dishonesty" to be a problem. They
have had an impact and their book made sense. Certainly the case
here at Albany was not and never has been a secret: it made the
pages of Science (See, Smith, R. Jeffrey. "SUNY at Albany Admits
Research Violations," Science 198 {18 November 1977}, p. 708.)

If one thinks that double dealing in science is an
abstraction, let me assure you that it is not. There are people,
heroes, who have not been so fortunate as Margot O'Toole. They
have been allowed to fall between the cracks. Those cracks are
worth considering, even in 1992.


Reference

Kilbourne, Brock K. and Kilbourne, Maria T., editors. The Dark
Side of Science. San Francisco, California: The American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Pacific Division,
1983.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:30:56 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Origins of QM in the West

Any one wanting to understand why QM "took" in the West
and not elsewhere would do well to read what Paul Forman
has had to say about the matter: Paul Forman, "Weimar
Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927:
Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a
Hostile Intellectual Environment," HISTORICAL STUDIES
IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES 3 (1971) 1-115. It took the
decimation of Western "modern" culture in the Great War
to shake major institutions free from their commitment
to absolute truth of the Cartesian sort.
This is the last I'll have to say about the dichotomies
topic unless it comes up centrally in the context of a
discussion of SCIFRAUD per se.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:26:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Science's Ideology: I

On Science's Ideology: I

The ideology of science is not a typic generally discussed
by scientists. At least for social scientists much if made,
rather, of the value-free nature of their work. In the physicial
sciences, ideology is not regarded as essential to science's
practice save in time of crisis. Indeed, when danger threatens,
science seems most willing to serve: poison gas in WWI and the
bomb is WWII, no mean feats.

Here is the first of three annotations on the development of
science's ideology here in the United States over the last
century. They are presented in no particular order. They raise
some questions which ought to nag at readers of SCIFRAUD. Since
they are rather long, I will post them over the next few days.

The annotations are drawn from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Berman, Edward H. "The Ideology of Philanthropy:
The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations on American Foreign Policy. Albany: The
State University of New York Press, 1986.

This is an angry book but, fortunately, one with a
sense of humor. He is sarcastic and ironic when in
comes to describing the history of the three major
private foundations: Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford.
He does not have much good to say about any of their
self-perpetuation efforts but he does snicker at the
possibility that the technocrats who planned and
managed their foundations may have unwittingly opened
up opportunities of which they were unaware. In their
efforts to perpetuate themselves and their "culture,"
they may have done some good and that would not be what
they wanted or expected to do.

The foundations of our society are bent on
propagandizing, selling, the American Way of Life.
That is what they have been about for years and that is
what they have been doing. They have spent their
billions in spreading the ideology of the capitalistic
elite. "The boards of trustees of the major foundations
are self-perpetuating. They select individuals to
serve according to criteria that they themselves
establish, individuals who are, according to John J.
McCloy, long-time Ford and Rockefeller trustee, 'real
imaginative {and} public-spirited men. Such procedures
insure and upper-class monopoly on those important
positions... (r)ecent analysis found that over half of
the trustees of the thirteen largest American
foundations attended Harvard, Yale or Princeton. The
most salient characteristics of this group were that
were white Episcopalian or Presbyterian males, who were
between 55 and 65 years of age and who served on the
board of several foundations simultaneously or
concurrently." (p. 32)

"In 1964, a representative year, the chairman of
the council's board of directors was John J. McCloy,
who at the same time was chairman of the board of
trustees of the Ford Foundation and a trustee of the
Rockefeller Foundation. David Rockefeller served as
one of the council's two vice-presidents during the
year, while Carnegie trustee Henry Wriston served as
council president. James Perkins, then Carnegie
Corporation vice-president and later a director of the
Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and president of the
Ford-supported International board of directors, as was
Carnegie trustee Charles Spofford...
"Also serving as director in 1964 were former
secretary of the Air Force Thomas Finletter and Allen
Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence agency
during the early 1960s." (p. 36)

According to Berman, the directors of these
foundations are the same elite Americans who enter
government service, take the helm of major
corporations, provide for our major universities, and
maintain foundations. The billions in tax-sheltered
funds make this possible. Their fantastic wealth makes
it possible for the foundations to employ "science" in
their service. Most particularly, as far as SCIFRAUD
is concerned, the foundations support the work of
social scientists, for example, who "think along the
same lines" as do the plutocrats. "Several
commentators have suggested that some of the
influential social scientists concerned with
developmental problems in the Third World were less
concerned with ascertaining the desires of the people
in these areas than insuring that their particular
visions of development were imposed on the populations
in question--by whatever means might be required.
O'Brien, for example, mentions Lucien Pye, long-time
member of the Social Science Research Council, as an
exponent of the concept of incremental, controlled
development imposed by American backed indigenous
elites. Another, perhaps more influential, advocate of
this view is Samuel Huntington is also the coauthor of
The Crisis of Democracy. This book, one of several
commissioned by the Trilateral Commission, was
published in 1975 and attracted considerable attention
because of its uncharacteristically blunt attack on the
'excesses of democracy' and 'the reassertion of
democratic egalitarianism' in the United States. The
remedy for these unhealthy trends, according to
Huntington's analysis, was a return to a more
manageable and efficient system of elite governance.
The work of Huntington, Pye, et al., has been supported
by one or another of the major foundations over the
years either through the Social Science Research
Council or, more recently, the Council on Foreign
Relations' 1980's Project or the Trilateral
Commission." (p. 114)

And, if one wants more names of individual
scientists who are receiving grants from foundations
for their conservative approach: "The approach of
Robert Havighurst, the University of Chicago
sociologist, one-time officer of the Rockefeller
General Education Board, and frequent beneficiary of
foundation largesse, is indicative of the way in which
mainstream sociologists exercise great selectivity in
their approach to developmental problems. His work
indicates as well how sponsored scholars frequently
manage to obfuscate the significant structural issues
involved in Third-World development, while
concentrating their efforts on issues peripheral to
widespread human advancement, all the time arguing that
they are engaged in value-free inquiry."(pp. 117-118)

But the trust of the book has to do with much more
than identifying individual structure-functionalists
who have played intellectual games with the elite. It
is a matter of keeping an elite in power:

"The long-standing foundation emphasis on the
training of carefully selected experts to provide the
'advice and special study on nearly every subject we
take up' derives logically from institutions staffed by
individuals from upper-class backgrounds, who
themselves believe that the United States can best be
managed by an elite group of well-trained, dispassionate
technocrats. This pattern was apparent in foundation
support from a limited number of elite American
universities as early as the 1930s and inaugurated a
trend still followed.
Foundation support for educational institutions
and the concomitant emphasis on the training of experts
has given the foundations group leverage in the
production and dissemination of knowledge. They are
critically situation to play pivotal roles in
determining what knowledge, what ideas, what views of
the world receive support and become incorporated into
the society's general discourse. Coser spoke to this
point some years ago, noting how the major foundations
act as the 'gatekeepers of ideas.' By this he meant
that the foundations, because of the significant
resources available for their officers to use at their
discretion, were 'in positions to foster certain lines
of inquiry while neglecting or de-emphasizing others.'
"The foundations' location in the capitalist state
leads them to support educational institutions --
particularly universities--at home and abroad to train
individuals who not only share their perspectives, but
who will use their influence to 'sell' it to others who
are less convinced of its merits. Gramsci indicated
how the world view of a society's dominant class is
most effectively disseminated throughout the society
but by force of arms , but rather through the
acceptance by the majority of the citizenry of a
carefully defined set of ideas. To put this somewhat
differently: it is more effective to persuade the
population at large that the worldview propagated by
their leaders is in the majority's interest and is
'correct; than it is for the leaders to have to resort
to the state's coercive apparatus (the system of
justice, the military, the policy) to force the
majority to accept this.
"The act of persuading is largely the
responsibility of intellectuals, who, according to
Bates, strive to 'extend the world view of the rulers to
the ruled, and thereby secure the 'free' consent of the
masses to the law and order of the land." These
intellectuals, or 'salesmen' as Bates calls them, thus
occupy an intermediate position between the ruling
class and the people. Acceptance of the ruling-class
version of reality, which has been certified as 'true'
or has the appearance of common sense, is dependent on
the efforts of these 'salesmen.' The grants
appropriated by the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller
foundations help to train these salesmen or
intellectuals in the universities that they support at
home and around the world."
(pp. 12-13)

"The foundation programs in Africa, Asia and Latin
America, in short, were designed to improve conditions
there, mainly through the aegis of an enculturated
stratum of local nationals, who subsequent modes of
behavior would be supportive of the national-security
and economic interests of the United States. The
conceptualization of these foundation educational
ventures coincided with the demise of the colonial
empires of Britain, France and the Netherlands after
1945. The resultant educational and cultural programs
were a reflection of the belief that American's post
World War II interests could be served by aligning the
evolving Third-World nations to the United States
through the provision of social services (particularly
education), which had been limited by the former
colonial powers, thereby fulfilling an articulate local
need and at the same time weaning these nations away
from flirtation with socialist doctrine. The extension
of a sophisticated form of cultural imperialism also
had the advantage of obfuscating the continuance of
discredited and crude forms of economic and military
imperialism." (p. 14)

++++++++++


This is an image of science in service to the plutocracy. It
suggests that social science has benefitted enormously from
foundation largess to the extent that it has been a conservative
force in our society. It suggests even further that social
scientists have been very willing to have themselves and the major
universities of our society salesmen of the ideology of the elite.
Of course, Berman picks on Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Chicago.
These he identifies as elite schools maintaining their elite
status. One might use another categorization and regard them all
as the "wonderful whorehouses of academe." That is not a usual
image of the best and brightest but in some ways it may be
appropriate.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:59:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: On Ideology: II

On Science's Ideology: II

This is a fascinating history of science. How does this
bear on SCIFRAUD? In several ways: one, indirectly in that
science that is supported is science that is accepted as useful and
profitable by an elite interested in perpetuating itself.
Directly: outsiders need not apply for funds unless, in a rare
moment, the elite wishes to demonstrate its willingness of
support "left wing" scientists. Third, membership in the elite
is not a function of competence but acceptance, not scientific
method but social grace. Quite simply getting into this network
is not a matter of skills in the laboratory but eminently social
skills.

Young potential scientists ought to be made aware of the
scientific elite in this country as part of their training in
whatever field of science. It would be a good thing for them to
know.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\Geiger, Roger L. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth
of American Research Universities, 1900-1940. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1986.\

This is a brief history of the 15 or so major
universities who, in 1900, constituted the AAU. The
charter members of that organization were: California,
Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Princeton, Stanford, Wisconsin,
and Yale. Illinois and Minnesota joined shortly
thereafter, and Caltech and MIT were admitted during
the interwar years. These are identified as the top
universities in the country by almost any standard:
number of Ph.D.s produced, volumes in library, dollars
spent for research. They also were ranked at the top
by peers in the professions.

World War I had demonstrated to American science
that "organized science" rather than the practical
inventor (Luther Burbank and T. A. Edison) would do
more in times of crisis. The role of organized science
was demonstrated by George Ellery Hale, a leading
astronomer but more, a practitioner of Big Science who
stressed the importance of organization and cooperation
in science. Hale was, while still very young, elected
to the NAS (1902). Hale took the lead in offering the
NAS's services to the president and created the
National Research Council as the arm of the NAS to
serve in war.

An accomplished politician as well as scientist,
Hale saw to the construction of a politically based and
useful NRC. He was, for example most effective in
organizing committees which took academic scientists
away from their campuses to special research
laboratories which produced, effectively, among other
things, poison gas and nitrates. "The NRC was first
and foremost a network for joining academic, industrial
and governmental science. Hale began by recruiting
from his own, wide circle of associates. Of particular
importance were the physical chemist Arthur Noyes, a
friend from undergraduate days at MIT, who because
chairman of the central Administrative Division; and
the physicist Robert Millikan, a colleague from Hale's
years at the University of Chicago and a postwar Nobel
Laureate, who became vice-chairman of the council,
director or research, and head of the research
committees on physics, submarines and optical glass.
Hale's long association with the Carnegie Institution
assured contact with that large cluster of scientists;
in fact, Charles Walcott, the CIW's secretary,
immediately became a vice chairman of the NRC. The
academy itself was naturally another asset. When
assurance of cooperation from the AAAS Committee of One
Hundred on Scientific Research was receive, access was
guaranteed to the whole of academic science. By the
time it reached full operation, the NRC research
committees read like a Who's Who in American science.
They were assisted at the local level by the formation
of research committees at major colleges and
universities to facilitate cooperation with the war
effort.
"Bringing about the collaboration of academic
science and industrial research was a fundamental goal
of the NARC and one that transcended the war effort.
From the outset, Hale secured the participation of his
friend Gano Dunn of the Engineering Foundation (another
NARC vice-chairman and John J. Carty, chief engineer
for AT&T. By 1918, when the NARC was seeking permanent
status, Hale clearly foresaw the coordination of
science for industrial research as a postwar goal. An
industrial relationships division was created,
consisting of Carty and the most important research
heads of major corporations. This was followed by the
establishment of a blue-ribbon advisory committee
containing the presidents of AT&T, Phelps-Dodge,
Eastman Kodak, U.S. Steel, Mellon Banks, DuPont,
General Electric, and Warner-Swasey. Also included
were Henry Pritchett, of the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, and Elihu Root--senator,
CIW trustee, and general deus ex machine. The first
two postwar publications of the NARC would be a
collection of exhortations on the union of science and
industry by many of these same individuals, followed by
an inventory of industrial research laboratories. The
National Research Council, then, not only symbolized
the merging of basic and applied science brought about
by the war but also remained an active force for its
continuation thereafter.
"When the leaders of science-based industries
could be expected to assess their interests in research
more or less accurately, it is less evident why this
utilitarian view of science should have been advocated
with such enthusiasm by academicians like Hale, who own
research was as remote from -practical application as
the celestial bodies he studied. The war experience,
however, created an 'ideology of science,' which gave
scientists reason to believe that everyone might
benefit from a perpetuation of the wartime organization
of science..." (p. 97-98)}

"In a larger perspective the wartime precedent of
the NRC set a pattern for the organization and
direction of American science in the 1920s. That a s
central agency was desirable became an axiom of the
ideology of science." (p. 99)

"The basis features of the NRC provide a paradigm
for private, elite authority over American science in
the 1920s. Essentially, the guidance of private elites
was relied upon for scientific leadership, financial
backing, and what might loosely be termed social
control. In these respects, the paradigm for the
direction of science was typical of other forms of
social action during the 1920s. (p. 98)

"The mobilization of American science during World
War I, then, had the enduring effect of bringing
industry, foundations, and universities into closer
cooperation and of consecrating the direction of
science policy to a private elite that represented the
leadership of those institutions." (p. 99)

So the pattern of elite dominance of American
science dates from WWI and shortly thereafter when
industry, government, selected universities and
foundations got together and saw to the formation of a
social control mechanisms in American science. The
system has been perpetuating itself ever since.
Certainly there have been changes, and large ones at
that, with the post-WWII stress on government support
in science. But the same organizations still dominate
in American science, the same universities, the same
foundations, the same elites: the industrial-
foundation-university-military-government complex.
Born of wartime necessities, it has continued in the
same streamlined, efficient way.

++++++++++

The fascinating notion to me: organized science is
controlled science. The "sciences" that get funded, that get
published, that are rewarded, that are supported are the sciences
which the elite considers "science." All else is regarded as
non-science and unsupported, not rewarded.

This kind of scientific control is generally kept out of
public awareness and graduate students' eyes. However, that
tendency to secrecy does not mean that the code of silence should
be maintained by those who wish to expose the games of some elite
scientists and foundations.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:29:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: On Science's Ideology: III

Science's Ideology: III

Here is a history of the Carnegie Corporation which
provides a very clear picture of the power of that Corporation
over American institutions, including science. The
military-industrial complex has to be expanded to the
military-industrial-foundation-university complex to be
appreciated: that is what this history describes. It is a
chilling document in its candor.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe. The Politics of
Knowledge: The arnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and
Public Policy. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan
University Press, 1989.\

This is, in one sense, a history of the Carnegie
Corporation, he prototype of philanthropic foundations
here in the United states. Established in 1912 with an
endowment of (in 1987 dollars) $1,467,780,004, the
Corporation has given away over a half billion (by
1982) at a cost of $36 million while doing so. The
author is an insider with access to the Corporation's
files and her work, like the work of all insiders, must
be judged in terms of her works being "approved."
However, Langemann insists there was no editorial
control exercised by the Corporation in the preparation
of this history.

What emerges is most clear: American science is,
to a great extent, what the Carnegie Corporation has
made it. The Corporation counts as trustees the very
biggest names in natural and social science and has
supported all of them. It major benefactors are the
major universities: Harvard, Yale and Columbia, with
Corporation "consultants" exchanged with faculty at
these universities. Similarly, the consultants and the
trustees are advisors and consultants, and secretaries,
for various presidents and in various federal
government offices. There is a round-robin going on
with officers and advisors simply going in and out of
the Corporation, the major universities and government.
The structure described here is an extraordinary elite.

The Corporation works closely with other large
foundations, Rockefeller and Ford, and has the same
sorts of exchange relationships between its
officers-advisors as it does with government and
universities. The interests of the foundations, and
indeed the interests of government, and the interests
of universities, are the same interests. In her
description of the Corporation's work with educational
television Lagemann is most illustrative, most
descriptive:

Brokering funds from the Ford Foundation and its
subsidiaries, the Fund for Adult Education and the Fund
for the Advancement of Education, and then from the
federal government (initially through the 1962 ETV
Facilities Act), the champions of educational
television helped launch more than one hundred stations
by the mid-1960s. But the enterprise they built
remained woefully underfinanced and technologically
immature. In 1964, FCC Chairman E. William Henry went
so far as to describe it as an 'electronic
Appalachia.'
Established 'as a means of eliminating cultural
poverty--of making knowledge an enlightenment,
culture and beauty, stimulation and controversy
available to everyone who cares for them, and not
merely to an elite,' the educations stations had not
even begun to realize their aspirations, he maintained.
With this in mind, Ralph Lowell and Scott
Fletcher set to work to organize a national commission
'to investigate the financial structure that supports
all aspects of educational television.' Because, as
senator, Lyndon Johnson had played an important role in
facilitating passage of the 1962 ETV Facilities Act,
Lowell and Fletcher hoped he would now agree to empanel
a presidential commission. Owing to potential
embarrassment from Lady Bird's ownership of
broadcasting properties, however, Johnson had no wish
to do so. He favored the commission idea, but wanted
it established under private auspices. Already a
trusted Johnson adviser, John Gardner was therefore
asked if the Carnegie Corporation might support the
investigation. Raising the question as 'an unscheduled
item' at an executive meeting of the Corporation's
board of trustees on April 21, 1965, Gardner won
unanimous approval for it.
Thereafter, events moved quickly. In June
1965 Gardner reported to his Carnegie Corporation
colleagues that the prospects for a commission were
'shaping up pretty well ... The W{hite} H{ouse} has
provided presidential endorsement and CC has the
money.' Three months later, and a month after Gardner
had become Secretary of HEW, it was decided that the
Corporation would serve directly as sponsor for the
study...
Before the years was out, James R. Killian,
chairman of the M.I.T., Corporation, had agreed to
serve as chairman, with fourteen other prominent
individuals on the commission. Selected by Corporation
personnel, all had been informally approved by the
White House... (pp. 223-224)

Gardner had been the Chairman of the Carnegie
Corporation since 1955 when he accepted his new post as
Secretary of HEW in 1965 and was, indeed, on leave from
the Corporation as Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare.

The most striking thing in this history is the
simple clarity of it all: the Corporation's money was
to be spent in those areas which promoted the
conservative, male, WASPish view of the Natural Order
of Things. The Corporation served the elite, and, be
clear on this, the Corporation served to perpetuate
that elite. In the years before WWII, the Corporation
supported the Eugenics of Charles B. Davenport and the
awful social thinking of his buddy, Madison Grant.
(Several of the trustees of the Corporation were
Eugenicists.) The efforts in Negro education were,
therefore, directed at keeping a race in place. Social
scientists of all sorts were supported and, indeed,
some of the major social science projects were the
result of the Corporation's support: Myrdal's, An
American Dilemma; Stouffer's, The American Soldier;
Coleman's Equality of Educational Opportunity and its
interpretation, Jencks' Inequality. And entire
departments and divisions of social scientists were
supported: Yale's Human Relations, Harvard's Social
Relations, and Columbia's Bureau of Applied Social
Research. Major universities were quite literally
beholden to the support of the Corporation. And, in
return, Corporation Presidents could, upon retirement
from Carnegie, expect appointment in the universities
and vice versa: Frederick P. Keppel, President of the
Corporation from 1923-1941, ended up as Dean of the
Harvard School of Education while James B. Conant,
erstwhile President of Harvard, became a major
educational researcher in the 1950s and 60s, all with,
of course, Carnegie funds for lavish support.

The overall picture which emerges from this
history is that the history of American social science,
and physical science (Vannevar Bush of MIT, for
example, was appointed a Carnegie trustee in 1939, just
a few years before becoming science tzar of the war
years) is an elite affair. Science is supported and
foundations wish it supported and science is what the
foundations produce through their university-government
connections.

++++++++++

It is a book worth reading. It suggests some things about
science which are not usually discussed in graduate school but
which are, clearly, determining of science in the United States.
It certainly suggests things about the Big Names of social
science I had not know before: they were the members of an
informal club, an invisible college, a WASP science "family" that
controls what is labelled as good science, and supportable
science in American universities. I never had a chance to enter
that club and my training as a sociologist had nothing to do with
membership. The substance of my graduate career had little, if
anything, to do with making it as a successful sociologist as I
began on the wrong rung of the ladder. This book might easily
support the notion that: one begins by having "connections" in
the right places and, failing that, one is forever screwed. A
Marxist interpretation? One could argue that it is a realistic
interpretation of the way science gets done in the United States.

Perhaps the most shocking thing: there is absolutely nothing
new or novel in all of this. Everybody knows, or should know...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1992 16:29:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Harum-Scarum Scholarship

Harum-Scarum Scholarship

When an elite loses its control and enthusiasts enter a
field after decades of being excluded, one should expect the
newcomers to revel in their access. They may be guilty of
drawing hasty conclusions, they may lack the caution of the
secure elite.

This is precisely what's happened in Biblical scholarship.
When the Huntington Library decided to go public with its
photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical scholarship
changed. New games were to be played. The elite were to be
replaced by enthusiasts who feel, today, justified in their
"hasty conclusions."

This is a fascinating example of what might happen in other
fields were elite control to be displaced.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\Wilford, John Noble. "Open, Dead Sea Scrolls Stir Up
New Disputes," New York Times, 19 April 1992, p. 22.\

It was in September, 1991 that the editors'
monopoly over the Dead Sea Scrolls was ended. It was
then that the Huntington Library of California decided
to make its photos of the complete manuscript available
to scholars. The Huntington's actions ended four
decades of absolute control exercised by a select band
of editors who, in the name of thoroughness, delayed
publication of the scrolls and impeded Biblical
scholarship for forty years. There were angry charges
and countercharges of fraud and misuse by both sides in
the dispute and, as one might expect, the release of
the contents of the scrolls has not ended the disputes.


The newcomers to the study of the scrolls have
reported "findings" among the thousands of fragments of
proto-Christianity among them. These newcomers are
being accused of reaching "hasty reconstructions and
interpretations of fragmentary and ambiguous data."
Dr. Robert H. Eisenman, of California State at Long
Beach has "discovered a Hebrew text that mentions the
execution of a Messiah-like leader. He said this
showed that the scroll writers had the idea of a
Messiah who would suffer and die, which had been
thought to be a concept that arose only with
Christianity..."

"Other scholars dispute Dr. Eisenman's
translation, saying that parts of the script are
virtually indecipherable, that the term 'Messiah' and
its cognates do not appear in the fragment and that it
is not clear who is killed or if this is a description
of something that actually happened."
"'It's all picky,' Dr. Eisenman responded in an
interview. 'They are trying to divert attention and
make the public think there's nothing interesting in
the remaining scrolls.'
"Dr. Eisenman, however, accepted the criticism of
being hasty in publicizing the finding. 'Only by
breaking the monopoly could you get away from official
interpretations.,' he said. 'Now let a thousand voices
sing.'"

"Dr. Robert Alter, an expert on biblical
literature at the University of California at Berkeley,
wrote in the February issue of the magazine Commentary
that he was resigned to the inevitability of turmoil,
even some 'harum-scarum scholarship,' as some scholars
feast on the ancient documents. 'The new chain of
sensational developments, whatever exaggerations it has
encouraged,' he said, 'has had the salutary effect of
jolting the project into the forward motion it should
have achieved decades ago."


++++++++++

It might be fascinating to observe science were the power
structures which control it to lose some of their dominance. Some
science might suffer. But there might be enormous benefit.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1992 16:02:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: The NAS on Science Misconduct

NAS on Misconduct

An NAS committee on scientific misconduct has made its
recommendations to NAS concerning the way misconduct in science
should be handled. Ignoring celebrated and notorious cases of
misconduct in science, the panel has recommended that "local
authorities" are best able to handle individual cases. Such a
recommendation flies in the face of recent examples of the
inability of local authorities to handle misconduct. Moreover,
the panel emphasizes the small number of misconduct cases proven
thus far by government agencies.

This is a rather typical response/reaction to scientific
misconduct by the establishment of science.

Here is the SCIFRAUD notation.

++++++++++

\Leary, Warren E. "Panel Opposes Government Policing
of Scientific Misconduct Cases," New York Times, 23
April 1992, p. A20.\

A panel of 22 experts convened by the National
Academy of Science two years ago to address the issue
of scientific misconduct has now issued its report:
"...(misconduct) is better dealt with by local
universities and scientific institutions than by
central authorities like government agencies."
Moreover, "(t)he long-anticipated report provided few
specific that could be used in formulating guidelines."

The chairman of the panel, Edward E. David Jr., is
quoted: "We felt it would be very difficult if not
impossible to draw up a set of guidelines that would
suit all situations."

The committee did recommend the creation of a NAS
committee to gather information and statistics on
scientific misconduct and advise institutions on how to
draft guidelines and deal with cases. Such a board
would include scientists but "...most of its members
would be representatives of the public and specialists
in ethics, law and other fields."

"The committee's study, financed by several
Federal agencies and private foundations, said the
incidence of scientific misconduct may be greatly
underreported but it is still undoubtedly low.
"From 1989 through 1991, more than 200 accusations
of misconduct in science were reported to government
agencies and offices, the panel said. Of that number,
about 30 cases so far have resulted in confirmed
findings of misconduct, it said."

"Copies of the report can be obtained from the
National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washing, D. C. 20418."


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 09:54:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: don zilversmit <dbz@cornella.bitnet>
Subject: Re: The NAS on Science Misconduct
in-reply-to: message of thu, 23 apr 1992 16:02:00 edt from <ach13@albnyvms>

The NY times' interpretation of a small segment of The NAS report i.e
"local authorities are best able to handle individual cases" is hardly
a good basis for the attack by Higgins that "such a recommendation flies
in the face of recent examples of the inability of local authorities to
handle misconduct". Does Higgins have data on how many times a local
resolution has served both justice and science? At least the NAS has
proposed to gather information and statistics on the subject and we should,
therefore, hold our comments untill data are available.

Don Zilversmit
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 11:43:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Re: The NAS on Science Misconduct

Perhaps the 'local authorities' are best able to handle scifraud
cases some of the time, but when the fraud is being perpetrated by either
friends of the authorities or the authorities themselves (as, after all,
Dr. Baltimore was not exactly powerless), their judgement may be a bit
clouded. Also, this approach by the NAS sounds an awful lot like passing
the buck. And the tone of that segment of their report sounded like they
are still unwilling to admit that fraud in science is widespread. Not
that there is direct proof that it is everywhere, but the first thing
undergraduate labs teach people is how to fudge data to match theory,
so I am a bit suspicious of the assumption that all scientists are
honest about everything.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 17:48:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Loyalty in Science

Loyalty in Science

The two "outrageous" cases of locals to which I referred in
the posting anent the NAS report on plagiary are, of course, the
Baltimore and Gallo matters. In both cases, "local authorities"
failed to uncover the perfidies of the local hero. Both are good
examples of one aspect of the sociology of science: the rule of
loyalty in any social organization, including science.

The investigation of Baltimore's data by authorities at
Tufts and MIT were plain shamelessly inadequate. Indeed, it took
intense investigations by Congressman John Dingle, and repeated
investigations by the NIH, to get Margot O'Toole's plain
statement of wrongdoing investigated adequately. The clear
evidence provided by the whistle-blower in this case was
insufficient to prod "locals" into action.

Similarly, in the case of Gallo, "locals" in NIH and in
the Department of Health and Human Services were only too happy to
benefit from the "discovery" of the cause of AIDS, as was the
Reagan Administration. It took an investigative reporter years of
digging to prod a reluctant administration into a thorough
investigation. And again, the protests of the French were
insufficient to overcome the locals' loyalties to their laboratory
and their American hero.

Why are locals clearly reluctant to investigate one of their
own? Simply: science is a social enterprise. Its team members
are expected to be team players. Loyalty is expected and the
rewards of loyalty are many: team members vicariously participate
in the success of the Big Name. Locals cannot be expected to
evaluate team members, one of their own, in a fair way. It is
only with distance that science and justice can be served.

I propose that the question to ask of locals is how
many cases of fraud and dishonesty have been covered up in the
name of loyalty, fidelity, and the good name of Alma Mater? Has
NAS any data on that point? Does it intend to collect data of
that kind?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1992 19:28:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Fun In Science?

Fun in Science?

Sometimes it is well to remember that fakery and fraud in
science need not always be taken so damn seriously. Science as a
human enterprise is so much more than the scientific method and
the dedicated anal retentives that some seem to like to make it.
As a human experience, a joyous and involving endeavor, we can
love it and laugh at it. We can see its serious side and we can
appreciate the funning that goes on. We can appreciate the
tremendous involvement that some feel but we can also see so much
more than that: science is made up of human beings with all
their complexities.

If one does not feel the totality of involvement, one cannot
be a scientist, a devoted and dedicated human being with all the
warts appertaining thereunto.

So, for some relief, I here include an annotation of a
recently republished book which tells of an earlier time for
science. In a sense, it was a happier time when people saw the
games of science as something to poke fun at.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\McKusick, Marshall. The Davenport Conspiracy. Iowa
City, Iowa: Iowa State University, 1970.\

The author is described as "State Archeologist"
and he is here telling the tale of a famous hoax, a
fraud, pulled on a "windbag and a liar" by his colleges
in the Davenport Academy. The hoaxed was the Reverend
Jacob Gass, a Swiss born Iowan who, as an amateur
excavator of Iowa's "Indian mounds," discovered relics
which were thought to be extremely important. The
artifacts were "evidence" of two important theories
about history in Iowa: 1) that the people who built
the mounds were not ancestors of native Americans,
Indians, but unknown people out of the distant past who
once lived in Iowa; and 2) that mastodons had lived
contemporaneously with humans in Iowa. Jacob Gass was
victimized as an archaeologist: he was given ample
evidence of both theories. Indeed, he was given so
much evidence, so fortuitously, that he eventually
became suspicious and came to realized that he had been
had. McKusick recounts a tale told by an old-timer, an
admission that the members of the Academy were just
pulling Gass' leg. Indeed, they all wanted to make a
fool of him.

There are several other things about the hoax that
are very important: the existence of The Davenport
Academy is typical and representative of how
archaeology fared in the pre-professional days of the
1870s. Quite clearly, mound digging was a sport, an
activity engaged in by enthusiasts who were not only
interested in artifacts but in social activities, in
funning with one another. Archaeology was not the
serious pastime is has become nor was it separate from
the social activities of the well-to-do in Iowa and
many other communities.

Secondly, the theories of the day supported the
idea that Iowa was once occupied by very important
people. The people who lived there now had been
anticipated in their wisdom by, perhaps, a lost tribe
of Israel which had the good sense to settle in those
parts. This theory was, in fact, a method of
anticipating nationalistic sentiments which developed
about the turn of the century. There are passing
references in this book to a similar hoax, the
Kensington Rune, which suggested the same sort of thing
for the Scandinavians who had settled in the American
Mid-west. Then, as now, science followed belief.

The Davenport conspiracy continued for many years
in part because there were those who wanted to believe
in the antiquity of Iowa and the superiority of the
people living there. Although the arguments were not
stated in those terms, the hoax was seen as "important
evidence" for those who wanted it to be true. The
scientific controversy which ensued involved some fair
to big names in the field.

++++++++++

The 1991 republication of this book is slightly enlarged
and takes into account some of the arguments raised against this
interpretation of the case.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 15:15:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Looking for Answers

Looking for Answers

Here in its entirety is a brief note which appeared in my
latest issue of Science. It concerns the "big questions" in the
Gallo case which, apparently, have not been answered in the soon-
to-be-released OSI report. These are the questions which ought to
be answered.


\Stone, Richard. "Healy Calls for Glasnost on Gallo
Case," Science 256 (24 April 1992), p. 446.\

The NIH Office of Scientific Integrity has
completed its inquiry into allegations of misconduct
against Robert Gallo and his associates, and the report
is now being scrutinized at the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Health. But NIH director Bernadine Healy,
speaking to a gathering of science writers in
Washington, D.C.m said the report doesn't really
address the "big questions" that have been raised about
Gallo's early work with HIV. To remedy this, she
suggests holding an "administrative meeting in which
all of those questions are discussed in an open forum."
The questions aren't exactly nit-picking either:
"Was this virus somehow stolen by the Gallo laboratory?
Was credit stolen? Did the Gallo laboratory really
develop the blood test for AIDS--did they really save
the blood supply? Did they give appropriate credit for
those cell lines {used to grow the virus in the
laboratory}, and were they generous with those cell
lines?" Healy asked. "These are the questions that
the American public wants to know, and I believe that
we have an obligations, one way or another, to make
sure that the answers to at least those questions are
answered."


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 17:32:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Mislabeling in Science

Mislabeling in Science

SCIFRAUD members cannot have failed to notice the
preoccupation with labeling theory. There is no question about
it: labeling theory is one useful way of viewing science in
general and misbehavior in science in particular. Briefly,
labeling theory suggests that it takes two to misbehave: one
person to do something or other and another (the agent of
interpretation) to identify the behavior as wrong, fraudulent,
dishonest or whatever. Similarly, it takes two to "discover,"
someone to find something or other and another to identify the
finding as a "scientific discovery."

Recently, Professor Alexander Kohn published a book on
"serendipity" in science but his book had a unique twist: he
identified persons in science who "missed out" in becoming
discoverers, who did not take advantage of "seeing" what they
saw. For some reason or another, their science was not identified
as "a discovery."

These are the false negatives in the history of science:
they have not been credited by the community with the discoveries
they made. They are the mislabeled by history. It is a
fascinating twist.

Here is the SCIFRAUD review.


\Kohn, Alexander. Fortune or Failure: Missed
Opportunities and Chance Discoveries. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell, 1989.\

The have been books aplenty on serendipity in
science: the fortuitous discovery, the happenstance of
invention, the good fortune that seems to favor the
prepared mind. This book is a variation on the usual
theme as Professor Kohn focuses on the missed
opportunities, the failures, the non-discoverers who,
for one reason or another, did not see what was right
in front of them. This is a collection of non-
discovery tales in science as well as a more usual
collection of stories of inventors who made their
discoveries without the specific intention of making
them. The work focuses mainly on biology and medicine,
fields in which the author's professional interests
lie.

Scientists all too frequently fabricate their
"discovery myths" in order to make it appear that they
followed proper scientific procedure in making their
discoveries. Indeed, if the discoverers themselves did
not tell the proper tale, text authors do. For
discovery myths are supposed to be edifying and
uplifting, they are supposed to underscore the basic
values of science and the scientific community. So
mythmakers in science and elsewhere tell edifying tales
for their own purposes, in the present case emphasizing
the trails to truth and the roads to obscurity. Fame
or obscurity are thought to be the appropriate rewards
for success or failure in science, evidences of the
success of science in sorting out discoverers and non-
entities. Evidence of proper science is the Pantheon
of Science wherein are enshrined all its heroes and
from which all non-entities are, appropriately,
excluded. Both myths, of success and failure, are
marred by history. There have been errors of two
kinds: discoverers are not always identified as such
by the community and the wrong people have been
mislabeled and credited with a discovery. These errors
are the special focus of Kohn's work.

Sorting history to discover the chronicles of
mislabeled failures one finds evidences of
unappreciated discoveries just as one finds chance
operating in creating its heroes. Being identified as
a successful discoverer is as iffy as being a
discoverer at all. Kohn begins his list of
unappreciated discoverers with Ibn-al-Naifs who, in
1242, contradicted Galen's teaching concerning the
direct connection between the two parts of the heart.
"There is no connection between the two sides. It must
therefore be that when the blood has become thin, it is
passed into the arterial vein {the pulmonary artery} to
the lung, to be dispersed inside the substance of the
lung and to mix with air. The finest parts of the
blood are then strained, passing into the venous artery
{the pulmonary vein} reaching the left of the two
cavities of the heart, after mixing with the air and
becoming fit for the generation of pneuma." (p. 5) But
scientific credit for that discovery was attributed to
Michael Servetus (1553) and to Realdo Colombo (1559)
until, by chance, the Islamic manuscripts were
discovered in Cambridge and Stanford in 1952.

The sad part of this story is that one need not
only be a discoverer, one also needs to be recognized
as a discoverer and identified by scientists as the one
who ought to be credited. It is not merely the social
process of making a discovery that matters here, what
also matters is the social process of being identified.
And the history of science contains tales of being
identified being chosen the appropriate one. The
values operating here are clearly part of the sociology
of science: "There were also discoveries that were not
appreciated as such, because they encountered hostility
and opposition from well-known contemporary scientists.
The most serious enemy of discovery and scientific
attainment based on a new idea is dogma and authority;
the accepted dogma of today may be the error of
tomorrow." (p. 5)

"When Jenner, the father of vaccination, asked the
Royal Society for permission to present his findings
and ideas there, the answer was: 'He ought not to risk
his reputation by presenting to the learned body
anything which appeared so much at variance with
established knowledge, and withal so incredible.' In
1798 Jenner was also attacked by the Anti-vaccination
Society, and in 1803 at Cambridge Dr. Ramsden claimed
that practice of vaccination was prohibited by God's
law. The negative attitude of the Catholic Church to
vaccination reached the extreme when in 1885 there was
a smallpox epidemic in Montreal. The Catholic
population, having refused vaccination, suffered
terribly, while the Protestant, who had been
vaccinated, escaped the epidemic almost entirely." (p.
7)

"In 1845, when J. J. Waterston submitted a paper
on the molecular theory of gases to the Royal Society,
it was rejected as utter nonsense, to be rediscovered
by Joule and James Clerk Maxwell forty-five years
later." (p. 7-8)

"In a letter of 8 July 1901 to Jost Winteler
concerning the difficulties he had with his Ph.D.
thesis, Einstein wrote: 'The stupor of authority is
the greatest enemy of truth.'" (p. 8)

And much later in the book, "Truth is neither
relative and subjective nor absolute and objective, but
essentially determined and measured by a given thought
style. Thus truth in science is a function of a
particular style of thinking that has been accepted by
the thought collective. It can therefore vary with
time and culture. For Fleck (Genesis and Development
of a Scientific Fact), reality was a 'systematic
harmony of illusion which is acceptable because it is
coherent.' Every era and age has its own thought style
and cognition is a social process.
"A fact begins with a signal of resistance from
the collective. This signal, this indication, becomes
gradually stylized, then consolidated and eventually it
emerges as an accepted fact, on condition that it does
not stand alone, but is interwoven into an existing
system of ideas that fit the given thought style.
Knowledge based on such facts is therefore not only the
result of the interaction of the scientist with the
subject studied, but also includes the collective,
conditioned by the ruling thought style. 'Between the
subject and the object there exists a third thing, the
community.'' (p. 168)

Professor Kohn provides excellent examples of the
operation of that community in the labelling of
science's heroes and the construction of science's
myths.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 17:35:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Fabricating Heroes

Fabricating Heroes

There was a celebration of sorts in the Science Times of
Tuesday, 5 May 1992: the recognition of the finding of further,
important residuals of the Big Bang. This time the evidence
concerned temperature variations in the distribution of matter
with warmer areas of the universe accumulating more mass than the
cooler. This evidence is suggestive of the mechanism by means of
which the cosmos has grown: this is evidence of the accumulation
of matter in "clumps." It is a remarkable achievement based on
millions of measurements made by COBE, an orbiting satellite
initially launched in November, 1989, and reported by a team
headed by George M. Smoot of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

This is, of course, new evidence in support of an old theory
and it is confirming evidence of other experimenters' work. In
1978, the Nobel prize was awarded Penzias and Wilson for their
detection of the "residual noise" of the Big Bang. But, as in
the case of Penzias and Wilson, the earlier work of theorists was
ignored. And the reasons for the celebration of Dr. Smoot, no
matter how well merited, are suggestive of some of the same
difficulties: earlier theorists are ignored. When these
instances are encountered by sociologists and others who try to
understand the process of discoverer-identification in science, it
is ample evidence of the very special process of discoverer-
identification. In other words, "discovery" is one
thing but "being credited" is something else. Sociologists must
try to understand both processes.

Dr. Smoot is being feted in the usual manner: Smoot was not
one of the Big Names at Lawrence Berkeley but now he is

"...in demand day and night for radio and television
interviews and could not even mow the lawn without
being interrupted by a magazine photographer.
"His desktop computer's memory was saturated with
electronic messages of congratulation, requests for
more details of the discovery, perhaps some critical
comments.
"As he sat in his cluttered office last week, an
assistant brought in a letter from a literary agent
wanting him to write a book. A graduate student handed
him a sheath of news clippings from all over the world
and more interview requests."


Big Science is celebrating an achievement, a success, a
discovery and, using Carlyle's model of greatness, identifying
the individual as a "Great Man" and an important scientist.
This is an anticipated celebration of a Nobelist-to-happen and
damned misleading.

There are several things wrong with Carlyle's model of the
Great Man: Smoot did not work alone, nor was he personally
responsible for the remarkable success of COBE nor of the
instrument itself. Smoot is a team member, a team leader maybe,
but a team player nonetheless and the team's victory is merely
alluded to here. The victor is here identified as Smoot himself.
That is a gross oversimplification of the process of doing
science. No one has been clearer on this point in the discovery
process than Bruno Latour: let us celebrate the achievement of
the many rather than oversimplifying and crediting the one. The
individual is NOT the great man but the participant in years of
work by many.

There are other things about the celebration which are a bit
too focused: the history of physics, for example, suggests that
this achievement belongs in a context of predictions derived from
theoretical physics and other measurements made in experimental
physics. The theoretical context is already "clouded" by other
"unfortunate" lapses in adequate citation and appreciation of the
work of others. Thus, for example, the work of Ralph Alpher, now
of Union College, and Robert Herman, now of the University of
Texas at Austin, was ignored in the laurels heaped on the
findings of Penzias and Wilson in their 1978 Nobel prize.
Credit seems to go to the "community's" definition of who
deserves it rather than to the people who did the work and
made the predictions. Indeed, the "blindness" of the physics
community to the work of Gamow, Alpher and Herman has been
the subject of previous postings on this board.

Who gets chosen to represent the "significant discoveries"
of science seems to have little to do with the complex process of
discovery and a good deal to do with the values of science and
scientists. Indeed, the process of identifying Smoot as the
latest "heroic scientist" with an appropriate lifestyle of the
rich and famous seems a bit less than an honest description.
There is much more here than the attribution of "significant
discovery" to Smoot; here is an example of a "discovery" being
fabricated, then celebrated.

The entire process of attribution of scientific originality
and discovery requires reexamination. There is certainly enough
credit to go around concerning work on the Big Bang, but the
community of science seems to focus the credit to the few it has
identified as its heroes.

Could this be the elite identifying itself? The "chosen
few"?

REFERENCES

Alpher, Ralph A. and Herman, Robert. "Reflections on Early 'Big
Bang' Cosmology," Physics Today, August, 1988, pp. 24-34.\

Bernstein, Jeremy. Three Degrees Above Zero. New York: Mentor,
1986. (Originally, Scribner's, 1984).

Bernstein, Jeremy. "The Birth of Modern Cosmology," The American
Scholar (Winter 1985/86), pp. 7-18.

Brannigan, Agustine. The Social Basis of Scientific Discovery.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang
to Black Holes. New York: Bantam, 1988.

Kurp, Patrick. "Union Physicist to See His Theories Launched
Skyward," Albany Times-Union, 14 November 1989, pp. C1, C2.

Latour, Bruno. Science in Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1987.

Weinberg, Stephen. The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the
Universe. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 18:45:27 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: robin hanson <hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Fabricating Heroes
In-Reply-To: The message of 6 May 1992 14:35 PDT from ACHiggins
<ACH13%ALBNYVMS.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

"This is, of course, new evidence in support of an old theory"

The recent COBE results are indeed important experimental results, and
they will constrain future theorizing, but it is hard to call them
evidence confirming the big bang.

What was measured was a scalar field over a 2-sphere. Previous
measurements had been consistent with that field being uniform, but just
about everybody, even the rare skeptics of the big bang, expected that
we would find non-uniformities in the field if we had precise enough
measurments. (Almost every spatial field we know of has variations.)
Big bang theory does not predict the magnitude of those
non-uniformities. Most attempts to predit the fluctuations had expected
them to be much bigger than they are. Nor to my knowledge had any
non-big bang theory predicted their magnitude.

So now we finally can see the fluctuations. Very useful information,
but not really confirming anything. If people are claiming otherwise,
they are fabricating evidential support, the worst sort of fabrication
from a traditional point of view.

Robin Hanson hanson@charon.arc.nasa.gov "Stake Your Reputation"
415-604-3361 MS-269-2, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035
510-651-7483 47164 Male Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539-7921


There was a celebration of sorts in the Science Times of
Tuesday, 5 May 1992: the recognition of the finding of further,
important residuals of the Big Bang. This time the evidence
concerned temperature variations in the distribution of matter
with warmer areas of the universe accumulating more mass than the
cooler. This evidence is suggestive of the mechanism by means of
which the cosmos has grown: this is evidence of the accumulation
of matter in "clumps." It is a remarkable achievement based on
millions of measurements made by COBE, an orbiting satellite
initially launched in November, 1989, and reported by a team
headed by George M. Smoot of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.


and it is confirming evidence of other experimenters' work. In
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 17:59:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on Attribution

More on Attribution

In response to my posting on the identification of Dr. Smoot
as a Big Name in contemporary cosmology, Professor Alpher of Union
College sent me a brief note on his thoughts concerning the matter.
With his permission I share his (slightly emended) thoughts with
members of this network.



The role of Alpher and Herman in re the theoretical
background of COBE was recognized by NASA in their
science and press briefings just prior to its launch.
Herman and I were there, gave invited talks, had a VIP
tour of the satellite mated to its Delta launch
vehicle, and have been on the mailing list for results
as they came out. Our photos were included in a slick
brochure prepared by NASA on the COBE experiment.

I have been told that the Washington Post, in reporting
on the NASA release of COBE's measurement of anisotropy
in the microwave background, did have a proper
description of the history of the background theory and
experiments in which Herman and I are listed. I have a
clipping coming in the mail from a friend in
Washington. I do not know how they handled Smoot's
role.

As I understand it George Smoot was the leader of the
DMR (differential microwave radiometer) experiment
aboard COBR. In a preprint just received, entitled
"The COBE Mission: Its Design and Performance Two Years
After Launch", to be published in the 1 October 1992
Astrophysical Journal, the authors are: N. W. Boggess,
J. C. Mather, R. Weiss, C. L. Bennett, E. S. Cheng, E.
Dwek, S. Gulkis, M. G. Hauser, M. A. Janssen, T.
Kelsall, S. S. Meyer, S. H. Moseley, T. L. Murdock, R.
A. Shafer, R. F. Silverberg, G. F. Smoot, D. T.
Wilkinson, E. L. Wright.

If I had to pick one person to identify with COBE it
would be John Mather, who has been involved from the
beginning, for virually his whole career, as the
principal investigator for it all, as well as being
responsible specifically for one of the three
instruments, namely, FIRAS.

Why is the reported measurement so important? The Big
Bang model has over the years become canonical, as
various alternatives have fallen by the wayside or not
produced anything quantitative. But it has had its
share of enigmas or paradoxes, one of which is that the
basic model assumes the universe is homogeneous and
isotropic. It is not surprising that the Alpher-Herman
prediction in 1948 of the existence and magnitude of a
background radiation have it to be isotropic. However,
as more and more data have accumulated on structure in
the universe, and as theorists have attemped to
understand the development of this structure, it has
become clear that one needs to have some departure from
isotropy, however small, in the background radiation
which would mean departures from isotropy in density as
well. These departures are needed to act as seeds for
nucleation of the various structures we now observe.
If there were no seeds, one would need time for
fluctuations to develop after the radiation decoupled
from matter in the early universe, and then added time
for structure to develop. Theorists find that the
total times required are un-comfortably close to the
age of the Big Bang model of the universe. Hence the
enigma and the important of the current resolution. It
does not prove the Big Bang model; rather it removes
one of the items from the list of unanswered paradoxes.

I have heard that the departures from isotropy revealed
by COBE are consistent with what one would expect from
quantum fluctuations in the very early universe which
would have been amplified in the early inflationary
phase of the Big Bang. I have to go back to the
published work of such as Guth, Linde, Steinhardt,
etc., people who have studied the possibility of an
early inflation, to check this out for myself. I will
do so in due course.

All the best,

Ralph Alpher




++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 16:55:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Labelling Discoverers: II

Labeling Discoverers: II

There are two social processes involved in discoveries: the
first is making the discovery and the second, getting recognized
for it. Making a discovery involves "creativity" and
"inventiveness" but being identified involves: getting labelled
as the inventor/discoverer and that is another social process
entirely. The difficulties of being recognized are the subject of
this posting. The case study of the problem of being recognized
is John Vincent Atanasoff, inventor of the digital computer.

The case for the priority of John V. Atanasoff is a strong
one: in 1973, after a multimillion dollar and multiyear trial
regarding patents, a federal judge ruled that Atanasoff was the
inventor of the digital computer and that the work of John W.
Mauchly was "derived" from Atanasoff's. The ruling was very
clear and was never appealed by the Sperry Rand Corporation, the
big loser in the case. Atanasoff's work was done at Iowa State
in Ames, in the years 1939-1941, by Atanasoff and his graduate
assistant, Clifford Berry.

The federal judge in this case was very kind to John Mauchly
in suggesting only that he had "derived" ideas and principles
from Atanasoff. Less kind words like "pirated" and "stolen"
could as well have been used. After all, Atanasoff had been more
than "professionally courteous" in giving Mauchly access to and
information about his machine. Atanasoff had also provided
documents which would be immediately useful to John Mauchly.
Atanasoff had been a host in every sense to his guest in June
1941, when, during five days of examination, Mauchly "poached" on
the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, ABC. For his part, Mauchly
maintained, right up until his death in 1980, that he had learned
nothing from Atanasoff, that Atanasoff's machine did not work,
and that he had invented his own machine prior to his visit to
Iowa. At the trial, his story of independently inventing the
ideas he was to display in the ENIAC were found to be not
credible.

The courts made a clear decision but the scientific
community has not. Strangely, although the court's ruling was
formally handed down in October 1973, the matter of
appropriately crediting Atanasoff has been delayed: Atanasoff
remains relatively unknown. The press was silent on the
Atanasoff victory in 1973 as it was preoccupied with the
Watergate scandal. And the press has never adequately promoted
the name or the fame of Atanasoff. For example, the New York
Times Index has nothing on Atanasoff until 1983, a full decade
after the historic Sperry-Honeywell decision, and then its
reference is only a brief statement by William J. Broad
concerning Atanasoff's claims to priority. Indeed, it was not
until 1987 that professional sources began to recognize
Atanasoff's claim: in that year, Allan R. Mackintosh published
an article in Physics Today which was a clear recognition of
Atanasoff's claims. Then, in 1988, there appeared two books in
which the "bizarre" story of Atanasoff was told. While it is
true, as Mackintosh suggests, "Atanasoff's contribution is
becoming increasingly recognized..." (p. 25) that recognition has
been long in coming. More: that recognition has been denied him
in spite of his successful defense in law of his priority, his
"proof" of priority. Consider, for example, that the latest
edition of the encyclopedia Britannica (17th edition, 1991)
provides brief sketches on Mauchly and Eckert in which
Atanasoff's work is acknowledged, but Atanasoff himself does not
have a separate sketch crediting him as the inventor of the
computer. Credit for the computer is still given to Mauchly and
Eckert.

Mackintosh addresses the question of recognition and
suggests, by way of explanation of the scientific community's
failure that: a) Atanasoff's efforts on the ABC were
interrupted by the war just as he was on the verge of success;
b) there was no individual or group pushing for priority for
Atanasoff while Mauchly advanced his own claims; c) Atanasoff
made no particular efforts to publicize his contributions; d)
Iowa State "...is not particularly close to the major centers of
academic influence. I believe that if Atanasoff had carried out
his work at Berkeley or Harvard, or indeed Cambridge or
Copenhagen, he would have been recognized as the inventor of the
electronic computer long ago." (p. 32)

There are other factors too: the science community already
had its "inventors" of the computer: John Mauchly and J. Prosper
Eckert. Those two basked in the glory of attribution for several
decades by the time of the court decision and the scientific
community is unaccustomed to rewriting its history, its textbooks
and its myths, easily: that history and those myths serve
ideological purposes. The community's idols are not easily
brought down. Official history remains official history,
especially when there are good and sufficient reasons to retain
it--and there are good and sufficient reasons: the ideology of
Big Science seems to demand it. The ideology of Big Science
has it that Big Names do Big Science, that Major Figures make
Major Inventions. In the case of Mauchly and Eckert, their early
work was done at the University of Pennsylvania. That early work
involved some very important projects, including the development
of the hydrogen bomb and some very important people, Edward
Teller and John von Neumann. Mauchly and Eckert's machines were
expensive, complex, and definitely Big Science while the Atanasoff
device was constructed in the cellar of the Physics Building by a
professor and his graduate student out of parts scavenged from
the scrap heap. The apparent success of desk top science is not
consonant with the contemporary image of success following upon
government's investment of Big Bucks. It is not consonant with
contemporary ideology that tabletop science produces major
contributions. The admission that science need not involve major
expense is not easily made. One could not push the Atanasoff
tale and simultaneously request billions for the for, say, high
energy physics.

Note should be made that the first government to credit
Atanasoff with the invention of the computer was Bulgaria. (That
episode is well reported in Mollenhoff, pages 151-154.) There
was more than a bit of chauvinism involved: Atanasoff is of
Bulgarian descent and the Bulgarians wanted a share in the glory
of having "one of their own" the inventor of the computer. Then
too, some of the earliest recognition of Atanasoff came from
Iowans, and Iowa is where Atanasoff did his work: Mollenhoff is
an Iowan and he published his initial accounts in the Des Moines
Register, and his book at the University of Iowa Press. The
University of Iowa recognized Atanasoff's invention shortly after
the court's decision. In other words, "scientific recognition"
involves some very non-scientific values. One might also point
to the professional pride displayed in Mackintosh's advancement
of Atanasoff's priority: Mackintosh was so very proud of the
fact that Atanasoff, trained as a theoretical physicist and a
research scientist, was to become recognized as inventing the
computer, a great advance in technology. And finally, Mauchly
and Eckert continued, after 1973, to tell their side of the
story, to push their own claims to priority and to disparage
Atanasoff and Judge Larson's 1973 decision.

In all of this, science displays itself to be a very human
institution. But, in all of this, one must look to reasons other
than "priority" in understanding the process of labelling a
genius or an inventor. The label is used by labellers for THEIR
purposes and it is senseless to look to priority claims, or court
records, to determine on whom a label will be stuck. To
understand labelling, one must study labellers and not
discoverers. One must study, as Broad suggests, the process of
historical reconstruction.

References

Anderson, Jack and Van Atta, Dale. "Who Invented the
Computer?" Gloversville-Johnstown Leader Herald, 11 August
1989, p. 4.

Broad, William J. "Who Should Get the Glory for Inventing the
Computer?" New York Times, 22 March 1983, p. C1.

Brannigan, Agustine. The Social Basis of Scientific Discovery.
New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1981.

Burks, Alice R. and Burks, Arthur W. The First Electronic
Computer: The Atanasoff Story. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press, 1988.

Mackintosh, Allen R. "The First Electronic Computer," Physics
Today 40 (March, 1982), pp. 25-32.

Mollenhoff, Clark R. Atanasoff: Forgotten Father of the
Computer. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1988.
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 10:16:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: A followup on earlier remarks

Quoted from a telephone conversation with some folks at NASA, there is a
preprint circulating, not yet accepted for publication, which summarizes
the anisotropy measurement as quadrupole, rms normalized, with amplitude
16 plus or minus 4 microkelvin, or a delta T/T of about 6E(-6).

I received the copy from the Washington Post. Not a bad article. It gives
a succinct view of the history of the microwave background radiation, in
which the description of our role is incomplete.
The history is given as a time table and credits George Gamow, Ralph Alpher
and Robert as having in the 1940's predicted the relative amount of hydrogen
and helium in the universe, in line with nuclear reactions created in an extreme
ly hot Big Bang. Then it goes on to credit Penzias and Wilson with observing
the background radiation in 1964. Nothing is said of Alpher and Herman having
predicted the existence and value of the background radiation in 1948. Curious
omission?

Today the New York Times Science News has a long article on the anisotropy
observations. It too is not bad, and in fact puts the observations into a
more comfortable perspective than have other articles published since the
NASA announcement. No history, or very little, except to mention the work
of Guth and others on the possibility of inflated quantum fluctuations, and
the work of Harrison and Zeldovich on the spectrum of fluctuations, discussed
before they were known to exist.

This may be getting a bit esoteric for readers of SCIFRAUD. Sorry.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Tue, 12 May 1992 20:01:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Program for a Conference

Announcement

The 1992 Pew Science Symposium, to be held at Union College,
Schenectady, New York, on 29-30 May, ought to be of interest to
members of this board. The title of the meeting is "Ethics and
Science."

From the program: "The New York State Cluster of the Pew
Program in Undergraduate Science Education will address the role
of ethics in both the practice and teaching of science through
this symposium. Recent advances and initiatives in science as
well as the growing use of the computer and its implications for
the use of knoweldge have posed new and serious challenges to
the consensus that has sustained support for science and science
education in our society. Thew New York State Pew Cluster hopes
to explore these issues by inviting prominent specialists to
speak to an audience including scientists, science educators,
policymakers, and students."

The schools included in the Pew Cluster are: Bernard
College, Colgate University, Cornell University, Hamilton
College, Manhattan College, Saint Lawrence University, and Union
College.

The program: Friday, May 29

10:00 - 1:00 p.m. Registration
College Center

12:00-12:45 p.m. Lunch
Hale House
Dining Room

1:00 - 1:10 p.m. Introductory Remarks
College Center Auditorium

Terry Weiner, Union College
Yervant Terzian, Cornell University

1:10 - 2:45 p.m. A History Lesson: Scientific Practice Under Hitler
College Center Auditorium

Moderator: Steven Sargent, Union College
Panelists: Reinhard Siegmund-Schultze,
University of New Hampshire

Mark Walker, Union College

Sheila Weiss, Clarkson University

2:45 - 3:00 p.m. Break

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Ethics and the New Biology
College Center Auditorium

"The New Reproductive Technologies"
Larry Plamer, Cornell University

Moderator: Robert Baker, Union College

5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Reception and Cocktails
Ramada Inn, Schenectady

6:30 - 9:00 p.m. Dinner
Ramada Inn, Schenectady

Keynote Address
Robert Veatch, Kennedy School of Ethics,
Georgetown University

Saturday, May 30, 1992

8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast
College Center

9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Ethical Problems in Everyday Science
College Center Auditorium

"Plagiarism and Scientific Research"
Ned Feder and Walter Stewart
National Institutes of Health

"Hackers, Hijackers, and Other Computer Terrorists"
Deborah Johnson, Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute

Moderator: Professor David Peak, Union College

11:00 - 12:00 p.m. The Place of Ethics in the Science Curriculum
College Center Auditorium

Panelists Robert Baker, Union College

David Hornung, Saiant Lawrence University

Deborah Johnson, Rennselaer Polytechnical Institute

12:30 p.m. Lunch
Hale House
Dining Room


Please Note: On Friday, May 29, you may register from 10:00
to 1:00 p.m. in College Center. Registration will continue on
Saturday from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. in College Center. The
registration fee for non-cluster participatnts is $40 and will
cover all meals.

This symposium is sponsored by the New York State Cluster of
the PEW Program in Undergraduate Science Education.

(These notes are based on the program.)



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 20:48:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Resistance to Innovation

Resistance to Innovation

T. S. Kuhn blithely wrote about "paradigm switches" and
the processes of change in science. His book caught on, became an
extraordinary success, and the notion of "paradigm switch" a
standard phrase, if not a joke, within the scientific community.
In point of fact, the processes of change in that community do not
follow the facile phase as, too often, a switch is not easily
accomplished. Scientists resist change: they have commitments,
they have normal science, they have habits, they have all sorts of
"good and sufficient reasons" for each new generation to wonder:
why is this "dead wood" still around? Dead Wood in science, and
in medicine, is not accidental but built into the structure of
science.

Here are two annotations from the SCIFRAUD file. One
concerns the resistance of scientists and the other the resistance
of clinical practitioners of medicine to accept change. They are
written 30 years apart but the recognition of the resistance, and
the good and sufficient reasons for it, is quite remarkable.
There are some processes in science which are, on their face,
quite illogical given the pretenses of science...and of medicine.


\Barber, Bernard. "Resistance by Scientists to
Scientific Discovery," Science 134 (1 September 1961),
pp. 596-602.\

Resistance to new ideas is not the result of
mere "humanity" with all its frailties. Quite the
contrary, new ideas are resisted because of alternative
theories which hold sway, because of methodological
proclivities to which collectives are committed,
because of religious ideas, because of professional
standing, because of professional specialization,
because of societies, schools and seniority. In other
words, there are good reasons limiting the
transmission of ideas across scientific lives.

There are excellent quotes throughout this
article describing the impact of "resistances" on some
of the Big Names of science. Of course, there is
Mendel who, as an amateur and a monk, was "outside" the
course of biology and his ideas could be ignored.
Then, there is Faraday, whose ideas had to be
mathematized by Maxwell before physicists would listen.
Then too, there is Pasteur who, as a chemist rather
than a physician, was an outsider to the profession he
most wanted to influence.

The entire Royal Society is taken to task as
one illustrative case because the structure of the
society made it possible to ignore anyone who was not a
member.

Citing Plank, Barber quotes "This
experience (of rejection)...gave me also an opportunity
to learn a new fact--a remarkable one, in my opinion:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a
new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

"...as scientists get older they are more
likely to be subject to one or another of the several
cultural and social sources of resistance I have
analyzed here. As a scientist gets older he is more
likely to be restricted in his response to
innovation by his substantive and methodological
preconceptions and by his other standings, to have
specialized interests, to be a member or official of an
established organization, and to be associated with a
'school.'"

+++++++

Here is Gina Kolata's comments concerning the medical
professions resistance to alternative therapies.


\Kolata, Gina. "Confronting New Ideas, Doctors Often
Hold On to the Old," New York Times, 10 May 1992, p.
E6.\

Innovations in medicine are reported here not to
be picked up by practitioners. Recently,
"breakthroughs" in medical care seem not to have been
given to patients. The four examples of this kind of
delay in clinical applications are: streptokinase, a
drug on which medical reports have been made for 13
years, can save the lives of heart-attack patients.
Yet the medical community persists in using a drug
which is 10 times more expensive and slightly more
likely to cause strokes. Then, too, researchers have
reported that simple lumpectomies followed by radiation
is as effective as a mastectomy but physicians, even
surgeons at major hospitals, continue to use
mastectomies. For men with prostate cancer, surgery is
still "standard practice." But researchers report that
simpler radiation therapy is just as effective. And,
finally, "(f)our years of data suggest that most ulcers
can be cured, not just temporarily squelched, with
antibiotic therapy. The most recent study, published
this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, showed
that only about 12 percent of ulcer patients treated
with a combination of two cheap generic antibiotics had
a recurrence in the next two years. But 75 to 95
percent of patients with a highly promoted brand-name
drug that suppresses stomach acid had a recurrence in
that time. Nonetheless, gastroenterologists say,
doctors are very unlikely to offer or suggest, even
tentatively, this antibiotic therapy."

Kolata reports on some of the factors which
contribute to the reluctance of physicians to adopt to
changes in medicine. The medical profession is reported
to be limited by its own methods of training: "you
spend a lot of time learning and memorizing how you're
supported to deal with things... Now someone says,
'We're going to do it is a different way.' That means
all your investment is worthless." Moreover, in
medical school, "'The attributes that constantly
re-emphasized...are caution, prudence, don't move too
fact -- first, do no harm.'"

"This inbred caution may be impeding acceptance of
the new ulcer therapy, gastroenterologists said. To
accept the antibiotic treatment means accepting the
hypothesis that a common bacterium, Helicobacter
pylori, causes ulcers, not excess stomach acid."
"Other times, doctors may delay implementing new
findings because they may be more swayed by their
clinical impressions than by data from large studies."

"A major factor that can impede the adoption of
research results is drug company advertising and
promotion... Drugs that are highly profitable, through
of questionable effectiveness, are often widely used
compared to those that are cheap and easily available.
"...(E)xcellent data show that aspirin taken during a
heart attack can cut mortality rates by nearly a
quarter, with no adverse side effects... Still only a
minority of heart-attack patients receive aspirin.
'I've often said that if aspirin were half as effective
but cost 10 times as much and were available only by
prescription, maybe it would be used in heart
attacks..."

"Many medical researchers also are convinced that
some doctors are simply unaware of the medical
literature. 'Many doctors do not take the time to read
or understand journal articles,' said Dr. John Glick,
director of the University of Pennsylvania's cancer
center."

"But for those who ask what motivates doctors to
adopt, or disdain, a new treatment, he poses a
question. Will doctors embrace a probably better
treatment than takes twice as much of their time to
perform and is reimbursed at half the rate of the old
one? 'That, I think, would be an acid test,' Dr.
Isner..." said Isner, cardiologist at Tufts University.

++++++++

Of course there are major differences between
practitioners of medicine and science but there are commitments
made by both to what they have learned. The process of learning
involves making a commitment. That commitment inhibits accepting
new ideas. A fascinating paradox.

Reference

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 20:38:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on Atanasoff

More on Atanasoff

The SCIFRAUD files get passed around the electronic nets
in diverse ways and sometimes they result in some excellent
responses. Here is a posting by Berney Williams which
particularly caught my attention for its elaboration of the
sociology of the situation regarding Atanasoff in particular and
discoveries in general.


+++++++++++++
+++++++++++++


*** Forwarding note from SHOTHC-L--SIVM 05/14/92 19:32 ***
Received: by SIVM (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 0727; Thu, 14 May 92 19:32:51 EDT
Date: Thu, 14 May 1992 16:10:15 CDT
reply-to: history of computing issues <shothc-l@sivm.bitnet>
sender: history of computing issues <shothc-l@sivm.bitnet>
from: berney williams <berney%rdpub@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Labelling Discoverers: II
to: allan needell <nassh100@sivm.bitnet>

With some apologies to Brad Burke, who does not want to go
through another round of "the Atanasoff question" I feel compelled to
add my 2 cents:

A. C. Higgins is correct, the social processes of discovery and
recognition {or perhaps communication?} are very different. However,
Steven Lubar is also correct, "Patent courts decide very narrow issues
of law; historians are interested in a different set of questions." Cal
Prylock and Robert Rosenberg also raise important points: ". . . the Atanasoff
case is interesting exactly because of its complexity," and "Cui bono?"

The controversy over priority for the invention of the computer is
characteristic of a general class of scientific priority disputes.
Following leads in Robert Merton's classic work on simultaneous independent
scientific discovery, I have traced an extensive literature on the
nature of priority disputes well back to the middle of the 19th century.

I have also argued for nearly a decade that the electronic digital
computer is one more example of multiple independent invention. Let me
offer a brief assessment, at the risk of repeating too much of what I
said in my review of both Clark Mollenhoff's "Atanasoff: Forgotten
Father of the Computer" and Alice and Arthur Burks' "The First
Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story" {The Annals of Iowa, v. 50
no. 5 Summer 1990, 568-572}.

It is possible that Judge Larson's ruling was correct and that John
Mauchly had not thought of an electronic digital computer before meeting
John Atanasoff, but it is not likely. By 1940 a number of different
projects were underway to prove the feasibility of electronic computing,
coordinated by Samuel Cauldwell for the National Defense Research
Committee. Cauldwell was funding some of Atanasoff's research and he
visited Ames very close to the time that Mauchly did. Atanasoff was not
as isolated as some people infer. Letters between Mauchly and
Atanasoff, introduced by Honeywell's lawyers to discredit Mauchly's
recollections, reveal that both Mauchly and Atanasoff had at least some
knowledge of the NDRC computer projects. Some of the thousands of
exhibits in the patent trial are reports of that work, but the Honeywell
brief did not emphasize those projects.

A judge rules on the issues raised in an adversarial proceeding. Judge
Larson was presented with Sperry's claim that John Mauchly originated
the idea of electronic computing, and Honeywell's claim that Mauchly had
not thought of electronic digital computing until Atanasoff gave him the
idea. Neither Sperry nor Honeywell had anything to gain by emphasizing
to Judge Larson that by the time Mauchly visited Atanasoff at Ames in
1940 the idea of electronic computing was common enough that National
Cash Register, Bell Telephone Labs, Radio Corporation of America,
Eastman Kodak, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology all had
teams trying to develop electronic computers to automatically aim
antiaircraft guns.

(In the summer of 1942 the NDRC accepted the feasibility of electronic
computers for gun control. Some practical design had been demonstrated,
but the high speed and precision of the electronic devices was too great
a mismatch for the slower and imprecise mechanical guns. NDRC put the
designs on the shelf. I have detailed the influence of these designs on
the ENIAC in papers presented to SHOT, The Midwest Junto of HSS, and the
New York Academy of Sciences.)

Clark Mollenhoff's book is necessary and fascinating reading because of
its account of the discovery of Atanasoff's early work by the Honeywell
lawyers and the means by which they arranged to use his machine as a
legal weapon. His book also contains a wealth of detail about the
relationship between Atanasoff and Mauchly during the trial that would
not have been told without Mollenhoff's effort, but he overstates his case
in depicting John Mauchly as a thief and a rogue.

Mollenhoff says Judge Larson implied that Mauchly lied under oath, and
that only judicial restraint kept Larson from calling Mauchly a liar.
Judge Larson's ruling in 1973 was more even handed than Clark Mollenhoff
presents it. In a long and complex opinion Larson affirmed that "Mauchly
may in good faith have believed that he did not derive the subject
matter claimed in the ENIAC patent from Atanasoff." The judge also
acknowledged that "Atanasoff saw the ENIAC machine as it existed on
October 26, 1945, and in early 1946 extensive publicity was given to the
ENIAC project, acknowledging Eckert and Mauchly as the inventors, but
Atanasoff did not assert that the ENIAC machine included antything of
his until two decades later." (John Larson, Decision October 19, 1973,
District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division, "Honeywell Inc. v. Sperry
Rand," in "The United States Patents Quarterly," 180 {1974}, 716-717.)

Mollenhoff provides very little information about how the two disputed
machines worked. Alice and Arthur Burks present a very detailed
description of both the ABC and the ENIAC in their book. They conclude
that Mauchly stole not just the central idea of digital electronic
processing, but also actual switching design techniques and structural
features from Atanasoff's machine. This technical detail is their most
useful contribution, but they go too far in reading later developments
back into Atanasoff's designs. For example, they see Atanasoff's
rotating banks of capacitors as influencing all later generations of
regenerative memory devices. This connection would hold only if all
later regenerative memory depended on Mauchly's transmission of
Atanasoff's ideas. This claims too great a role for either Mauchly or
Atanasoff.

Beyond being the instigator, John Mauchly had very little personal
contribution to the design details of the ENIAC, so we should not be
surprised to find little similarity between the ABC and the ENIAC, even
if John Mauchly had stolen Atanasoff's ideas. J. Presper Eckert was
the chief designer of the ENIAC. A number of other people on the team,
including Arthur Burks, contributed parts of the ENIAC design.

The Honeywell vs Sperry litigation lasted more than five years. The
original trial required more than a year and included more than 150
witnesses. The transcripts run to more than twenty thousand pages,
supplemented by more than thirty thousand exhibits. Much of the trial
focused on the economic conditions of the computer industry in order to
determine whether Sperry had engaged in unfair trade practices in
licensing agreements with IBM and Bell Telephone. Neither Mollenhoff
nor the Burks focus on the trade issues. Larson ruled that antitrust
regulations had been violated, but that the statute of limitations had
run out, so no penalties were assessed.

Larson also ruled the ENIAC patent invalid on a number of procedural
grounds, beyond his ruling that Mauchly derived the idea for an
electronic digital computer from Atanasoff. The Sperry legal team had
nothing to gain from appealing the minor ruling about Mauchly's "theft"
from Atanasoff. "Cui bono," indeed?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 21:21:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Back Among Friends

Back Among Friends

The New York Times today carries the announcement that David
Baltimore, frequently a subject of discussion on this board, will
be returning to M.I.T. in the spring of 1994. This choice was
made, it is reported, because "he knows nearly everybody in the
Cambridge community, including many who have been his most ardent
supporters..."

He will be returning to M.I.T. as a professor of biology and
will teach both graduate and undergraduate courses.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation:

++++++++++

\Angier, Natalie. "Embattled Biologist Will Return to
M.I.T." New York Times, 19 May 1992, p. C5.\

It is announced here that David Baltimore will be
returning to M.I.T. in the spring of 1994. Until
then, he will continue at Rockefeller University as a
professor. The new job is considerably less of a job
than founding director of the Whitehead Institute at M.
I.T. or as president of Rockefeller.

Baltimore chose to return to Cambridge rather than
other places because "...he knows nearly everybody in
the Cambridge scientific community, including many who
have been his most ardent supporters throughout the
dispute over the Cell paper. He spent the bulk of his
career at M.I.T."
"'He feels comfortable here,' said Dr. Phillip A.
Sharp, head of the department of biology at the
institute. 'He can carry on conversations here with
friends without having any hesitations as to his
history or his future.'
"For his new position, Dr. Baltimore will be given
ample space in a biology building now under
construction, and with a laboratory group of about 20
graduate students and post-doctoral fellows he plans to
continue his research in the immune system and to begin
studying AIDS. He will also be teaching undergraduate
and graduate biology courses."



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 08:18:48 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: lsbudd@lsuvm.bitnet

SET SCIFRAUD NOMAIL
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 17:20:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Scientific Data

Scientific Data

It was in the late 1960s that Robert A. Wilson published his
Forever Feminine, a book which contributed mightily to an enthusiasm
toward Estrogen Replacement Therapy, ERT, as a panacea for a new and
novel disease entity, "menopause." Dr. Wilson fabricated a disease
and, as a good physician should, simultaneously provided a cure:
estrogen. Wilson's enthusiasm was catching: women could prevent the
scourges of aging. They could look and feel younger. This new Ponce de
Leon had found his fountain of youth in the products of pharmaceutical
houses. The drug houses loved it and the medical profession loved it:
medicine could take over another aspect of the human condition. And
women were taught that a normal body process was a disease.

In the mid-1970s, evidence appeared which suggested that
hormones had dangerous "side effects," including cancer. Some of
the enthusiasm for dosing millions of women with estrogen waned. But
the therapy is not to be put back in the bottle: women want to feel
and look younger, they want to avoid the problems some associate with
menopause, they would like to lessen their risks of heart attack and
osteoporosis. And the drug companies continue to look at the promise of
dosing millions and millions of women over decades and see vast riches
within their grasp. And, of course, the medical community sees its
control extended to yet another area of life. They continue to
promote the myth of hormone therapy as it is to their financial
interests to do so.

Carciogen or panacea? Unfortunately, as the Times
suggests, "the data are not all in." But, of course, the data are
never all in! Scientific data never resolve issues of value: one
must see these data in context and, unfortunately, the appropriate
context is not provided here. The implicit premise persists:
menopause is a medical condition, a disease about which the
profession of medicine knows best. Indeed, the federal government
has promised to increase its involvement in the health of women (a
political decision) and Bernadine Healy has already begun a
gigantic longitudinal study of the long-term effects of hormone
use which will cost taxpayers an estimated $500 million. With
that sort of promise of more and better data, the search for the
fountain of youth will continue. And no one here objects! No one
offers a demurral and there are many women's groups and
organizations which have very strong opinions on this kind of
"science."

There are several fascinating things involved here:
menopause no more a disease than is pregnancy. The redefinition
of menopause as a disease occurred for sociopolitical rather than
medical reasons. Its redefinition was of financial and political
benefit of the male-dominated medical profession and the large
drug companies who stand to reap enormous profits by creating and
curing a new disease. (See McCrea.)

The Times article suggests that women must, individually,
decide on this issue: to use or not to use hormones is a matter of
choice. While the article seems a balance between the pros of the
cons, the thrust of the piece continues a value system which is
essentially nonsense. The clear implication is that
one can decide an issue of this sort using "scientific data," and
grants the assumption that menopause is a treatable medical
condition. The medicalization of the human condition continues.
There are, however, other options: for example, do not consider
menopause a medical condition at all and view the ploy of
physicians and drug companies as what it is, a sham and a
pretense, uncecessary and potentially very dangerous. That is no
benefit to the medical community and of no benefit to those who
persist in thinking like this journalist. This kind of thinking
is totally unnecessary and the women's movement has been done no
good with the investment of $500 million in this sort of research.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\Brody, Jane E. "Can Drugs 'Treat' Menopause? Amid
Doubt, Women Must Decide," New York Times, 19 May
1992, pp. C1-C8.\

Menopause is fast becoming "the health issue of
the decade." Pharmaceutical companies are "racing to
develop more acceptable and safer hormone regimens in
hope of capturing a market that already exceeds half a
billion dollars and is still growing. If manufacturers
and enthusiastic doctors prevail, upwards of 90 percent
of women will take replacement hormones for three to
five decades." (p. C1) There are enthusiasts pushing
pills while "(t)his prospect worries experts and alarms
some who say much more must be known before the 40
million otherwise healthy women now in menopause, and
the millions more nearing it, begin decades-long
therapy with a powerful hormone." (p. C1)

The government is now to conduct a 10-year study
of of 140,000 women which is expected to cost $500
million. That study, begun by Dr. Bernadine Healy. So
far, the research done suffers from methodological
flaws but some findings are positive reporting that
Estrogen Replacement Therapy can cut the death rate in
half during the postmenopausal years and can slow the
aging of the bones that can lead to debilitating
fractures. On the other hand, there is research
suggersting a link between ERT and endometrial cancer
and brest cancer. There are no conclusive data, but
then there never are.

Only about 15 to 18 percent of women now take
hormone replacement. ERT is completely effective in
stopping hot flashes and effective too in reducing
other problems. For example, hip fractures are very
dangerous to elderly women "but women who take estrogen
replacement sustain 40 percent fewer hip fractures than
those who do not take the normone." (p. C8) "With the
hormone, their risk of dying of a heart attack at any
age may be reduced by 50 percent." (p. C8)

However, "Although existing data suggest that
women who do not take estrogen replacement have higher
death rates than those who do, there are real and
potential hazards associated with the therapy, and for
some women the risks may equal or exceed the possible
benefits.
"If estrogens are taken alone for longer than five
years or so, the risk of developing cancer of the
endometrium (the lining of the uterus) rises about
sevenfold. Although this is a slow-growing and highly
curable cancer, it can be life-threatening and its
treatment requires a hysterectomy. Following this
finding in the mid-1970's, doctors began reducing the
dosage of estrogen and prescribing a second hormone,
progestin, a synthetic progesterone, to protect the
endometrium. Althought it is too early to prove
conclusively that the progestin prevents endometrial
cancer, it does counter the growth-stimulating effects
of estrogen on the uterine lining.
"But adding progestin, which has yet to be
officially approved for use in menopause, introduced a
new set of problems: an increase in unpleasant side
effects like weight fain and breast tenderness, the
possibility that the benefits of estrogen to the heart
would be negated, and, for women who take it for only
part of the month, a continuation of menstrual bleeding
each time the progestin is stopped.
"Since few women are willing to put up with
postmenopausal periods, a growing number of doctors
have begun prescribing a combination of estrogen and
progestin in low doses on a continuous, daily basis.
Early reports sugest than in small doses of 2.5 to 5
milligrams a day, progestin does not counter estrogen's
good effects on serum cholesterol level, but the long-
term effects on coronary risk have yet to be
determined.
"More disturbing to most women has been a series
of reports with contradictory findings about a
possibloe association between estrogen replacement and
breast cancer." (p. C8)

...(N)early all the experts agree that for some
women the risks of hormone replacement may be tood
great to justify its routine use. Dr. Wulf H. Ulan, a
menopause specialist in Cleveland who wrote "Managing
Your Menopause," with Ruth S. Jacobowitz (Prentice-
Hall, $9.95), said he did not prescribe hormone
replacement for women with any of these conditions:
Known of suspected breast or uterine cancer or any
other tumore that is stimulated by estrogen.
A strong family history or estrogen-dependent
cancers.
Abnormal or unexplained genital bleeding.
Chronic or acute living disease.
He also cautions that before estrogen is
prescribed, other conditions should be evaluated with
special care, including uterine fibroids, endmetriosis,
high levels of far or cholesterol in the blood, severe
vaicose veins, diabetes, very high blood pressure and
a history of thromboemboluism or severe
thrombophlebitis."

"'All the latest research on hormone replacement
theerapy still has not told us everything that we need
to know,' Dr. Utian said."

+++++++++++

Reference

McCrea, Frances B. "The Politics of Menopause: The 'Discovery'
of a Deficiency Disease," The Sociology of Health and Illness:
Critical Perspectives, in Peter Conrad and Rochelle Kern, editors.
Second edition. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986, pp. 296-304.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 21:38:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: menopause

I think Al Higgins is pulling our legs. When infants are given
vitamins, no one contends that infancy is therefore being treated
as a disease. When children are given flouride rinses in the
public schools, or vaccinations, no one contends that childhood
is being treated as a disease. So, when women at menopause take
supplementary estrogen, why does Al see that as the
identification of menopause as a disease? There are conditions
that occur in different stages of life that are detrimental when
they do occur and that can be prevented; to apply preventive
interventions in no way implies that the particular stage of life
is a disease. One more example: the application of silver nitrate
to the eyes of newborns is a preventive measure -- not a
statement that being born is a disease.

I think what is happening in Al's latest communication is that
he sees a chance to go after the bad old medical/pharmaceutical
establishment, which certainly has acted out of greed from time
to time. But in the present case, unless Al has reason to
believe either that osteoporosis is not all that bad or that
estrogen replacement does not in fact prevent it, he has gone
out on a shaky limb. These are the grounds on which to attack
the administration of estrogen: (1) that it doesn't work or (2)
that the entity it is preventing is not as damaging as the
ingestion of the estrogen. But to go into all that stuff about
menopause being identified as a disease is as much of a hype as
the pharmaceutical commercials on television.

Robert Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 19:52:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: On Gallo

A Non-Resolution Anent Gallo

The long-awaited reports of the OSI and the Richards panel
of independent experts have been forwarded to the assistant
secretary of HHS. The judgments have been made and, after all
the leaks and speculations, there is not much new in any of the
Science reports in the documents which, incidentally, Science has
"obtained." The verdicts are in and nothing is resolved.
Indeed, the difference between OSI's conclusions and the
Richards panel's conclusions is enough to whet the appetite of
any red-blooded Congressman like John Dingell.

These committees have worked for two long years at this and,
after all that time, cannot decide some of the basic issues. For
example: did Gallo steal? The only thing that can be said is
that there is no evidence that he did. That is guaranteed to
satisfy no one.

Gallo has his wrist slapped in all of this and Bernadine
Healy is promising to clean up his act in the running of his NIH
laboratory, but nothing is resolved. Indeed, as this article
suggests, there is nothing even clear about the definition of what
is "misconduct" and what is "worrisome." There were many things
in the (1984) Science paper, for example, that were worrisome but
not misconduct! And what was misconduct seems to have been
attributed to Popovic but, strangely, not to Gallo.

And all this after only two years! And what about those Big
Questions which Healy promised would be answered for the American
people? Where are those answers? They are nowhere here and there
is no suggestion that they can ever be answered. Big Questions
indeed...

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\Palca, Joseph. "'Verdicts' Are in on the Gallo
Probe," Science, 256, 8 May 1992, pp. 735-738.\

The judgments of the OSI and the Richards panel
have been rendered and sent forward to the assistant
secretary of health James Mason. The verdicts are in
but there will be no resolution of the case of Richard
C. Gallo. Indeed, the differences between the two
alone are a clear indication of the continuing
controversy about Gallo's laboratory and Gallo's work:
OSI puts the blame on Popovic and the Richards panel
suggests that Gallo share in that blame. That
disagreement alone, after a two and a half year study,
is sure to prod Congressman Dingell to continue his
investigation of whether NIH can police itself.
Indeed, as if that weren't enough: the GAO and the
Department of HHS are conducting independent
investigations of Gallo's sworn statement concerning
his patent rights.

The most serious charge against Gallo: he stole
the French virus and claimed it as his own. It would
appear that resolution of this accusation is impossible
but: there is no evidence that he stole the virus!
However, the Richards panel concludes that in his
failure to credit the French Pasteur Institute in his
work, Gallo is guilty of "intellectual appropriation."

OSI's report examined the 1984 Science paper in
which there were errors of fact. It concluded that
most of the allegations were wrong: they did not fit
the definition of "misconduct." On the other hand,
there were four which were blamed on Popovic but not on
Gallo. The Richards panel was mystified: why not
blame it on the boss?

On the issue of collegiality," the OSI concludes
that Gallo did not try to intentionally mislead
scientists but did damn little to inform them
adequately. The Richards panel suggests, "We consider
failure to distribute uninfected H9 cells freely after
publication of the article...to be essentially immoral
in view of the growing seriousness of the AIDS
epidemic." (p. 737)

Healy's cover letter in forwarding the report of
the OSI to Mason recommends leniency toward Popovic and
suggests that she and others within NIH are going to
see to the administration of his lab.

Dingell has already decided that this is not
enough. He will probably hold hearings but, in this
election year, it is hard to say when. Incidentally,
the Dingell staff is being helped in its investigation
by Suzanne Hadley who was summarily removed from the
OSI by Healy shortly after Healy's appointment to NIH.

And then there are the investigations by GAO and
the IG of the HHS.

Finally, "Many scientists may feel less worried,
however, about Gallo's future than about the damage
this tragedy may be doing to the public trust, as it
continues to produce acrimony within the scientific
community." (p. 738)

++++++++++


\Hamilton, David P. "Scientist-Consultants Accuse OSI
of Missing the Pattern," Science 256 (8 May 1992), p.
738.\

The Richards panel was built by NIH to help its
Office of Scientific Integrity do a good job of
investigating Robert C. Gallo. After all, Congressman
John Dingell was out there questioning the ability of
NIH to police itself. NIH wanted to do a good job,
wanted to show the Congressman and the world that
science was capable of policing itself.

The panel was put together by the NAS and IOM and
it consisted of 8 distinguished scientists and chaired
by biochemist Frederic Richards. Hence the committee
is called the Richards panel.

It is reported here that several of the members of
the panel are very unhappy with NIH. They feel they
have been ignored by Healy. Further, panel members
feel the OSI is to be faulted on several matters
including these: OSI tended to trivialize the
misstatements of the Science (1984) paper and failed to
put them in their proper context, i.e., see the
"pattern" of misrepresentations by Gallo. Gallo was
not collegial, not the open and above-board sort he
should have been.

Furthermore, OSI accused Popovic but not Gallo of
the factual distortions and misdeeds which were
discovered. The panel wonders why.

Then, too, Gallo was a laboratory chief with
primary responsibility for everything that went on his
laboratory. Clearly, Gallo failed to supervise
properly.

One gets a feeling of the degree of
dissatisfaction with the report with this quotation,
unattributed: "It'll be a cold day in hell before any
of us will consult with the U.S.government again."

"But the worst aspect of the chasm between Healy
and her independent consultants is likely to be the
doubt into which the panel's report throws NIH's final
conclusions--doubt which NIH adversaries such as
Representative John Dingell (D-MI) are already moving
to exploit."


++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 17:30:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Reply to Barasch

Reply to Barasch

Bob Barasch is wrong in suggesting I am not serious, or just
kidding, regarding the medical model as dangerous, "menopause as a
disease." The "medical model" views all life's stages in terms of
"illness." Thus, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and all the
rest are viewed for their illness potentials. Indeed, "problems in
living" are to be viewed as "mental health problems," to be
handled medically. This view of the human condition has had
enormously tragic consequences. The medical model is a very
one-sided and limited view of life and personkind. The medical
model is, I would remind everyone, only one of several and, since
its costs are enormous, one must learn to evaluate options. In
the case of women, I need only remind this panel of the DES
tragedy. Modern medicine makes mistakes with serious
consequences.

Bob compares giving vitamins in childhood to providing
estrogen over several decades to women. The analogy stinks and
reminds me of using a shotgun to kill flies. Yes, one can kill
files with a shotgun but the potential for great damage and the
unnecessary ancillary destruction, aka, side effects, must also
be recognized. Hormones are not vitamins.

The silver nitrate in the eyes of newborns has a particular
origin and particularistic residuals which ought to be mentioned
too: this "therapy" derived from an earlier age when, to prevent
gonorrhea doing damage to the child's eyes, this caustic was
applied. Today, however, gonorrhea is a condition which can be
treated and need not be considered threatening to the baby born
of a responsible woman. It is only that physicians do not credit
women as being responsible that they continue a therapy which
temporary blinds the newborn and may inhibit the sort of bonding
some women desire to have with their newborn. However, the
physician typically will not review the application of silver
nitrate to the neonate's eyes on the word of a responsible mother
that she is gonorrhea-free.

Regarding osteoporosis: there are less drastic interventions
than hormone therapy. Taking calcium and vitamin C will help
reduce the risks which women of European descent, fair skin, brown
hair, seem to have. But note: high risk women are not even
mentioned in Brody's piece. The therapy is made available to all;
all women are the targets of the drug houses. And note too:
vitamin C and calcium supplements do not require physician
supervision and prescriptions and there's no money to be made by
physicians in allowing women to care for their own bodies.

The pretense here is that physicians can provide "health"
more readily than the individual who, quite literally, is not
considered responsible. This is absurd.

Finally, Bob does not respond to the thrust of the piece I
posted which was, after all, entitled "Scientific Data." What I
said regarding Jane E. Brody's piece of last Tuesday's New York
Times, was that "scientific data are NEVER all in." All science
can provide is SOME basis for judgment but the individual (not
the physician nor any other expert) must be responsible for
making a decision without the knowledge needed. It is
unfortunate that scientists perpetuate the myth that science can
provide answers. Science does much less than that: it provides
enough information to insure confusion and uncertainty. One
must still stand on one's own feet with science's data.

Science cannot save anyone or anything. It cannot prevent
aging, it cannot prevent death. The hopes, expectations, and
demands that science save us are the dreams of reason of a
sensate age.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 10:02:26 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Barasch
in-reply-to: <no.id>; from "achiggins" at may 22, 92 5:30 pm

> Reply to Barasch
>
> Bob Barasch is wrong in suggesting I am not serious, or just
> kidding, regarding the medical model as dangerous, "menopause as a
> disease." The "medical model" views all life's stages in terms of
> "illness."

I think that it is important to not paint all investigators with the same
brush. To conclude that because ERT had an initial popularity as a way of
"staying young" and that now some investigators are advocating ERT that
therefore this is their motivation is very poor logic.


> Regarding osteoporosis: there are less drastic interventions
> than hormone therapy. Taking calcium and vitamin C will help
> reduce the risks which women of European descent, fair skin, brown
> hair, seem to have.

I am sorry, but I cannot leave this unchallenged. You have not reported here
a complete review of the literature but the last time I did it I concluded
that while calcium may help a little it is not enough by itself. My
Alzheimer's may be getting to me, but I do not recall any serious scientific
literature of the importance of Vitamin C. Vitamin D is essential in the bone
metabolism story and there is a large literature of D & calcium. At the
doses required, however they are not without their own risks.

> But note: high risk women are not even
> mentioned in Brody's piece.

While it is true that bone density in black women is greater, on average,
than in white women, black women still become very osteoperotic -- but
perhaps at a decade later. In our society virtually every woman becomes
osteoperotic and thus may be in need of therapy. I realize that this comes
close to your original objections about calling things diseases. Just
because it is normal in the course of aging, does not mean that we should not
attempt to correct it. We do not need to call it a disease. We wear glasses
to compensate for our "near sightedness." Whether that is called a disease
or not, it is still a problem that we consider worth treating. Even wearing
glasses have "side effects" in terms of costs, increased risks of certain
types of injuries, etc.

> The therapy is made available to all;
> all women are the targets of the drug houses. And note too:
> vitamin C and calcium supplements do not require physician
> supervision and prescriptions and there's no money to be made by
> physicians in allowing women to care for their own bodies.
>
at the doses which are required to obtain proven effects, they do require
physician supervision.


> Science cannot save anyone or anything. It cannot prevent
> aging, it cannot prevent death. The hopes, expectations, and
> demands that science save us are the dreams of reason of a
> sensate age.
>
I am sorry I do not have the time to go find and read Brody's article but from
the summary posted here, I did not take it that this was the thrust of the
article. I took home two messages:

The use of ERT has some potential benefits and some potential hazzards
--this is true of most treatments. What science attempts to do is to
provide evidence about the liklihood and magnitude of these various
effects. What the individual must do is to weigh these. Rarely can
blanket statement be made -- it is too dependent on an individual's
values. With respect to ERT, most physicians I know tell me that
despite the possible benefits, many women in their late 60's or beyond
are not willing to tolerate the side effects which frequently occur.
Women going thru menopause are much more tolerant.

The second point was to provide some more background on the Women's
Heath Study which is a high profile study under Healy's direction.
While you can certainly attempt to analyse the political and
sociological causes of that study being done at this point in time,
the fact remains that in the opinion of most experts, we do not have
the answers to the scientific hypotheses being investigated. In
particular, we do not know whether it is a wise suggestion for all
women to take ERT. Quantifying its effects according to scientific
methods will give us much better information.

-phil


--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 {362-2694(FAX)}
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 11:50:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: medical model

This note is designed to make sure that Al and I both understand
the point of our discussion, which I thought was a conflict
between us over the definition of disease. He contended that the
ingestion of estrogen by menopausal women meant that menopause
was being considered a disease. I offered several analogies that
I thought would cast light on a different point of view. Perhaps
we could reach an understanding by my offering one, simple
analogy, which I hope Al does not find "stinks." Does the
vaccination of infants mean that infancy is being seen as a
disease? If Al says it does, I will understand his position. I
say it doesn't and I hope my position will be understood.

Bob Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 20:27:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Sunshine Hearings

Sunshine Hearings

The OSI's work on Richard C. Gallo over these last few years
has been the subject of speculations, press investigations, leaks,
and so much is already known of what has been reported that it may
seem unnecessary to have still further investigations. Not so.
In this brief statement in Science, it is announced that there is
to be yet another NIH investigation aimed at determining what the
Institutes should do about Gallo in light of the OSI's report.
The main difference between this and the other hearings: this is
to be open to the public. Director Healy wants the "big questions"
investigated and answered.

The Inquisition is preparing its auto-da-fe!

Here in its entirety is the Science announcement.

++++++++++

\Travis, John. "Healy Throws Some Light on the Gallo
Investigation," Science 256, (15 May 1992), p. 955.

After two-and-a-half years enduring peer judgment
out of the public eye, Robert Gallo will now be
assessed by yet another scientific panel, but this time
in the light of day.
NIH Director Bernadine Healy told journalists last
month (Science, 24, April, p. 226) that she wanted to
bring the allegations that have swirled around the
laboratory of the world's most famous AIDS researcher out
into the open. Now, it seems, Healy will be as good as
her word: Nobel Prize winning biologist Howard Temin
from the University of Wisconsin will be asked to chair
a subcommittee of the National Cancer Advisory Board
charged with recommending how, or if, Gallo should be
disciplined for actions revealed in the NIH Office of
Scientific Integrity's (OSI) final report on its Gallo
investigation (Science, 8 May p. 735). And under
government "sunshine" laws, the panel's activities
should be open to public scrutiny.
One of Healy's primary goals, she told Science, is
to satisfy those who have complained about the
secretive aspects of the probe and think that NIH has
not given special treatment to one of its star
researchers. But she may not have solved that last
problem. Although Healy hopes that Temin will bring
prestige and credibility to the investigation, critics
are likely to point out that Temin has through the
years been a frequent and sympathetic adviser to Gallo.
One of those critics is bound to be John Dingell
(D-MI). Mr. Dingell recently issued a press statement
suggesting that NIH bungled the affair as proved by
Healy herself at the same meeting of science writers.
There, Dingell noted based on a Science account, Healy
publicly acknowledged that OSI's report did not address
the "big issues" in the Gallo case--whether he stole
the virus, shared reagents, or gave appropriate credit
to French scientists. But a closer reading of a
transcript shows that Science's account was not
precise. Healy was merely saying that those "big
issues" were "the questions that the American public
wants to know {about}." Hence, her decision to bring
sunshine into this affair.


++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 26 May 1992 22:35:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Responses

Replies

As one baseball player (Yogi) put it: it's like deja vu all
over again! I spent 10 years in two medical schools trying very
hard to provide colleagues there an alternative to the medical
model. My students and my colleagues in those years were polite
and forgiving but, try as I might, they did not see what I was
trying to say. They were absolutely convinced of the worth of
their perspective and would see no other. I finally judged my
investment a waste of energy and I returned to academic sociology.
I feel I have run into something of the same regarding ERT. (Let
me add: my colleague at Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, New
York, my best friend there, was Thomas Steven Szasz, the
psychiatrist and that should provide readers with some idea of
where an alternative perspective can take one, and where it has
taken me.)

Bob Barasch and Phil Miller take exception to my remarks on
ERT, the use of hormones to delay the effects of aging in women.
I tried to warn individuals that they need to make their own
decisions, to look at the available evidence and to make a
reasoned judgment as to whether this "therapy" is worth the risk.
And there are great risks to ERT. Bob wants to question my
understanding of the model and that I'm out of a "shaky limb."
Phil questions the data.

The medical model has been something of a success over the
past century. But it has also had its problems: the costs of
the use of the model are typically ignored (heroic cures for
dangerous diseases seems to be the rule proposed by B. Rush and
adopted by physicians), and, while "medical knowledge" undergoes
enormous changes over the years (resection of the colon is not a
good idea for controlling constipation, yet Sir A. Lane got his
knighthood for it), the idea that the model ought to work
continues. And recently: radiation is as effective as surgery
in the treatment of prostate cancer; open heart surgery does
nothing in terms of prolonging life; lumpectomy is as effective
as mastectomy, and so on. But Bob, for one, would have me join
him in identifying all prophylaxis as "medical" rather than good
sense. (The Romans advocated a sound mind in a sound body, Bob,
what was that "medical" knowledge? The sweating runner takes
salt. Is that "medical" technology?)

And Phil Miller, without reading the original article,
suggests that physicians would not "sell" ERT as a "fountain of
youth." Well, Phil, using the medical model the pharmaceutical
houses sure will and women sure will buy it for that. You may
insist that medical practitioners are not responsible for the sins
of the stupid or the greedy, but it is the medical model they are
using in responding to business pitches and in making their
choices. It is the medical model that makes their thinking
possible.

Phil then recognizes that he "slips" back into using the
medical model by calling things "diseases." Hard to shake that
model, ins't it?

Allopathic medicine has questioned the use of vitamins and
sometimes with good reason. But the condemnation of a possible
therapeutic regimen on the basis that it does not work (made
without the data we all value so much) is akin to refusing women
the option of ERT. (Alternative therapies are NOT being
evaluated in Healy' study.) Women should have a choice of the
medically approved therapy and alternative therapies. After all,
the adult human is in a position of being able to make choices.
Just provide information of a reasonable sort and -- MOST
IMPORTANT -- look for alternatives, understand alternatives, be
given alternatives. Searching for alternatives means, among
other things, questioning the prevailing paradigm.

In my view there are useful alternatives to the medical
model. The greatest financial backer of medical education in
this century, J. D. Rockefeller (who gave hundreds of millions to
medical education in the early years of this century), had not a
single allopath on his own medical staff. His personal doctors
were all homeopathic physicians. Did he know something the rest
of us ought to know?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 08:43:47 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "brian p. watson" <bwatson@stlawu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Responses
in-reply-to: message of tue, 26 may 1992 22:35:00 edt from <ach13@albnyvms>

I'd like some clarification from Al on his "Responses" note. He
seems to be rejecting the medical model. Can he articulate more
completely the model he wishes to substitute? And does he take
the homeopathic approach seriously, as one might infer from his closing
sentence?
--Brian Watson bwatson@stlawu
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 16:18:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Mooers on Atanasoff

Mooers on Atanasoff

The Atanasoff story is the subject of several discussions
on various networks. Here is one forwarded to me to which I
direct your attention. It is another story, another
interpretation and very different from the one I posted.

Al Higgins
++++++++++

from: in%"nassh100@sivm.bitnet" "allan needell" 25-may-1992 12:59:51.58
to: ach13@albnyvms.bitnet
CC:
Subj: Atanasoff at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory

Return-path: <NASSH100@SIVM.BITNET>
received: from sivm.bitnet (mailer@sivm) by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240;
Mon, 25 May 1992 12:59 EDT
received: from sivm (nassh100) by sivm.bitnet (mailer r2.08 ptf008) with bsmtp
id 2571; Mon, 25 May 92 11:12:15 EDT
Resent-date: Mon, 25 May 92 11:12:13 EDT
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 12:59 EDT
Resent-from: Allan Needell <NASSH100@SIVM.BITNET>
from: nassh100@sivm.bitnet
Subject: Atanasoff at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory
resent-to: ach13@albnyvms.bitnet
Resent-message-id: <B3662BDA20404720@albnyvms.BITNET>
X-Envelope-to: ACH13
Date-note: Date: header was inserted by albnyvms.BITNET
Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2

from: allan needell

Al,

Happy Memorial Day,

Cheers,
Allan Needell
National Air & Space Museum
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560 (BITNET: NASSH100@SIVM)
*** Forwarding note from SHOTHC-L--SIVM 05/23/92 23:24 ***
Received: by SIVM (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 1430; Sat, 23 May 92 23:24:27 EDT
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 15:24:14 -0400
reply-to: history of computing issues <shothc-l@sivm.bitnet>
sender: history of computing issues <shothc-l@sivm.bitnet>
from: calvin n mooers <cnmooers@world.std.com>
Subject: Atanasoff at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory
to: allan needell <nassh100@sivm.bitnet>

Discussion is going on in several Internet forums with the purpose of
trying to clinch the case for recognition of J.V. Atanasoff as "the
inventor" of the "digital computer", and unjustly to accuse John W.
Mauchly of plagiarism and fraud in this matter.

References:
forum: <SHOTHC-L%SIVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>, and
letter of 10 May 1992 by Al C. Higgins <ACH13%ALBNYVMS.BITNET>

The story advanced by Higgins is not new. The story contains a
massive omission in that it fails totally to mention the implications
of Atanasoff's activities as head of the Navy project to build an
electronic computer at the Naval Ordnance Laboratories, in White Oak,
Maryland, during the period from about May 1945 to about September
1946.

I was there on the spot, a member of the NOL computer project!
Later, in the 1970's, I was a witness at the ENIAC trial in
Minneapolis.

Atanasoff in the summer of 1945 was appointed Division Chief of a new
NOL Computer Division, a division created specifically for the
development and building of an "automatic high speed electronic
digital computer" by the NOL for the U. S. Navy.

In the spring of 1945, the ENIAC being built at the Moore School in
Philadelphia was still a year from completion. The programmed memory
type of computer (the EDVAC) was just then being proposed by Mauchly
and Eckert.

The new NOL computer project was funded for $300,000 which was
equivalent to more than $3 million in today's money. If all went
well, more Navy support was to be expected. This Navy project was
created at the instigation of John von Neumann, who was then deeply
wired into top-level science decisions in the Navy. Von Neumann
subsequently followed the progress of the NOL project and on several
occasions visited it. The NOL computer project most definitely was
not intended to be just some sort of a feasibility study. It was to
be the real thing. The Navy fully expected that a working electronic
computer would be the result.

Initially there were three people in the project, of whom I was one.
Fifteen months later, there were about a dozen. Soon I found myself,
(as a 25-year old junior) in the role of the system designer for the
project. No one else in the project was seriously doing system
design, certainly not Atanasoff. Also I was the one who was called
upon to brief the visiting firemen (Navy brass, and others) who
frequently came to visit the project and to learn about this curious
new thing called an "electronic computer".

My colleagues and I soon found that our internally-developed technical
ideas and suggestions for tangible project activities were being
discounted and shelved by Atanasoff. We would be given faint praise
and then Atanasoff would politely but clearly give us his orders:
"Don't do anything more on this until I give you my decision". No
subsequent decision would be forthcoming, and when we asked, JVA would
flatly evade our questions. Initiatives leading to possible actions
were suppressed. During my last few months on the project, I was
specifically forbidden by Atanasoff to discuss computer design aspects
in any way with the soldering iron people who were hoping to build the
demonstration high pulse rate circuits. Unfortunately, no one else
was discussing computer design with them either.

After about fifteen months of this strange kind of activity, the
project did not have any foundation to go on. We had nothing in the
way of an agreed-upon plan. No project-supported set of technical
memos. No set of engineering drawings for a computer. I left the
project, with no little frustration, in September 1946, to go to
graduate school at MIT.

Later I found out that the NOL Computer Project was abruptly
terminated by the Navy at von Neumann's instance. In December 1946,
von Neumann recognized me in a corridor at MIT. He wanted to talk.
He made the point of personally telling me that consequent to my
departure, he had the Navy terminate the NOL computer project because
it was his belief that, without me, the project clearly was not going
anywhere.

This bit of history raises many interesting questions for for computer
historians, such as:

1. Was Atanasoff appointed head of the new NOL Computer Division
because of awareness on the part of the NOL management of JVA's
prior computer work at Iowa State, with all hope and expectation that
JVA's experience would ensure success of the project?

We can infer that this was the case. Comments at the time were
supportive of this inference. However, as a junior, I personally was
not included in these top-level management deliberations.

2. Did JVA's computer experience redound, as was hoped, to the
success of the NOL Computer Project? Were the people in the project
told the details of, and were they able to take advantage of,
Atanasoff's Iowa State computer work?

A resounding "no". Only after several months on the project did we
belatedly and round-about hear rumors of JVA's earlier work. Then,
because of its relevance, we made repeated inquiries to JVA. All our
inquiries were met by consistent and skillful stonewalling by JVA. He
flatly refused to discuss any aspect of his work with computers.
Toward the end of my time at NOL, he would put down our questions by
saying that the work at Iowa State "was not important now" or "out of
date", and would refuse to discuss it further.

3. Aside from the the matter of the Iowa State computer, did JVA
otherwise substantially advance the NOL computer project?

Hardly. JVA was unavailable and away from the lab on unrelated
matters for about half the time: He went to the Bikini atom bomb
test, and he joined a post-war trip to Germany by top Naval technical
experts. In my memory (and I have my detailed lab notebooks from the
period), I cannot recall any technically significant memo or work
product by JVA. In retrospect, his impact within the project was
repressive of all activities which might result in our actually
building a computer. This was so despite frequent group meetings with
pep talks which he called. It was all done in a very charming manner!

4. In retrospect, did JVA's action of accepting leadership of the NOL
Computer Division for this project represent a serious conflict of
interest? That is, a conflict between his clear responsibility to the
Navy to direct the building a Navy computer at NOL, and his (much
later disclosed) personal patent interests in the Iowa computer and
his subsequently demonstrated desire for fame as the inventor of the
electronic computer?

You may draw your own inferences.

5. John Mauchly was a weekly visitor to the NOL computer project.
Were these visits the conduit for some kind of theft of Atanasoff's
computer ideas by the ENIAC project?

Mauchly's visits to NOL were the result of an NOL contract to Mauchly
initially to render consulting advice to a data reduction group at
NOL. JVA arranged to convert this to visits to the computer group.
Actually, JVA seldom saw Mauchly. Talking with Mauchly during his
visits became my privilege. The information flow was solely from
Mauchly to our project. His visits were most inspirational. We
talked about design of computers. We at NOL had nothing of interest
for the highly competent ENIAC group who were more advanced than we
were. Specifically, we in the NOL computer group had no knowledge of
JVA's earlier computer work to pass on.

6. In review, why didn't Atanasoff, in the spring of 1945, seize upon
this exceptional opportunity to build a real operating computer, and
thus continue and complete a valid historical chain of effort
beginning with the Iowa State computer?

I have often wondered. Your guess is as good as mine. As it was, JVA
abandoned the early Iowa State effort. JVA was a significant
"computer pioneer", yet he chose to completely leave the computer
field after 1946, except for appearing as a witness in litigation.

For the serious historian, there are additional fascinating questions
surrounding this niche in computer history.

Calvin N. Mooers
cnmooers@world.std.com

(Copyright (C) 1992 Calvin N. Mooers. All rights reserved.
If this information is used, reference should be made to this source.
If copies are made, copy this entire letter including this copyright
notice. Please communicate to Mooers "cnmooers@world.std.com" for
permission to quote from this letter.)
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 19:52:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Census Bureau Problems

More on The Politics of Numbers

There is this wonderfully insightful quote in Alonzo and
Starr's important book, The Politics of Numbers, {New York:
Russell Sage, 1987} that sets the stage for the later piece and
political interference with the Census Bureau. In this context,
the politicization of data is to be understood as nothing new,
unusual, or a particular failure of the Bush Administration.

"The opportunity for strategic behavior in data
reporting is greatly increased by ambiguities of
classification and the sheer complexity of some
calculations. Without actually lying, respondents such
as corporations being questioned about their financial
condition may choose to report to the government
figures conveniently different from those they use
internally. The story is told of a series of interviews
for a job an auditor in a Soviet factory. 'How much
is two and two,' asks the manager. "Four,' says the
first candidate, who is promptly dismissed. Asked the
same question, the second job-seeker says 'Five' --and
obviously he won't do either. Finally, the third
candidate is asked the question, and he responds,'How
much do you need?' That man gets the job." (p. 35)

In this context, the Bush Aministration can be seen as just
another example of diddling with data, and a rather inept one at
that.

Here is the annotation concerning the Census Bureau taken,
as usual, from the SCIFRAUD database.


\Barringer, Felicity. "At U.S. 'Fact Factory,'
Hurdles to Census Data," New York Times, 23 May 1992,
p. 6.\

There have been complaints of late made by Census
Bureau employees that the Bush Administration, in this
election year, is impeding access to economic
statistics. The census data of 1990 was released
quickly but the research on the country's economic
stability has been slowly doled out. Then, too, some
powerful data have been released without accompanying
news releases while some positive data have been
released with interpretations appended which turn them
into rosy forecasts.

While any administration is sensitive to economic
data, the Bush people seem more directly concerned.
Many in the Bureau are reluctant to speak out publicly
for fear of retribution and many sources quoted in this
piece as cited anonymously. For example, one anonymous
source said: "It's a major behavioral change going on.
This place has always been wide open. A lot of people
see a drive to alter that."

Two cases highlight the concern: Beth DaPonte
gave a public interest group estimates of deaths in the
Persian Gulf war. Her boss tried to fire her. In
another, Jack McNeil gave interviews about his finds on
the "widening gap between the incomes of the richest
and poorest Americans. When news reports appeared, an
associate undersecretary at the Commerce Department,
the bureau's parent agency, complained to the bureau's
public information director."

"A Commerce Department official also speaking on
the condition that he not be identified, said it was
appropriate for researchers to comment on the factual
content of reports. But he added: 'The question is, if
you decide to work for the Government, do you still
have the academic freedom to say anything you damn well
please? I think it's pretty clear that if you work for
the Government and the Census Bureau, that you don't
state opinions where it isn't appropriate for you to
reach opinions.'"
"In no case did anyone say that the Administration
had tried to change data. The concerns involved the
way statistics were presented and whether reporters
were denied access to experts, important issues at an
institution that employees call the 'fact factory.'"

"One recent report, highlighting the growth in the
number of low-paying jobs, was eventually released
months behind schedule with no accompanying new
release. 'That was my news judgment said Ms. (Karen)
Wheeless (Census Bureau) said, adding that she did not
believe that the report had added to information in
earlier reports.'
"A second report, on the creation of new jobs, was
accompanied by a news release that highlighted the
number of people entering jobs in the 'high-paying'
industries but that did not note that about half of the
workers were paid less than $200 a week."


++++++++++

There are ways and there are ways of using data but the
point is not to be lost that all data are "political" in the
sense that Starr, the good sociologist, uses it. Data never
"speak for themselves."


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 16:10:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More Politics of Numbers

Bush and Bias

There are issues galore in the matter of "The Politics of
Numbers." The postings the yesterday on the issue of the Census
Bureau and its being politicized is not a minor matter to
SCIFRAUD nor should anyone think that this is politics and not
science. In fact, the extent of political awareness and
political correctness in science is of great concern to SCIFRAUD.
Scientists are aware, for example, that there are certain studies
which get funded and certain studies which do not: being aware
of the politics of funding is only a wise move on the part of
those honest scientists seeking funding. How much political
awareness influences the interpretation of data is an issue less
well established than the political interference described below.

Here, in its entirety, is a piece by Professor Douglas S.
Massey of the University of Chicago which appeared in the
Washington Post.

This annotation is, as usual, derived from the SCIFRAUD
database.

++++++++++

\Massey, Douglas S. "Shrugging Off Racism," The
Washington Post, 17 May 1992, p. C2.\

In the wake of the Rodney King verdict and the Los
Angeles riots, President Bush called on the nation to
"build a future where poverty and despair give way to
opportunity" and "create a climate of understanding and
tolerance...that refuses to accept racism, bigotry...of
any kind, any time, anywhere." Several months earlier,
however, when presented with dramatic, federally
financed evidence of housing discrimination in the
nation's cities, his administration not only failed to
act but tried to bury the findings.

The evidence of racism came from the Housing
Discrimination Study (HDS), a 1989 survey of realtors
carried out by researchers from Syracuse University and
the Urban Institute. Working under contract to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
investigators sent white and black "testers" to a
random sample of 3,800 realty offices located in 25
urban areas, including Los Angeles itself. The testers
described the same housing needs and socioeconomic
traits to realtors and then recorded how they were
treated.
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
A systematic comparison of black and white testers
revealed very high levels of racial discrimination and
concluded that earlier studies substantially
understated the degree of bias against black home-
seekers. On any encounter with a real estate agent,
the new study showed that blacks had a 50- to 55-
percent chance of experiencing some kind of
discriminatory treatment: being shown fewer homes than
whites, receiving less information about housing units,
being offered inferior terms for rental or sale,
experiencing more discourteous treatment. As a result,
60 to 90 percent of the housing units presented to
whites were not made available to blacks.

These results underscore the real barriers that
blacks still face in trying to achieve racial equality
in the United States, for housing markets distribute
not only shelters but jobs, schooling, wealth, safety,
sanitation and health. If people are denied access to
housing on the basis of skin color, they are blocked
from these benefits as well and a principal mechanism
of social mobility is undermined. Without access to
housing markets, incentives for hard work, saving,
sacrifice and personal improvement are undercut.

To an administration committed to free-market
principles and private enterprise, the findings of the
Housing Discrimination Study should have provided
impetus for forceful action. But instead of
publicizing the HDS and using it to build political
support for stronger anti-discrimination measures, the
Bush administration took a very different course.

Preliminary reports based on the HDS were ready as
early as July 1990, and by August they had been
systematically reviewed and approved by an outside
panel of experts. Revisions were made by the
investigators and final reports were submitted to HUD
in January 1991, when the HDS data were originally
scheduled for release. The reports were not published
in January, however, and as interested parties called
HUD to inquire about their availability, they were
given a series of receding release dates: first
February, then April, then June, then "soon."

A summertime conference on discrimination planned
by the Urban Institute had to be canceled because the
HDS data had not been released by the Bush
administration. According to their contract with HUD,
however, the study's directors had the right to publish
HDS data six months after the final reports were
submitted to the agency, a deadline that expired in
August. Two papers based on the HDS data were
scheduled to be presented in a conference at the Urban
Institute in September.

As the conference date approach, HUD officials
gave no hint about when , if ever, they would
officially release the HDS reports. As of Aug. 26 the
study's investigators still had not been informed of
any release date. But suddenly on Thursday, Aug.29 at
4 p.m., just as the Labor Day weekend was about to
begin, HUD abruptly a terse press statement announcing
release of the Housing Discrimination Study.
Journalists were given no advance notice of the release
and no press conference was called.

By the afternoon of Aug. 19, of course, many
newspapers and magazines were operating on reduced
staffs in anticipation of the long holiday weekend.
The content of Sunday editions had largely been
determined. A few newspapers ran stories about the HDS
in their Saturday editions, but they attracted little
attention. By the time the nation resumed business on
Tuesday, Sept.3, the HDS was old news. Even
researchers and fair-housing specialists who had been
waiting for the HDS data did not know of their release.

For the few reporters who saw the press release,
there was little to indicate the importance of the HDS
findings or how to obtain them. None of the HDS
reports was mentioned by title, even through officials
had already renamed to them less their impact. (One
called "Access Denied: Findings on Housing
Availability" was changed to "Housing Discrimination
Study: Incidence and Severity of Unfavorable
Treatment.") And despite the fact that the federal
government had just verified the existence of pervasive
housing discrimination against blacks and had shown
that past studies understated the magnitude of the
problem, most of the 2 1/2-page press release consisted
of bromides about the Bush administration's commitment
to "eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination in the
nation's housing market."

The only reference to the study's central findings
of persistent racial bias in housing occurred art the
top of the second page, where one sentence stated that
"overall the incidence of housing discrimination was
estimated at 56 percent for black renters...and 59
percent for black homeowners." The figures were
presented without interpretation, comment or
elaboration, and those unfamiliar with the study would
have no way of knowing what the figures meant, whether
they were high or low or how they compared to earlier
estimates.

The news release went on to highlight "key
findings" suggesting that discrimination was relatively
uncommon. One of these findings was the realtors were
unlikely to refuse to show advertised units to black
clients. But this was no "finding"--it was a fact
well-established before the HDS and was, indeed, the
very reason for doing the study. Such obvious
discriminatory treatment has been rare for decades
because it leaves realtors vulnerable to prosecution
under the Fair Housing Act. Today's discrimination is
more subtle and difficult to detect, which is why
testers are used. Important racial differences in
treatment appear only after careful analysis, when the
experiences of blacks and whites are systematically
compared.

The Bush administration's handling of the HDS
exemplified its cynical treatment of racial issues. On
the one had, it promotes market mechanisms as solutions
to pressing social problems and calls upon blacks to
display greater enterprise. On the other hand, when it
uncovers clear evidence that African Americans are
systematically disenfranchised from a crucial market on
the basis of skin color, it sits on the report for a
year, releases it without publicity at the last moment
and prepares a misleading press statement that obscures
the study's central findings.

Rather than cracking down on discrimination when
it is found it and beginning to attack a condition that
undoubtedly helped produce the rage unleashed in Los
Angeles, the Bush administration swept evidence of
persisting racism under the rug and hoped no one would
notice. In light of this earlier refusal to
acknowledge racial injustice, the Bush administration's
current protestations of chock and outrage over the
Rodney King verdict and its aftermath ring hollow
indeed.


++++++++++

The subtitle of this piece: "When Proof of Housing
Discrimination Arrived, the Administration Didn't Care."

Questions: Do scientists have the obligation to speak out
against this kind of politicalization of their scientific work?
Can scientists risk offending politicians and still continue in
their chosen field? Do scientists "anticipate" the political
implications of their data and modify interpretations so as to
appear to be politically correct? Can a scientist accept a
government job or government funding without risking his or her
integrity?

The ethics of science in government, the ethics of those who
are government agents, require a great deal of concern.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 17:43:48 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
from: allan needell <nassh100@sivm.bitnet>
Subject: More Politics of Numbers
In-Reply-To: note of 05/29/92 16:26

from: allan needell

I do not dispute the thrust of the article on the HUD Housing Discrimination
Study, I simply question the meaning and/or precision of the term "Bush
Administration." Were the HUD actions cleared directly by Secretary Kemp? by
President Bush? by the 1992 Presidential Campaign Committee? I don't know. The
author presented no evidence or claims, he just used the term "Bush
Administration" many times (I didn't count). It may be true that the President
is rightfully to be held ultimately to account. But I believe that there is
more to the story of how executive agency decisions are made. And I believe
that accounts such as these should be more precise, if only to prevent their
automatic dismissal as political posturing.

Allan Needell
National Air & Space Museum
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560 (BITNET: NASSH100@SIVM)
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 18:23:52 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Whodunit

Allan,
As most historians would, I suspect, I share your concern about
the use of reifications like "the Bush Administration". It's almost
as bad as "the Great Society programs".... Nonetheless, going to the
opposite extreme with personalization (i.e., pinning each decision
on bureaucrat X or bureaucrat Y) obscures the power relationships
that exist in a bureaucracy. When a Darryl Gates fails to reprimand
or discipline police officers who laughingly refer to American citizens
as "gorillas in the mist", is it unfair to attribute the resultant
brutalities to "Gates's police force"? The folks right at the top
of any administration set the standards and expectations all up and
down the line by their symbolic actions. If you were a bureaucrat
in the Bureau of the Census, what message would you get from the
Willie Horton ad? from Fitzwater's remarks about the Great Society
causing south central L.A. to explode in 1992? from the Vice President's
fingering of Murphy Brown?
I thus think your comment moves along the discussion. More precise
identification of agency will help us understand the wellsprings of
fraud in science. What term or terms would you substitute in those
passages where Higgins uses "the Bush Administration"? I frankly
don't think Bush himself is calling the shots on such things. Rather,
he is a reflection of his constituents. Who are they?
My regards to you and to all my other friends down there at NASM.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 11:00:50 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Responses
in-reply-to: <no.id>; from "achiggins" at may 26, 92 10:35 pm

Al Higgens writes:

> (Let
> me add: my colleague at Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, New
> York, my best friend there, was Thomas Steven Szasz, the
> psychiatrist and that should provide readers with some idea of
> where an alternative perspective can take one, and where it has
> taken me.)
>
Well having been in grad school in psych at the time that Szasz was making his
biggest splash, I have to admit that Al's comments are a bit of deja vue of
those rantings :-) I admit that in both cases there are important insights,
but that the presentations are not balanced discourse of the issues.


> Bob Barasch and Phil Miller take exception to my remarks on
> ERT, the use of hormones to delay the effects of aging in women.
> I tried to warn individuals that they need to make their own
> decisions, to look at the available evidence and to make a
> reasoned judgment as to whether this "therapy" is worth the risk.
> And there are great risks to ERT. Bob wants to question my
> understanding of the model and that I'm out of a "shaky limb."
> Phil questions the data.
>
Well the St. Louis Post Dispatch has reprinted Brody's article and I studied
it carefully and it seems to me that this was the thrust of the article--that
there were two sides of the issue. In the past ERT had been justified
primarily by the desires of women to "stay young", but that recently there was
accumulating evidence that there were benefits to ERT, particularly in terms
of osteoperosis and heart disease. There is also some evidence that there may
be dangers, particularly in increased risk of cancer. Most of the evidence on
both sides of the question are either primarily correlational (e.g. women who
choose to have ERT are at lower risk of heart disease) or relate to
itermeidary endpints, e.g. taking ERT reduces LDL Cholesterol. More
experimental evidence is needed -- and that is what the Women's Health
Inititative is all about.

My prior posting indicated that Al's claims about alternative therapies as
being effective and without risk were not a good summary of the literature,
but I do not think that SCIFRAUD is the place to debate a scientific evidence
issue unless the claim is that the claims are not based at all in fact. I
found no indications of that in the Brody article (I suppose that NYT may have
printed more of it, but the Post removed all offending aspects :-)

>
> And Phil Miller, without reading the original article,

I have now, and I still do not see your claim that physicians are selling it
as a fountain of youth in the article.

> suggests that physicians would not "sell" ERT as a "fountain of
> youth." Well, Phil, using the medical model the pharmaceutical
> houses sure will and women sure will buy it for that. You may
> insist that medical practitioners are not responsible for the sins
> of the stupid or the greedy, but it is the medical model they are
> using in responding to business pitches and in making their
> choices. It is the medical model that makes their thinking
> possible.
>
Is this list a discussion of marketing or science. I read much of the
scientific literature in this area, and I do not find that literature making
this type of claims. I do not go to the medical conventions, I do not have
the drug company detail droids calling on me, and I do not practice medicine -
but I do do science in this area and do not find that these claims ring true -
but then I may be too close to it to see it :-*


> Phil then recognizes that he "slips" back into using the
> medical model by calling things "diseases." Hard to shake that
> model, ins't it?
>
models are covenient ways of organizing facts - they are not facts in
themselves.

> Allopathic medicine has questioned the use of vitamins and
> sometimes with good reason. But the condemnation of a possible
> therapeutic regimen on the basis that it does not work (made
> without the data we all value so much) is akin to refusing women
> the option of ERT. (Alternative therapies are NOT being
> evaluated in Healy' study.) Women should have a choice of the
> medically approved therapy and alternative therapies. After all,
> the adult human is in a position of being able to make choices.
> Just provide information of a reasonable sort and -- MOST
> IMPORTANT -- look for alternatives, understand alternatives, be
> given alternatives. Searching for alternatives means, among
> other things, questioning the prevailing paradigm.
>
Al, this is ranting and raving at its worst! There are strong research
programs on bone metabolism ongoing at many places in the world. Vitamin D
and calcium are being vigorously studied. Giving D without calcium is not
very helpful, but the positive trials in D require mega-doses of D - not just
drinking your milk. And these levels are not without risk, e.g. kidney
stones. I have not kept up on the Women's Health Initiative, but last I heard
they were still considering this as part of the study.

As I stated in my previous posting, Al was suggesting Vitamin C as an
appropriate therapy, and I am unaware of either a rationale as to how it is
involved in bone metabolism or of scientific data to suggest that it would
help.

-phil

--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 {362-2694(FAX)}
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 16:25:12 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
from: allan needell <nassh100@sivm.bitnet>
Subject: Whodunit
In-Reply-To: note of 05/29/92 18:26

from: allan needell

Tom, et. al.,

I just reread the Douglas Massey article (it was not written by Al Higgins,
just passed along); it refers 5 times to the "Bush Administration." I must
confess I was reacting to another case, with which I am more familiar. In that
case, a (as the Washington expression goes) high ranking official of NIH (an
acquaintance) involved in managing AIDS research, described how in such
politically sensitive areas all of his decisions, and the decisions made by
subordinates in the field, are frequently attributed to the "Bush
Administration" in articles, even though he is not a political appointee, and
presumably he would remain on the job even if Clinton or Perot were elected.
He might have more or less money to work with; and certainly he would have a
new boss.

But I agree with you that someone is responsible for the ideological bent of
Washington policy making and for the ethical standards applied. And the
President is the person politically accountable. But, as you know, the
research and information establishment (to coin a new phrase) is much more
complex and insulated from political power than the "Bush Administration"
usage would have us believe.

Ł

Allan Needell
National Air & Space Museum
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560 (BITNET: NASSH100@SIVM)
Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 19:03:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Reply to Watson

Reply to Watson

Brian Watson requests a clarification:

I'd like some clarification from Al on his "Responses"
note. He seems to be rejecting the medical model. Can he
articulate more completely the model he wishes to
substitute? And does he take the homeopathic approach
seriously, as one might infer from his closing sentence?

I DO object to the medical model. There are too many
problems with it. Too many medical practitioners are dangerous,
too many do very real harm to people. The medical model is a very
limited and limiting view of the human condition, focusing as it
does on biology rather than what might be called the human
situation. Biologism ignores the complexities factors influencing
human behaviors. The typical physician promotes a mechanistic and
materialistic view of living and fosters a dependency and
irresponsibility on the typical patient.

Briefly, as an alternative, I insist on personal
responsibility. The individual must learn, for example, to stay
away from physicians who are dangerous and who have little or no
respect for people and for life. Consider that treating the
biology of gambling, the biology of obesity, the biology of
mental illness, and so on, is inept. There is a way to stop
gambling and drinking but it is not to be had biologically.

There is a great deal of fraud in medicine and patients have
to be taught that what they has been told by a physician is
frequently WRONG and very probably of limited value. Then,
patients using their own good judgment must act as human beings
and make their own decisions. No more of "Just take the red pill
as I told you and everything will be all right."

The imagery of modern medicine is that of WAR. Disease is to
be conquered; germs are to be eradicated; great and desperate
diseases requiring great and desperate cures: it's all John Wayne
and intrusive medicine. I much prefer a "balanced" view of the
individual and his position on this planet. The image I prefer is
that of Lady Barbara Ward's Spaceship Earth. This planet is our
home and we, crewmen in this journey. We must participate for it
is all we have. Ours is not an alien environment but, perhaps, an
environment of which we are afraid because we do not understand.
Biologism will not help our understanding of the human condition.

The image of the surgeon is the heroic physician who, with
scalpel, excises the diseased organ and saves the patient's life.
The surgeon is, to me, a sometimes useful mechanic to have around
but a potentially very dangerous person. His judgments are
usually made on the basis of personal as well as "professional"
concerns as the findings that surgeons use surgery in proportion
to their numbers: the more surgeons, the more surgery. His most
touted procedures are, at least of late: open-heart surgery (at
$15,000 an operation, is found to be of no life-extending value);
and then there is mastectomy (rather than lumpectomy, which can be
shown to be equally effective) for breast cancer in women; and the
surgical treatment of postate cancer (where radiation, alone, does
as well and does not have the unfortunate "side effects" of
surgery). These are only the latest findings.

My closing sentence anent homeopathic physicians was meant
to suggest that the senior Rockefeller appreciated the fact that
homeopaths are not intrusive, they do follow the oft-ignored
primary rule of medicine which is: "First, do no harm." No, I
am not an advocate of homeopathy but I do appreciate its non-
intrusiveness as did Rockefeller.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 31 May 1992 12:24:42 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Whatdunit instead of Whodunit

Allan et al.,
Now we're getting somewhere. I like the term "research and information
establishment". More than "the Bush Administration", that's the black
box we have to peek into. In fact, my guess is that folks in the White
House who would LIKE to affect the activities within the research and
information establishment are often frustrated by how UNresponsive
that establishment is to their wishes. (Certainly here at the local
level, the president of my academic institution feels frustration
regularly at how unsteerable the faculty can be.) There is thus
a complex interplay by which all those who would LIKE to influence
research perspectives actually manage (or fail to manage) to have
any influence.
Despite the complexity, there IS influence. To say that scientific
research is "objective" is naive. Like all other human activities,
it has its embedded cultural values. Frank Jewett, interwar (WWI/WWII)
head of Bell Labs, was typical of a whole camp of conservatives who were
so worried about the Washington component of such influence that they
preferred science not to get any direct federal subsidy of the NSF
variety, so they opposed Vannevar Bush and others advocating a postwar
grant-and-contract-based public system of supporting R&D. They lost,
of course, largely because most people felt it was necessary to the
national security and the general welfare to cultivate a scientific
establishment. As a consequence, we are left with a highly complex new
system by which political "interests" lobby for R&D with one coloration
or another. Dating before the war are the commercial interests, such
as tobacco companies that want "scientific studies" that cast doubt
on findings linking smoking with disease. Dating largely from the
war, despite prewar trends in this direction, are both: 1) an entrenched
"research and information establishment", as Allan calls it, that
seeks its own agenda, as self-serving as any other establishment
in most respects, though sometimes refreshingly committed to such
socially responsible activities as the Asilomar Conference; and
2) a military-industrial complex that requires no further description
here. Dating from about 1960 and, I'd argue, largely stemming from
TV campaigning, PACs, and other new features of politics (and perhaps
undergirded by a pronounced trend toward the concentration of wealth
in a very tiny elite), there's a new trend toward one-issue, ideologically
extremist political action that has led to a depressingly regular
application of "political screens" to Supreme Court appointments,
arts funding, corporate bailouts, museum exhibit policy, environmental
protection legislation enforcement, and all manner of other areas
where it's clearly in the public interest to isolate decisions from
the worst abuses of partisan politics. Is scientific research a part
of these trends of influence? Probably so. Does it encourage scientific
work that does something less than ruthlessly promote critical dedication
to the truth? That's the issue before this group, is it not, Al?
What can be done? The traditional debate is usually over the
integrity and even-handedness of particular individuals. Is Healy
"biased", etc., etc. What my analysis above suggests is that, first,
we have to admit to scientific research having embedded cultural
values, like all other human activities, and second, we need to
seek aspects of social structure that contribute to the compromise
of truth and wisdom. This is nothing new. Americans at least as
early as the late eighteenth century spilled much ink about such
subjects as undue influence and checks and balances. What IS new
is the new shape of that "research and information establishment"
since about WWII, and we haven't come to terms with that yet.
P. Thomas Carroll
Associate Professor of History
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 20:08:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Misleading Ads

Misleading Advertisements

Today's New York Times reports on a study appearing in the
Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers have found misleading
and potentially dangerous advertisements in "leading medical
journals." The journals' articles may be peer reviewed but their
ads are not. The 10 journals whose ads were studied include the
American Journal of Psychiatry, Annals of Emergency Medicine,
Annals of Surgery, Archives of Neurology, Archives of Surgery,
Journal of Family Practice, New England Journal of Medicine,
Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, and the Annals of Internal
Medicine.

Note should be made that there are controls exerted by the
F.D.A. on prescription drug advertising. However, as Dr. Kessler,
Commissioner of F.D.A. notes "...the problem is real."

The industry's trade group insists the study "unfairly
impugned the reputation of an entire industry."

The annotation is from SCIFRAUD.

++++++++++

\Altman, Lawrence K. "Study Says Drug Ads In Medical
Journals Frequently Mislead," New York Times, 1 June
1992, pp. 1, B7.\

A new study was reported today in the Annals of
Internal Medicine concerning ads in medical journals.
These ads are thought to be a prime source of
information for physicians and are known to be a major
source of revenue for the journals. It is reported
here that researchers from UCLA looked over 109 ads in
the first 1990 issues of 10 "leading medical journals."
The UCLA people recruited 150 physicians and
pharmacologists to study the 109 full-page ads. Their
findings were buttressed by an FDA examination of the
same ads.

Half of the ads examined violated F.D.A.
guidelines. "Many advertisements did not highlight
potentially dangerous side effects or had misleading
information on the safety and effectiveness of the
drugs... The reviewers judged that 57 percent of the
advertisements had little or no educational value." (p.
B7)

Articles in medical journals are peer reviewed but
ads are not. Drug companies spent $351 million on ads
in medical journals in 1991.

The ads selected for study were "sent to three
specialists for review. Two were doctors with
expertise in a clinical area relevant to the drug.
Thus, infectious-disease specialists critiqued
advertisements for antibiotics, cardiologists examined
drug advertisements for angina, and psychiatrists went
through a similar process for anti-depressants. The
third reviewer in each group was a pharmacist working
in a medical school." (B7)

"One advertisement in four included statistics in
the text. In 8 of 27 cases, or 30 percent, the
reviewers felt the statistics were derived from
inconclusive, dissimilar or poorly designed studied.
"In 30 percent of the advertisements, the tables
and graphs were judged to be inadequately references
and were likely to lead a reader to a misleading
conclusion.
"In 23 advertisements that used graphs, the
reviewers said the graphs distorted or misrepresented
the conclusions of studies regarding the drug in 9
percent.
"Headlines were judged to be misleading in 32
percent of the advertisements about a drug's
effectiveness and in 19 percent of the advertisements
about the side-effects or cases in which the drug
should not be prescribed.
"In 53 advertisements, or 49 percent, two or more
reviewers judged that the drug was promoted as the
'drug of choice' for at least one condition. In 16 of
the 53 advertisements, or 30 percent, two or more
reviewers disagreed with the claim." (p. B7)

In an aside, "In choosing experts, the authors
said they had originally intended to exclude anyone who
had received more than $300 from the drug industry in
the preceding 24 months. But the authors dropped the
exclusion because 71 percent of the doctors selected
said they had received money from the pharmaceutical
industry during the preceding two years and 53 percent
of them had accepted more than $5,000." (p. B7)

"In a statement, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association, a trade group in Washington, strongly
objected to the methods and conclusions of the study,
which it said unfairly impugned the reputation of an
entire industry.'
"'Prescription drug advertising is the regulated
form of advertising in the United States,' the group
said, adding that the F.D.A. vigorously monitors drug
advertisements and that the agency has adequate
controls to deal with those that do not meet Federal
standards.
"But Dr. David A. Kessler, the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, said there was indeed a problem. 'The
problems of misleading drug advertisements is real,' he
wrote in an editorial in the same issue of the Annals
of Internal Medicine. He said the number of misleading
advertisements in the study was 'disturbingly high.'"
(pp. 1, B7)

++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 20:42:54 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Misleading Ads
in-reply-to: <no.id>; from "achiggins" at jun 1, 92 8:08 pm

In an article from the NYT, Al includes the quotation:


> "But Dr. David A. Kessler, the Commissioner of
> Food and Drugs, said there was indeed a problem. 'The
> problems of misleading drug advertisements is real,' he
> wrote in an editorial in the same issue of the Annals
> of Internal Medicine. He said the number of misleading
> advertisements in the study was 'disturbingly high.'"
> (pp. 1, B7)

I think this study illustrates a major problem in Medicine (and to show that I
really do agree with Al on many things :-). Every physician in academic
medicine that I can recall talking to about this type of topic would agree
with the basic conclusions of the study. Most of these physicians are major
consumers of the peer-reviewed articles but essentially ignore the ads.
Perhaps a study should be done to verify that the ads really are not very
influential in their own clinical practice. On the other hand, it is clear
that the advertisers feel that the ads are useful in selling their product.
The easy conclusion is that they are very influential with many non-academic
physicians. This is one of the major problems with talking about medicine as
science vs medicine as a "trade." Those who carry the bulk of the clinical
load in this country are not scientists, are not informed consumers of medical
researchers, but are apparently influenced by things like the ads in the
medical journals, the articles in the non-peered "throw-away" magazines, and
listen to the drug sales droids (detail men) who give them free samples.

That there is a lot of bad medicine being practiced is an unfortunate fact of
life in this old country of ours. It is not correct, however, to use a broad
brush to judge the science of medicine for these problems. The science of
medicine has many problems that have been well documented on SCIFRAUD and need
our considered attention. The FDA does a much better job of deciding about
approval of drugs in the first place than it does in policing the advertising
and other problems with inappropriate use of drugs. It is the science that
goes into the original approval.

-phil


--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 {362-2694(FAX)}
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 12:02:48 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Response to Hanson

Robin, et al.,
Regarding ink spilled two centuries ago, obviously most of it was about
the state in general, but the basic questions in that arena are the same
ones as for research, namely: who benefits; who pays; who sets the agenda;
who calls the shots along the way; and who has final editorial control?
Adam Smith's WEALTH OF NATIONS (1776) contended that the state shouldn't
call the shots about everyday market policy, for example. The First
Amendment proclaimed that the state would not prevent anyone from
saying what's on her or his mind as part of an attempt to influence
the course of events. Article 1 of the Constitution attempted to
reduce the likelihood of an entrenched elite calling all the shots
by prohibiting the conferring of titles of nobility in the USA.
And so on. There was SOME debate about state funding of TECHNOLOGIES,
however. The most celebrated document was Alexander Hamilton's famous
REPORT ON MANUFACTURES (actually largely ghosted in draft by Tench Coxe,
and reprinted carefully in the published version of Hamilton's Papers),
but there was much else, such as Congressional debates over the funding
of "internal improvements", over "protective tariffs", and over patents,
plus state-level debates over canal-building and things like granting
Fulton a steamboat monopoly on the Hudson river. One place early on
to investigate if you're interested in federal funding of scientific
research would be the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Jefferson's big move
to find out what he'd bought for the country with the Louisiana Purchase.
In any event, the folks in the British Colonies of North America in
the 18c, knowing up close what it was like to feel under the influence
of powerful controlling interests--they called this "tyranny", by the way--
were extremely vigilant about the kinds of social structural issues that
concern us. Living as we do in an age where "Dynasty" is celebrated,
and where people openly proclaim that "winning is everything", we'd do
well to study these cautious folks.
No, I don't think the state "dominates" in research funding. Sure,
it's a major player, but it is more often a conduit for other powerful
interests than it is a force of its own. The key ones are, of course,
global corporate ones, or corporate ones in the military-industrial
complex. My own research has to do with academic settings, though.
I think federal funding of scientific research faces one very real
dilemma. On the one hand, the Bush-style system of semi-isolating
federal science patronage from political "interference", via peer
review and other means, is a welcome check against political screens
and whatnot. On the other, though, it isolates scientific research
from accountability to many who have a major stake in its results.
The trick is to figure out ways where all stakeholders can have
an appropriate say and influence in such matters. We have not yet
found a suitable replacement for sitting around the campfire in the
evening and discussing matters of common importance for members of
the tribe.
For a start on the subject, see Daniel J. Kevles, THE PHYSICISTS
(Knopf, 1978). (Disclosure statement: Kevles was my undergraduate
advisor, and he's largely responsible for getting me started thinking
about these matters, though I'm sure he'd not want to be responsible
for what I think or say.)
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1992 07:41:00 N
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "h.j. woltring,
fax/tel +31.40.413 744" <WOLTRING@HNYKUN53.BITNET>
Subject: Xpost from Psycoloqui: FTP and Science

Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 01:59:36 EST
from: stevan harnad <harnad@clarity.princeton.edu>
Subject: psycoloquy.92.3.29.data-archive.1.skoyles (198 lines)
sender: "psycoloquy: refereed electronic journal of peer discussion"
<PSYC@PUCC.BITNET>
to: multiple recipients of <psyc@pucc.bitnet>

Skoyles: FTP INTERNET DATA ARCHIVING: A Cousin for PSYCOLOQUY

This target article has been accepted for publication in PSYCOLOQUY.
Commentary is now invited. Commentaries should not exceed 100 lines.
Each should have a keyword-indexable title and the commentator's full
name and affiliation. Please submit commentaries to:

psyc@pucc.bitnet or psyc@pucc.princeton.edu


psycoloquy.92.3.29.data-archive.1.skoyles Friday May 29 1992
ISSN 1055-0143 (21 paragraphs, 2 references, 182 lines)
Copyright 1992 John R. Skoyles

FTP INTERNET DATA ARCHIVING: A Cousin for PSYCOLOQUY

John R. Skoyles
Department of Psychology
University College London
WC1E 6BT, UK
ucjtprs@ucl.ac.uk

1.0 ABSTRACT: American Psychological Association (APA) journals do
not publish raw data, hence data are effectively inaccessible. I
propose that authors of research papers should transfer their data
to an Internet site so it can be accessed over Internet by anonymous
ftp. I suggest that such data archiving would (1) make fraud easier
to detect, (2) encourage scientific criticism and (3) aid the
scientific process in general. Nor should it be difficult to
implement.

KEYWORDS: data archiving, deception, electronic retrieval, error
detection, ftp, fraud, meta-analysis, statistics

1.1 Experimental data are rarely published. Usually we are happy with
their author's own statistical treatment. But not always. Researchers
do not always fully analyse their data; sometimes editors restrict
their publication space; and sometimes we have an idea we would like to
try out on those data. It would be nice if the experimental data we read
about were easy to access. I suggest that the approaching-universal use
of computers and the Internet mail and file transfer system have made
this possible. PSYCOLOQUY is archived and easily accessed through
anonymous ftp: There is no reason why archived research data should not
be equally accessible. Though there are several potential problems with
ftp archiving of published data, the benefits would, I believe, vastly
outweigh them.

2.1 Here follows a case for the ftp archiving of data published in APA
(American Psychological Association) journals. I raise a few objections
and last consider how it might be implemented. Note that when I refer
to ftp this also applies to other forms of electronic data transfer.

3.1 First, electronic data archiving should be easy to implement and
will become increasingly so. Most researchers now (unlike, say, even
two years ago) would have little trouble archiving their data upon
publication. Most Results sections are based upon computer analyzed
ASCII data files (usually by a statistical package such as SPSS or
BMDP). Most researchers should have their raw data stored in a form
(i.e. file and subdirectory names) which makes it easy for other
researchers to use. The commands and procedures for transferring it to a
central data archive will be familiar to most psychologists (if not,
most departments have people who will help). Of course, all the details
about the research will be contained in the published paper, so these
need not be stored. Indeed, the names of journals, their volume and
issue numbers, make a convenient directory and subdirectory structure
for organising the archive. There is something self evident about what
data are contained in /JEPHPP/18/1/SMITH/EXP1. And just as it is easy
to MSEND data to an archive so it is easy to MGET them for reanalysis.

3.2.1 Second, the scientific ethic is to make error correction as easy
as possible. Scientists are not always entirely competent or honest.
Numerous cases of fraud and intellectual dishonesty have occurred in
psychology (as elsewhere in science). Researchers are subject to
enormous pressures to publish but unfortunately this normally requires
positive findings. This puts pressure on researchers to rerun analyses
(changing criteria for categorising data, excluding subjects, treating
missing data, etc.) when only negative findings turn up. It is not
clear how many researchers resist these pressures on the integrity of
data analysis. At present, it is difficult to check. In a recent case
reported in *Science*, two psychologists were only able to check the
data analysis of another psychologist through the intervention of
lawyers (Palca 1991).

3.2.2 There is public disquiet in the US Congress (notably, on the
part of Congressman John Dingell) concerning fraud and intellectual
dishonesty in science. Research on published fraudulent papers has
revealed many defects (Stewart & Feder 1987). It is likely that any
archived data would contain even more accessible and noticeable defects
(in their data distributions, treatment and analysis). Archiving data
would thus make it easier to detect both fraud and intellectual
dishonesty.

3.3 Third, much honestly obtained and analyzed data is incompetently
handled, yut many legitimate criticisms never arise because of
difficulties accessing data. At present, if you suspect that a
researcher's own analysis gives only part of the story or is
misleading, you face an involved process of contacting them for the
original data (something inconvenient to all concerned). Archiving data
would increase the opportunities for legitimate criticism of published
work.

3.4 Fourth, researchers ask different questions. Sometimes a
researcher may wish to reanalyse data to answer questions the original
authors ignored. People carrying out meta-analyses will often want to
check the quality of the work they are using. At present this is not
possible.

3.5 Fifth, students could gain much by examining real research papers
and then "playing around" with their data, seeing the affects of
different data-analytic strategies. They might even even find things
overlooked by their authors.

3.6 Sixth, much data is accidentally lost (despite APA's requirement
that authors retain their data for a number of years). An ftp archive
would make a convenient data backup.

3.7 Seventh, scientific papers are printed on paper -- this, not the
nature of science, is the reason data are not normally made accessible
at this time. Science is about open communication that maximally
exposes ideas and arguments to criticism (one legitimate criticism of
an idea is the way its data are handled). Printed paper is a convenient
means for opening written ideas to criticism, but it is unsuitable for
making data accessible to criticism (it limits the quantity which can
be published and communicates in a form that is inconvenient for
computer reanalysis). Print has until recently been the only means for
disseminating scientific ideas and data. Hence the tradition has arisen
of limiting the dissemination of data. We should recognise the
opportunity that electronic archives provide for breaking with this.

4.0 There are some reasons against ftp archiving:

4.1 Certain classes of data (e.g., clinical data) may have to be
excluded to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of those from whom
it is collected. This constraint does not apply to large portions of
psychology, however, such as research on animals, reaction time studies on
student subjects, or computer simulations.

4.2 Researchers certainly have the right to the "first go" at their
data. However, the fact of publication, unless contrary notice is
given, usually signifies that the data have already been substantially
analyzed, and frequently no further analysis is intended.

4.3 There is another entirely invalid objection. Many researchers
will be uncomfortable with their data being ftp archived because none
of us are perfect. If our data can be reanalyzed we may be shown to
have carried out, quite unintentionally, inappropriate or misleading
analysis. To some extent the present state of affairs is quite
convenient for hiding the fact that many researchers could be better
statisticians and could keep better records.

5.0 Since impracticability may be an objection, I describe how an ftp
archive might work:

5.1 The archive would have to be moderated by an archivist. Journal
editors, for example, could contact the archivist, who would in turn
contact the paper's chief author, providing a password and a temporary
directory into which raw data files could be transferred. Researchers
would be free to create the subdirectories they felt best organised the
data and to write a brief contents file. The archivist would transfer
the files to a permanent directory. A standard note on the front page
of the published paper would state whether its data had been archived.

5.2 I suggest that not only the raw data be stored but also the
statistical and data analysis programs (SPSS or BMDP; or uncomplied
Basic, Pascal or C) used to analyse them. Without these programs,
tracing the transformation of the raw data into the reported
statistical findings would be much more difficult.

5.3 Parallel to the archive there should be a directory for comments
by people who have accessed the data, to record their findings. Anyone
wanting to reexamine anyone's data would be interested in any previous
reanalyses, good and bad.

5.4 There is no reason such a data archive could not grow to
cover non-APA journals, theses, and nonpublished data (for example,
unpublished negative findings).

5.5 Such a system would of course involve some cost and effort,
perhaps even some inconvenience. However, with the public and
congressional concern about whether scientists are maximally ensuring
the integrity of their data, a ftp archive would show a commitment from
the psychological community to ensuring honesty in published
psychological research.

REFERENCES.

Palca, J. (1991). News and Comment: Get-the-lead-out guru challenged.
Science 253: 842-844.

Stewart, W. W. & Feder, N. (1987). The integrity of the scientific
literature. Nature 325: 207-214.
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 14:24:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: MED MODEL

I have another two cents to put into the discussion of the
medical model. I, too, was much impressed by Thomas Szacz's
"Myth of Mental Illness." Perhaps it is because I wasn't
priveleged to hear his lectures, but it was my understanding
that he was taking the medical model to task because it was
being inappropriately applied in an area where it did not fit --
that is, the field of psychiatry. I agreed with him then, I
agree with him now. I agree with Harry Stack Sullivan, whose
footsteps Szacz was so clearly following: to paraphrase Sullivan,
the only facts of proper interest to psychiatry are the facts of
interpersonal relationships. The search for damaged tissue as
the causal agent of maladaptive behavior goes on, the erroneous
identifications of such agents continue, and new graduates are
spewing out of their training with new confusions.

But to leap from travesty to grand condemnation of an entire
field of study is but further travesty -- akin to the social
phenomenon of guilt by association.

Someone asked Al last week for an alternative to the medical
model. I have been collecting literature on such alternatives
for a while. Here is one: "an ancient healing art rediscovered
in Japan in the 1800's....." According to the brochure, it can
be learned by anyone. It consists of the channeling of "healing
energy through the body and into oneself or another person
through the hands." This treatment "will go through material,
including plaster and metal." Apparently, it will pass through
phone lines, because the brochure speaks of "absentee sessions."

Here is another: This person offers "energy supervision" to
psychotherapists. The brochure includes testimonials. The energy
supervisor is able to "perceive the client's energy which may
come through any of my senses..."

Al, these are only two of many. There are lots of alternatives to
the medical model out there. Pick one.

In appreciation for this always interesting discussion group,

Bob Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 07:43:32 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: NIH Changes Policy

from:

AIDS Daily Summary
June 4, 1992

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National AIDS Clearinghouse makes
available the following information as a public service only. Providing
this information does not constitute endorsement by the CDC, the
Clearinghouse, or any other organization. Reproduction of this text is
encouraged; however, copies may not be sold. Copyright 1992,
Information, Inc., Washington, DC

...

"White House to Rein in NIH" Chicago Tribune (06/03/92), P. 1-5
(Crewdson, John)
The Bush administration is expected to reveal this week a major
reorganization of the government group that investigates fraud in
scientific research, say inside sources. The action will eliminate any
investigative responsibility the National Institutes of Health had
involving "scientific misconduct" by researchers, including its own.
Sources said the NIH's Office of Scientific Integrity, which currently
has that authority, would be taken over by the Office of Research
Integrity, a new agency within the Department of Health and Human
Services. One NIH source said a main reason for eliminating the OSI
was to "lessen the likelihood that NIH is seen as an agency
investigating itself." The reorganization also provides scientists
accused of misconduct with the opportunity to have their cases heard in
a quasi-judicial setting. The new investigative group will be headed
on an interim basis by Dr. J. Michael McGinnis, currently deputy
assistant HHS secretary for health.

--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 {362-2694(FAX)}
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 10:37:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bienkows@qcvax.bitnet
Subject: RE: MED MODEL

I guess I am having a bad day, and I might have completely misinterpreted
Bob Barasch's communications on Medical Models, but I really must take
exceptions to his comments.

>to paraphrase Sullivan,
>the only facts of proper interest to psychiatry are the facts of
>interpersonal relationships. The search for damaged tissue as
>the causal agent of maladaptive behavior goes on, the erroneous
>identifications of such agents continue, and new graduates are
>spewing out of their training with new confusions.

What then is a psychiatrist to do when he/she suspects brain lesion?
Worse, if a psychiatrist is not trained to think about damaged tissue as being
the cause for a psychiatric illness, then he might start an inappropriate
treatment (eg, behavior tx for a brain tumor).

Regarding alternative treatments...well, taliking to somebody about your
problems often helps, and it's nice to here a soothing voice replying.
That explains why

>This treatment "will go through material,
>including plaster and metal." Apparently, it will pass through
>phone lines, because the brochure speaks of "absentee sessions."
>Here is another: This person offers "energy supervision" to
>psychotherapists. The brochure includes testimonials. The energy
>supervisor is able to "perceive the client's energy which may
>come through any of my senses..."

Here in New York, you can dial a 900 number and get your Tarot cards
read on TV (late night, Channel 49 or so).

And speaking of alternative models, let's not forget chiropractors.
Hey, who can argue with the therapeutic benefits of a good back rub?

Regards
Bob Bienkowski
BIENKOWS@QCVAX

(who is feeling a bit grumpy this morning)
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 13:10:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: MORE MED MODEL

Bob Bienkowski's comments are well taken, particularly the
latter ones. Yes, a soothing voice, an honest relationship, a
genuinely concerned other are major ingredients in the "talking
therapy" that some of us work at. I'm made uncomfortable by the
introduction of too many unverifiable elements into the
explanation -- such as "healing energy," "channeled" ancestors,
"polarity," etc. Perhaps I'm too enamored of the world that,
according to the Psalmist, "stands firm," but I am more
comfortable with a chiropractor who explains his work in terms
of vertebral pressures than one who talks about energy flow
between the chiropractor and the patient.

As for the psychiatrist who suspects brain lesion, I have no
quarrel at all if that suspicion is based on evidence. Sometimes,
however, the most parsimoneous explanation of a person's
depression, for example, is imbedded in that person's recent or
remote interpersonal history; a person trained to believe that
all deviant, uncomfortable, or annoying behavior is a function of
lesions is at a disadvantage and puts his/her patients at a
similar disadvantage. To avoid evading your question, while I
can't speak for Sullivan, I think the answer is that when a
brain lesion is involved, it is a neurological rather than a
psychiatric disorder. (The perils of specialized categories at
work here.)

By the way, if anyone has other unusual alternative treatments
they'd like to share, I'd be pleased to hear about them. I don't
know how many others on the list have seen the publication that
was recently mailed to 100,000 mental health workers; the
publication reports on a study that found that about one out of
50 Americans reports having been abducted by aliens from outer
space.

Bob Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 22:53:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Instant Justice

Court Decisions

Here is an announcement from another network which I
thought would be of interest to SCIFRAUD. Considering the date,
many of you are probably aware of Project Hermes but this is the
first I've heard of it. It sounds fascinating.

The notion of "instant judgments" is fascinating and
terrifying. But, of course, this is only the dissemination of
judgment and not the process of making judgments. Nonetheless,
fascinating and terrifying.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





U.S. SUPREME COURT ONLINE DISSEMINATION OF OPINIONS

On May 11th, 1990 the United States Supreme Court announced
that it was beginning a two-year experimental program called
"Project Hermes." The objective of this project is to rapidly
provide copies of the Court's opinions in electronic form to as
wide an audience as possible.

Twenty organizations applied to be a part of this project, 12
were accepted; and one of the successful applicants was a
noncommercial, nonprofit, consortium composed of Case Western
Reserve University (CWRU), EDUCOM, and the National Public
Telecomputing Network (NPTN). What this means for YOU is that you
will now be able to receive electronically the full text of the
Court's opinions within minutes of their release--FREE.

It will work like this...

When the Court decides to release an opinion or set of
opinions, a computer at the Supreme Court Building will open-up 12
telephone lines and simultaneously send copies to its primary
distributors. In our case, it will be received by a CWRU computer
here in Cleveland where a special program will clear out the
various printer codes from the document. Two things will then
occur. First, a copy of each of the "clean" documents will be
sent electronically to the EDUCOM offices in Washington D.C.
EDUCOM will then place the files on both the Internet and BITNET
networks for distribution to the academic and research community.
Second, and at the same time, copies will be distributed across
all NPTN affiliated community computer systems.

You may have the Court's opinions sent directly to you if you
have access to either a BITNET or Internet computer (many, if not
most, major universities are connected to one service or the
other); or you may download the files directly from any NPTN
community computer system. There is no charge to receive this
service beyond whatever fees your university computing center
might have, or the cost of a telephone call to an NPTN affiliate.

To receive more information on how to sign-up for the BITNET/
Internet service, or if you would like to know more about
accessing these files on an NPTN community computer, please send
your name, organization or firm, address, city, state, and zip,
to: PROJECT HERMES, CWRU COMMUNITY TELECOMPUTING LAB, 319
WICKENDEN BUILDING, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44106.

For general information about Project Hermes or about the
National Public Telecomputing Network, please contact: Tom
Grundner at the above address or at (216) 368-2733.

You can also contact Project Hermes electronically via:

Internet: aa584@cleveland.freenet.edu
BITNET: aa584%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 18:03:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Profile of Frauds?

A Fraud Profile?

The New York Times reports on a new case of fraud in
science, that of Mitchell H. Rosner of Harvard Medical and
Georgetown. The research he was caught out in was done at an NIH
laboratory.

Although the exact reference to the fraudulent article is
not provided in the Times piece, it is: Rosner, Mitchell H.; De
Santo, Ronald J.; Heinz, Arnheiter and Staudt, Louis M. "Oct-3
Is a Material Factor Required for the First Mouse Embryonic
Division," Cell 64 (22 March 1991), pp. 1103-1110.

There are several interesting things about this case: the
cheat is still low man on the academic totem pole; the case is a
clean and straightforward case of dishonesty, very rare in
science; the cheat has confessed, again, very rare in science;
the confessed cheat is a medical student at Harvard as well as a
graduate student at Goergetown; the accused is also described as
"a prototype" of the scientific cheat -- and I was not aware that
we had such a "profile" on "scientific cheats."

Here is the annotation from the SCIFRAUD file.



/Angier, Natalie. "Scientists Retract Embryo Study,
Saying Research Was Fraudulent," New York Times, 9
June 1992, p. C3.\

A "clear case" of fraud in science is a rarity.
Here is one. A paper published in March, 1991, in the
journal Cell has been withdrawn by several of its co-
authors who state simply that the main author of the
paper fabricated the results reported in it. The
author accused of fraud is a graduate student. The
clamors come from co-authors at NIH; and the confessed
fraud in science was a doctoral student at Georgetown
as well as a medical student as Harvard.

Doctor Louis M. Staudt heads the NIH laboratory
where the fraud occurred informed the editor of Cell,
Benjamin Lewin, of the fraud. The editor inserted the
blunt-language retraction. The clear accusation was
made possible by the confession of the accused: Mitch
Rosner. The confessed fraud has withdrawn from
Georgetown University and expects a decision soon from
the medical school at Harvard concerning his enrollment
there.

Mr. Rosner is described by Angier as fitting the
prototype of the cheating scientist: "an exceptionally
intelligent and promising young researcher who has no
obvious need to commit fraud. Dr. Staudt described him
as 'a very bright student who had done some quite good
work initially.' So successful was he in his research
that in 1990, Mr. Rosner was the principal author on a
major report published in the journal Nature, a coveted
honor for a graduate student."

"The retraction throws into question a flourishing
subspeciality of biology, the study of critical
molecular signals that control mammalian development at
the moment a fertilized egg begins rapid growth into an
animal." The work was clearly important and other
scientists had trouble trying to reproduce the
experiment. "Dr. Staudt said that when Mr. Rosner
learned that the other scientists were having trouble
reproducing his experiments, he raced back to Bethesda
from Harvard and tried to manipulate the new efforts
apparently by coming into the lab after hours and
working illicitly with the data on the cells. In the
end, there was no way to hide."

Failed efforts at replication coupled with a
confession are very rare in science.



Now, armed as we are with our profile, it is clear what
must be done: all intelligent and promising young applicants with
no apparent need to commit fraud, who initially do good work and
manage to be lead authors in articles published in Nature and
Cell, while still students in Ivy League schools, are to be
eliminated from programs in biology. In this way, NIH
laboratories will be free of potential cheats.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 14:43:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Fraud profile...

A question the last posting provoked in my head was: if indeed this
Grad student was the creme de la creme, as there is really no reason to
doubt, then why did he commit fraud? It seems to be analagous to cheating
on a major exam when one is at the top of the class. Somewhat pointless,
and worse, rather risky. Unless one has the strong (and maybe substantiated)
belief that most scientists commit fraud of one sort or another, and that
the penalties, even if caught, are slight. That certainly seems to be the
situation here and now, and so this poor Mitch fellow just decided to cut
some corners, as that's what everyone does. Continuing the exam analogy,
it's as if the professor giving the test said 'If you cheat on this test,
I will be very unhappy. I may even slap your wrist.'

Perhaps if we censured fraudulent scientists a bit more, with stiff
fines, blackballing, or even jail terms in cases where the research was
critical (medicine, for one), then the newer scientists would think,
rightly, that there was too much to lose if they were to lie. I am certain
that if there was a mandatory twenty year jail term for all major frauds,
people would stop fudging data, in the main.

Well, I have no power to enact any radical measures, but perhaps
someone reading this will. Even though most would hesitate to send
Baltimore to prison or the poorhouse, perhaps the good of the many
outweighs the good of the few. Once examples were made, actual fraud
should taper off.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.EDU
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1992 18:46:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Mitchell H. Rosner

Mitchell H. Rosner

One of the interesting things about the Mitch Rosner case
is that he is still an academic junior, a student. It is true
that he has been an extraordinarily successful student but he
still is a student. Now he is being punished: he has withdrawn
from his Georgetown studies and his fate at Harvard Medical is in
doubt.

My point is this: structurally, he can safely be thrown to
the wolves, made an example of, precisely because he is low
man on the academic totem pole. The loss of student is not a
severe blow to the community. It is not the disgrace of a
Baltimore or a Gallo which might reflect badly on the whole. The
loss of a bright student is a disgrace to that student but is
nothing to the scientific community.

Far better to make examples of a few good students than to
risk ruining the reputation of the system's stalwarts. By
severely punishing Rosner, the scientific community can point to
this case and demonstrate that it is capable of self-policing.
With Rosner, the community can make its case that its self-
correcting mechanisms do work. And in this case, can do it with
a fraud that occurred at an NIH laboratory! This is Congressman
Dingell's question: can the NIH police itself? And with the
Rosner's being drummed from the corps, the NIH community can
present this lamb it has slaughtered.

Human sacrifice is not pretty. On the other hand, there are
good sacrifices and bad sacrifices: some sacrifices are more
functional than others. Baltimore's disgrace would be
dysfunctional for the scientific community, Rosner's,
eufunctional. Indeed, Rosner is an excellent candidate for the
stake: an apparently very bright kid with lots of things going
for him, the scientific community can, with his burning, shed its
best crocodile tears. Makes for a good auto da fe.

Get out your knitting needles, we are about to have a show.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1992 16:39:30 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: barkana@dupr.ocs.drexel.edu
Subject: Re: MORE MED MODEL

>Bob Barasch:
>......the
>publication reports on a study that found that about one out of
>50 Americans reports having been abducted by aliens from outer
>space.

Dou you mean ~1/50*200M=4 million???? 4 million independent tests
with the same result?
....and I thought all those stories on aliens from outer space were
pure jokes!?
With best regards
Izhak

+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Dr. Izhak Bar-Kana |
| Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering |
| Drexel University, Philadelphia PA 19104 |
| Phone: 215-895-1928 Fax: 215-895-1695 |
| Email: (Internet) barkana@dupr.ocs.drexel.edu |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 17:24:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: report

Izhak:

I don't have the report with me at the moment, but I believe the
sample was 6000 folks, of which about 2% were classified as
abductees. The people who sent this document out are planning
conferences in major US cities where the results will be
discussed. I wouldn't be surprised if Philadelphia is one of the
cities. If you should attend (voluntarily, of course), I'd be
interested in what you learn.
Regards, Bob

STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
BOB BARASCH
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 00:19:01 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: eco_gxc@shsu.bitnet
Subject: RE: Fraud profile...

are you really sure that a 20 year mandatory jail sentence for science
fruad would eliminate data fudging? I doubt it. We've got a lot of crimes
which carry mandatory sentences and they haven't been eliminated. The
cause of science fraud is more complex than that. Deterrence theory in
criminology has been found to be far from a complete explanation of why
some people commit crime and some don't. I doubt that it explains fraud
science any better ---

gary carson
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 13:28:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Deterrence theory...

Actually, I didn't mean to imply that I thought fraud could ever
be eradicated, by any means at all. At least, not in the forseeable
future. But I do think that stiffer punishments would cut down on the
amount of fraud committed. Also, if there was a twenty-year sentence
for those caught, I really do think most scientists would think twice
about fudging data, or at least be much more careful. Although things
like murder still occur despite such sentences, there are two flaws in
the analogy: 1) If murder had almost no punishment at all, there would
probably be a lot more killings than there are now, and some professors
I know of would be in extreme danger, and 2) I don't believe fraud is
a crime of passion, or mostly spontaneous. In crimes that are thought out,
punishment will be a factor in the criminal's plans.

Again, I do not forsee tougher sanctions against the apprehended in
scifraud, especially not when they have a lot of clout. But I still do
think that some such measures might alleviate the situation at hand (that
fraud is certainly, despite biased reports, widespread).

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1992 16:32:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on Rosner

Follow-Up

In a posting to SCIFRAUD on 9 June, some of the story of
Mitchell Rosner was told: he was a known, self-confessed,
science cheat. A bright student at Georgetown as well as Harvard
Medical, he was found to have faked research results in a paper
published in March, 1991, in Cell. The Times reported that the
letter of retraction published in Cell was "a blunt-language
retraction." Such clear statement of dishonesty is rare in
science and I wondered just what the retraction said.

Here in its entirety is the Letter to the Editor which
appeared in Cell. This reference is: Cell 69 (29 May 1992). p.
724

Retraction: Oct-3 Is a Maternal Factor Required for
the First Mouse Embryonic Division.

Recent investigations have revealed that the
experimental evidence supporting the conclusions of the
paper by Rosner et al, (Cell 64, 1103-1110, 1991) has
been fabricated by one of the authors (M. R.) without
any knowledge by the others. We therefore retract this
paper in its entirety. We sincerely apologize to
anybody, within or outside the research community, who
has been misled by this publication.

Mitchell Rosner, Ronald J. De Santo, Heinz Arnheiter,
and Louis M. Staudt
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute
Bethesda, Maryland 20892


Short and to the point but it tells nothing of the story of
this fabrication and the meaning of the incident. This is, in a
very real sense, "not-science" at all. Science, apparently purged
of Rosner's misinformation, is now to continue. The reader is to
assume that MR is just of a "bad apple" who, purged, is
meaningless to science. He is untrustworthy but the enterprise of
science is just clean as a hound's tooth.

There is absolutely no inquiry here of the system of
science, no inquiry of science's structure to see if there might
be something wrong with the system. This is not seen as evidence
that there may be something wrong. This is not a case among many
other cases of fakery in science. Such a view as is implied here
perpetuates the system of doing science in the manner in which
it is done.

It is not enough to purge the occasional fraud unlucky
enough to get caught and proclaim that the self-policing
mechanisms of science work. But this is precisely the context of
this "blunt language." These are the words of insiders, of
loyalists.

It is this kind of loyalty which feeds the suspicions of
John Dingell and has brought science such unwanted notoriety of
late. This may be science as usual but this is not the time
for science as usual. Blunt language is not enough. It may be
time for analysis of the doing of science.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 11:41:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: More on Rosner

In re Rosner, it would be interesting to know whether he has at least
been expelled, or given 20 lashes before the mast, or what.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 23:36:00 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: harald johnstad ssc <johnstad@sscvx1.bitnet>
Subject: SSC isn't dead yet

THE SSC IS NOT DEAD YET!

Please!

+ Call your senators and let them know that you want funding
for the SSC restored.

+ Call your representatives and let them know you are unhappy
about their vote to kill the SSC (see below for list).

+ Ask you colleagues, friends and relatives to do the same.

Thanks for your support.



DIRECTORY OF THE SENATE

Name Room Zip Tel. (202-) Fax (202-)




ALABAMA
Howell T. Heffin SH-728 HS 20510-0101 224-4124 224-3149
Richard C. Shelby SH-313 HS 20510-0103 224-5744 224-3416

Alaska
Ted Stevens SH-522 HS 20510-0201 224-3004
Frank H. Murkowski SH-709 HS 20510-0202 224-6665

Arizona
Dennis DeConcini SH-328 HS 20510-0302 224-4521 224-8698
John McCain SR-111 RS 20510-0303 224-8938

Arkansas
Dale Bumpers SD-229 DS 20510-0401 224-4843
David Pryor SR-246 RS 20510-0402 224-2353 224-8261

California
Alan Cranston SH-112 HS 20510-0501 224-3553
Pete Wilson SH-720 HS 20510-0502 224-3841

Colorado
William L. Armstrong SH-528 HS 20510-0602 224-5941
Timothy E. Wirth SR-380 RS 20510-6063 224-5852

Connecticut
Christopher J. Dodd SR-444 RS 20510-0702 224-2823
Joseph I. Lieberman SH-502 HS 20510-0703 224-4041 224-9750

Delaware
Willaim V. Roth, Jr. SH-104 HS 20510-2902 224-3324
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. SR-489 RS 20510-0802 224-5042

Florida
Bob Graham SD-241 DS 20510-0903 224-3041 224-6843
Connie Mack SH-517 HS 20510-0904 224-5274 224-9365

Georgia
Sam Nunn SD-303 DS 20510-1001 224-3521 224-0072
Wyche Fowler, Jr. SR-204 RS 20510-1003 224-3643 224-8227

Hawaii
Daniel K. Inouye SH-722 HS 20510-1102 224-3934 224-6747
Spark M. Matsunaga SH-109 HS 20510-1101 224-6361

Idaho
James A. McClure SH-309 HS 20510-1201 224-2752 224-1006
Steve Symms SH-509 HS 20510-1202 224-6142 224-5893

Illinois
Alan Dixon SH-331 HS 20510-1301 224-2854 224-5581
Paul Simon SD-462 DS 20510-1302 224-2152

Kansas
Bob Dole SH-141 HS 20510-1601 224-6521 224-8952
Nancy Landon Kassebaum SR-302 RS 20510-1602 224-4774 224-3514

Kentucky
Wendell H. Ford SR-173A RS 20510-1701 224-4343
Mitch McConnell SR-120 RS 20510-1702 224-2541 224-2499

Louisiana
J. Bennett Johnston SH-136 HS 20510-1802 224-5824 224-2501
John B. Breaux SH-516 HS 20510-1803 224-4623 224-9753

MAINE
William S. Cohen SH-322 HS 20510-1901 224-2523
George J. Mitchell SR-176 RS 20510-1902 224-5344

MARYLAND
Paul S. Sarbanes SD-332 DS 20510-2002 224-4524 224-1651
Barbara A. Mikulski SH-320 HS 20510-2003 224-4654 224-8858

MASSACHUSETTS
Edward M. Kennedy SR-315 RS 20510-2101 224-4543 224-2417
John F. Kerry SR-421 RS 20510-2102 224-2742 224-8525

MICHIGAN
Donald W. Riegle, Jr. SD-105 DS 20510-2201 224-4822 224-8834
Carl Levin SR-459 RS 20510-2202 224-6221

MINNESOTA
Dave Durenberger SR-154 RS 20510-2301 224-3244
Rudy Boschwitz SH-506 HS 20510-2302 224-8438

MISSISSIPPI
Thad Cochran SR-326 RS 20510-2402 224-5054
Trent Lott SR-487 RS 20510-2403 224-6253 224-2262

MISSOURI
John C. Danforth SR-249A RS 20510-2502 224-6154 224-7615
Christopher (Kit) Bond SR-293 RS 20510-2503 224-5721 224-8149

MONTANA
Max Baucus SH-706 HS 20510-2602 224-2651
Conrad Burns SD-194 HS 20510-2603 224-2644 224-8594

NEBRASKA
James Exon SH-330 HS 20510-2702 224-4224 224-5213
Robert Kerrey SH-302 HS 20510-2704 224-6551 224-7645

NEVADA
Harry Reid SH-324 HS 20510-2803 224-3542 224-7327
Richard H. Bryan SR-358 RS 20510-2804 224-6244 224-1867

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gordon J. Humphrey SH-532 HS 20510-2901 224-2841 224-1353
Warren B. Rudman SH-530 HS 20510-2902 224-3324

NEW JERSEY
Bill Bradley SH-731 HS 20510-3001 224-3224 224-8567
Frank R. Lautenberg SH-717 HS 20510-3002 224-4744 224-9707

NEW MEXICO
Pete V. Domenici SD-434 DS 20510-3101 224-6621 224-7371
Jeff Bingaman SH-524 HS 20510-3102 224-5521

NEW YORK
Daniel P. Moynihan SR-464 RS 20510-3201 224-4451
Alfonse M. D'Amato SH-520 HS 20510-3202 224-6542 224-5871

NORTH CAROLINA
Jesse Helms SD-403 DS 20510-3301 224-6342 224-1376
Terry Sanford SH-716 HS 20510-3304 224-3154 224-7406

NORTH DAKOTA
Quentin N. Burdick SH-511 HS 20510-3401 224-2551 224-1193
Kent Conrad SD-361 DS 20510-3403 224-2043 224-7776

OHIO
John Glenn SH-503 HS 20510-3501 224-3353
Howard M. Metzenbaum SR-140 RS 20510-3502 224-2315 224-8906

OKLAHOMA
David L. Boren SR-453 RS 20510-3601 224-4721 224-0154
Don Nickles SH-713 HS 20510-3602 224-5754

OREGON
Mark O. Hatfield SH-711 HS 20510-3701 224-3753
Bob Packwood SR-259 RS 20510-3702 224-5244 224-5244

PENNSYLVANIA
John Heinz SR-277 RS 20510-3801 224-6324 224-7763
Arlen Specter SH-303 HS 20510-3802 224-4254

RHODE ISLAND
Claiborne Pell SR-335 RS 20510-3901 224-4642 224-4680
John H. Chafee SD-567 DS 20510-3902 224-2921 224-6166

SOUTH CAROLINA
Strom Thurmond SR-218 RS 20510-4001 224-5972 224-1300
Ernest F. Hollings SR-125 RS 20510-4002 224-6121 224-3573

SOUTH DAKOTA
Larry Pressler SH-133 HS 20510-4101 224-5842 224-1630
Thomas A. Daschle SH-317 HS 20510-4103 224-2321 224-2047

TENNESSEE
Jim Sasser SR-363 RS 20510-4201 224-3344 224-9590
Albert Gore, Jr. SR-393 RS 20510-4202 224-4944

TEXAS
Lloyd Bentsen SH-703 HS 20510-4301 224-5922
Phil Gramm SR-370 RS 20510-4302 224-2934

UTAH
Jake Garn SD-505 DS 20510-4401 224-5444
Orrin G. Hatch SR-135 RS 20510-4402 224-5251 224-6331

VERMONT
Patrick J. Leahy SR-433 RS 20510-4502 224-4242 224-4797
James M. Jeffords SD-530 DS 20510-4503 224-5141 224-1507

VIRGINIA
John Warner SR-225 RS 20510-4601 224-2023 224-6295
Charles S. Robb SR-493 RS 20510-4603 224-4024 224-8689

WASHINGTON
Brock Adams SH-513 HS 20510-4703 224-2621 224-0238
Slade Gorton SH-730 HS 20510-4701 224-3441 224-9393

WEST VIRGINIA
Robert C. Byrd SH-311 HS 20510-4801 224-3954 224-8070
John D. Rockefeller IV SH-724 HS 20510-4802 224-6472 224-1689

WISCONSIN
Robert W. Kasten, Jr. SH-110 HS 20510-4902 224-5323 224-2548
Herb Kohl SH-701 HS 20510-4903 224-5653 224-9787

WYOMING
Malcolm Wallop SR-237 RS 20510-5001 224-6441 224-3230
Alan K. Simpson SD-261-DS 20510-5002 224-3424 224-1315


Represenatives who voted to kill the SSC:

Abecrombie, Neil HI
Ackerman, Gary NY
Andrews, Thomas H. ME
Annunzio, Frank, IL
Applegate, Douglas OH
Atkins, Chester MA (Mass)
AuCoin, Les OR (Ore)
Ballenger, Cass NC
Barrett, Bill NEB
Beilenson, Anthony CA
Bennett, Charles FL
Bereuter, Doug NB (Nebra)
Berman, Howard CA
Bilbray, James NV
Blackwell, Lucien E. PA
Boehlurt, Sherwood NY
Boxer, Barbara CA
Bruce, Terry IL
Bunning, Jim KY (Kentucky)
Burton, Dan IN (Indiana)
Camp, Dave Mich
Campbell, Ben N. CO
Campbell, Tom CA
Carper, Thomas DE (Delaware)
Carr, Bob MI (Mich)
Clay, William MO
Clement, Bob Tenn
Coble, Howard NC
Coleman, Thomas MO
Collins, Barbara Rose Michigan
Collins, Cardiss IL
Condit, Gary A. CA
Conyers, John Jr. MI (Michigan)
Costello, Jerry F. Illinois
Coughlin, Lawrence PA
Cox, John W. Jr. Illinois
DeLaura, Rosa Conn
Delluns, Ronald CA
Dingell, John MI (Mich)
Donnelly, Brian MA
Dooley,
Doolittle
Dorgan, Byron ND
Downey, Thomas NY
Duncan, John TN
Durbin, Richard IL
Early, Joseph MA
Eckart, Dennis OH
Edwards, Don CA
Edwards, Mickey OK
English, Glenn OK
Evans, Lane IL
Ewing
Feighan, Edward OH
Fish, Hamilton NY
Flake, Floyd NY
Foglietta, Thomas PA
Ford, William MI
Ford, Harold TN
Frank, Barney MA
Gaydos, Joseph PA
Gejdenson, Sam CT (Connecticut)
Gilman, Benjamin NY
Gilmor
Glickman, Dan KA
Goodling, Bill PA
Gordon, Bart TN
Goss
Gradison, Bill OH
Grandy, Fred IA (Iowa)
Guarini, Frank NJ
Gunderson, Steve WI
Hall, Tony OH
Hamilton, Lee IN (Indiana)
Hancock
Hastert, Dennis IL
Hayes, Charles IL
Hefley, Joel CO
Henry, Paul MI
Herger, Wally CA
Hoagland
Horton, Frank NY
Hughes, William NJ
Hutto, Earl FL
Inhofe, James OK
Jacobs, Andrew IN
James
Jefferson
Johnson, Nancy CT
Johnston
Jont?
Kanjorski, Paul PA
Kennedy, Joseph MA
Kennelly, Barbara CT
Kildee, Dale MI
Kleczka, Gerald WI
Klug, Scott Wisc
Kostmayer, Peter PA
Lafalce, John NY
Lancaster, H. Martin NC
Lantos, Tom CA
Leach, Jim IA
Lehman, Richard CA
Lent, Norman NY
Levin, Sander MI
Long, Jill, IN
Louis, Jerry CA
Louis, Tom FL
Louis, John GA
Lapinski, William IL
Lowery, Bill CA
Luken, Thomas OH
Markey, Edward MA
Martinez, Matthew CA
Machley, Ron, Rhode Isl.
Marlenee, Ron Montana
Martin, David NY
McCandless, Al CA
McCollum, Bill FL
McCurdy, Dave OK
McDermott, Jim, Wash
McGrath, Raymond NY
McMillan, J. Alex NC
Meyers, Jan KA
Mfume, Kweisi MD
Miller, George CA
Mink, Patsy Hawaii
Moakley, Joe MA
Molinari, Guy NY
Moody, Jim WI
Morella, Constance MD
Mrazek, Robert NY
Neal, Richard E. Mass
Neal, Stephen NC
Nichols, Bill AL
Nowak, Henry NY
Nussle, Jim Iowa
Oberstar, James MN
Obey, David WI
Olver, John W. Mass
Orton, Bill Utah
Owens, Major NY
Owens, Wayne UT
Pallone, Frank Jr. NJ
Panetta, Leon CA
Parker, Mike Miss
Pastor, Ed Ariz
Patterson, Liz SC
Paxon, Bill NY
Payne Donald M NJ
Pease, Don OH
Pelosi, Nancy CA
Penny, Timothy MN
Petri, Thomas WI
Peterson Doublas FLA
Porter, John, IL
Poshard, Glenn Ill
PRice David NC
Rahall, Nick WV
Ramstad, Jim Minn
Ravenel, Arthur SC
Reed, Jack RI
Regula, Ralph OH
Rinaldo, Matthew NJ
Ritter, Don PA
Roberts, Pat Kan.
Rohrabacher, Dana CA
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana Florida
Rose, Charlie NC
Rostenkowski, Dan IL
Roth, Toby WI
Roukema, Marge NJ
Roybal, Edward CA
Russo, Marty IL
Sabo, Martin MN
Sanders, Bernard, VT
Savage, Gus IL
Sawyer, Thomas OH
Saxton, H. James NJ
Scheuer, James NY
Schroeder, Patricia CO
Sensenbrenner, F. James Jr. WI
Serrano Jose E NY
Sharp, Philip IN
Shaw, E. Clay Jr. FL
Shays, Christopher Conn
Shuster, Bud PA
Sikorski, Gerry
Sisisky, Norman VA
Slattery, Jim KA
Slaugher, Louise NY
Smith, Lawrence FL
Snowe, Olympia, ME
Solarze, Stephen NY
Solomon, Gerald NY
Spratt, John Jr. SC
Staggers, Harley WV
Stark, Fortney "Pete" CA
Stearns, Cliff Florida
Studds, Gerry MA
Sundquist, Don TN
Swett Dick NH
Swift, Al, WA
Swynar, Mike OK
Tallon, Robin SC
Tanner, John Tenn
Taylor, Gene Miss
Thomas, William CA
Towns, Edolphus NY
Unsoeld, Jolene Wash
Upton, Fred MI
Valentine, Tim NC
Vento, Bruce MN
Visclosky, Peter IN
Washington Craig A. Texas
Waters, Maxine CA
Waxman, Henry CA
Weiss, Ted NY
Weldon, Curt PA
Wheat, Alan MO
Williams, Pat Mont.
Wise, Bob WV
Wolf, Frank VA
Wolpe, Howard MI
Wyden, Ron OR
Wiley, Chalmers OH
Yates, Sidney IL
Zeliff, Bill NH
Zimmer, Dick NJ

Continued Next Message


Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 23:36:00 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: harald johnstad ssc <johnstad@sscvx1.bitnet>
Subject: SSC isn't dead yet


DIRECTORY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Address in Zip Code (Area Code 202)
ALABAMA D.C.
Sonny Callahan 1232 LH 20515-0101 tel: 225-4931 fax: 225-0562
William L. Dickinson 2406 RH 20515-0102 tel: 225-2901
Glen Browder 1630 LH 20515-0103 tel: 225-3261
Tom Bevill 1630 LH 20515-0103 tel: 225-3261
Ronnie G. Flippo 2334 RH 20515-0105 tel: 225-4801 fax: 225-4392
Ben Erdreich 439 CH 20515-0106 tel: 225-4921
Claude Harris 1009 LH 20515-0107 tel: 225-2665 fax: 225-0175

Alaska
Don Young 2331 RH 20515-0201 tel: 225-5765 fax: 225-3208

Arizona
John J. Rhodes III 412 CH 20515-0301 tel: 225-2635 fax: 225-0985
Morris K. Udall 235 CH 20515-0302 tel: 225-4065 fax: 225-1176
Bob Stump 211 CH 20515-0303 tel: 225-4576 fax: 225-6328
Jon Kyl 313 CH 20515-0304 tel: 225-3361 fax: 225-1143
Jim Kolbe 410 CH 20515-0305 tel: 225-2542 fax: 225-0378

Arkansas
Bill Alexander 233 CH 20515-0401 tel: 225-4076 fax: 225-6182
Tommy F. Robinson 1541 LH 20515-0402 tel: 225-2506 fax: 225-9273
John Paul Hammerschmidt 2110 RH 20515-0403 tel: 225-4301 fax: 225-1141
Beryl F. Anthony, Jr. 1117 LH 20515-0404 tel: 225-3772 fax: 225-3646

California
Douglas H. Bosco 225 CH 20515-0501 tel: 225-3311 fax: 225-5577
Wally Herger 1108 LH 20515-0502 tel: 225-3076
Robert T. Matsui 2419 RH 20515-0503 tel: 225-7163 fax: 225-0566
Vic Fazio 2113 RH 20515-0504 tel: 225-5716 fax: 225-0354
Nancy Pelosi 1005 LH 20515-0505 tel: 225-4965 fax: 225-8259
Barbara Boxer 307 CH 20515-0506 tel: 225-5161
George Miller 2228 RH 20515-0507 tel: 225-2095 fax: 225-5609
Ronald V. Dellums 2136 RH 20515-0508 tel: 225-2661 fax: 225-9817
Fortney H. (Pete) Stark 1125 LH 20515-0509 tel: 225-5065
Don Edwards 2307 RH 20515-0510 tel: 225-3072 fax: 225-9460
Tom Lantos 1526 LH 20515-0511 tel: 225-3531 fax: 225-3531
Tom Campbell 1730 LH 20515-052 tel: 225-5411 fax: 225-5944
Norman Y. Mineta 2350 RH 20515-0513 tel: 225-2631
Norman D. Shumway 1203 LH 20515-0514 tel: 225-2511 fax: 225-5444
Tony Coelho 403 CH 20515-0515 tel: 225-6131 fax: 225-0819
Leon E. Panetta 339 CH 20515-0516 tel: 225-2861
Charles Pashayan, Jr. 203 CH 20515-0517 tel: 225-3341 fax: 225-9308
Richard H. Lehman 1319 LH 20515-0518 tel: 225-4540
Robert J. Lagomarsino 2332 RH 20515-0519 tel: 225-3601 fax: 225-3096
William M. Thomas 2402 RH 20515-0520 tel: 225-2915 fax: 225-8798
Elton Gallegly 107 CH 20515-0521 tel: 225-5811
Carlos J. Moorhead 2346 RH 20515-0522 tel: 225-4176 fax: 226-1279
Anthony C. Beilenson 1025 LH 20515-0523 tel: 225-5911
Henry A. Waxman 2418 RH 20515-0524 tel: 225-3976 fax: 225-4099
Edward R. Roybal 2211 RH 20515-0525 tel: 225-6235 fax: 226-1251
Howard L. Berman 137 CH 20515-0526 tel: 225-4695
Mel Levine 132 CH 20515-0527 tel: 225-6451 fax: 225-6975
Julian C. Dixon 2400 RH 20515-0528 tel: 225-7084 fax: 225-4091
Augustus F. Hawkins 2371 RH 20515-0529 tel: 225-2201 fax: 225-7854
Matthew G. Martinez 240 CH 20515-0530 tel: 225-5464 fax: 225-5467
Mervyn M. Dymally 1717 LH 20515-0531 tel: 225-5425 fax: 225-6847
Glenn M. Anderson 2329 RH 20515-0532 tel: 225-6676 fax: 225-1597
David Dreier 411 CH 20515-0533 tel: 225-2305
Esteban Edward Torres 1740 LH 20515-0534 tel: 225-5256 fax: 225-9711
Jerry Lewis 2312 RH 20515-0535 tel: 225-5861 fax: 225-6498
George E. Brown, Jr. 2188 RH 20515-0536 tel: 225-6161
Al McCandless 2435 CH 20515-0537 tel: 225-5330 fax: 226-1040
Robert K. Dornan 301 CH 20515-0538 tel: 225-2965 fax: 225-3694
William E. Dannemeyer 2351 RH 20515-0539 tel: 225-4111
C. Christopher Cox 510 CH 20515-0540 tel: 225-5611 fax: 225-9177
Bill Lowery 2433 RH 20515-0541 tel: 225-3201 fax: 225-7383
Dana Rohrabacher 1017 LH 20515-0542 tel: 225-2415 fax: 225-0145
Ron Packard 316 CH 20515-0543 tel: 225-3906 fax: 225-0134
Jim Bates 224 CH 20515-0544 tel: 225-5452 fax: 225-2558
Duncan L. Hunter 133 CH 20515-0545 tel: 225-5672 fax: 225-0235

Colorado
Patricia Schroeder 2208 RH 20515-0601 tel: 225-4431 fax: 225-5842
David E. Skaggs 1709 LH 20515-0602 tel: 225-2161
Ben Nighthorse Campbell 1724 LH 20515-0603 tel: 225-4761 fax: 225-0228
Hank Brown 1724 LH 20515-0604 tel: 225-4676 fax: 225-8630
Joel Hefley 222 CH 20515-0605 tel: 225-4422 fax: 225-1942
Dan Schaefer 1317 LH 20515-0606 tel: 225-7882 fax: 225-7885

Connecticut
Barbara B. Kennelly 204 CH 20515-0701 tel: 225-2265 fax: 225-1031
Sam Gejdenson 1410 LH 20515-0702 tel: 225-2076 fax: 225-4977
Bruce A. Morrison 330 CH 20515-0703 tel: 225-3661
Christopher Shays 1531 LH 20515-0704 tel: 225-5541 fax: 225-9629
John G. Rowland 329 CH 20515-0705 tel: 225-3822 fax: 225-5085
Nancy L. Johnson 119 CH 20515-0706 tel: 225-4476 fax: 225-4488

Delaware
Thomas R. Carper 131 CH 20515-0801 tel: 225-4165 fax: 225-1912

District of Columbia
Fauntroy

Florida
Earl Hutto 2435 RH 20515-0901 tel: 225-4136 fax: 225-5785
Bill Grant 1333 LH 20515-0902 tel: 225-5235 fax: 225-1586
Charles E. Bennett 2107 RH 20515-0903 tel: 225-2501 fax: 225-9635
Craig T. James 1408 LH 20515-0904 tel: 225-4035 fax: 225-1727
Bill McCollum 1507 LH 20515-0905 tel: 225-2176
Cliff Stearns 1723 LH 20515-0906 tel: 225-5744
Sam M. Gibbons 2204 RH 20515-0907 tel: 225-3376
C.W. Bill Young 2407 RH 20515-0908 tel: 225-5961 fax: 225-9764
Michael Bilirakis 1530 LH 20515-0909 tel: 225-5755 fax: 225-4085
Andy Ireland 2416 RH 20515-0910 tel: 225-5015 fax: 225-6944
Bill Nelson 2404 RH 20515-0911 tel: 225-3671 fax: 225-9039
Tom Lewis 1216 LH 20515-0912 tel: 225-5792 fax: 225-1860
Porter J. Goss 509 CH 20515-0913 tel: 225-2536 fax: 225-6820
Harry A. Johnson, II 1517 LH 20515-0914 tel: 225-3001 fax: 225-8791
E. Clay Shaw, Jr. 440 CH 20515-0915 tel: 225-3026 fax: 225-8398
Lawrence J. Smith 113 CH 20515-0916 tel: 225-7931 fax: 225-9816
William Lehman 2347 RH 20515-0917 tel: 225-4211 fax: 225-6208
Claude Pepper (dead) 2239 RH 20515-0918 tel: 225-3931 fax: 225-5620
Dante B. Fascell 2354 RH 20515-0919 tel: 225-4506 fax: 225-0724

Georgia
Lindsay Thomas 431 CH 20515-1001 tel: 225-5831 fax: 225-6922
Charles F. Hatcher 405 CH 20515-1002 tel: 225-3631 fax: 225-1117
Richard Ray 425 CH 20515-1003 tel: 225-5901 fax: 225-1598
Ben Jones 514 CH 20515-1004 tel: 225-4272 fax: 225-8675
John Lewis 501 CH 20515-1005 tel: 225-3801 fax: 225-0351
Newt Gingrich 2438 RH 20515-1006 tel: 225-4501 fax: 225-4656
George (Buddy) Darden 228 CH 20515-1007 tel: 225-2931
J. Roy Rowland 423 CH 20515-1008 tel: 225-6531
Ed Jenkins 2427 RH 20515-1009 tel: 225-5221
Doug Barnard, Jr. 2227 RH 20515-1010 tel: 225-4101 fax: 225-1873

Hawaii
Patricia Saiki 1609 LH 20515-1101 tel: 225-1716 fax: 225-4580
Daniel K. Akaka 2301 RH 20515-1102 tel: 225-4906 fax: 225-4987

Idaho
Larry E. Craig 1034 LH 20515-1201 tel: 225-6611 fax: 226-1213
Richard H. Stallings 1221 LH 20515-1202 tel: 225-5531 fax: 225-2393

Illinois
Charles A. Hayes 1028 LH 20515-1301 tel: 225-4371 fax: 225-7571
Gus Savage 1121 LH 20515-1302 tel: 225-0773 fax: 226-8608
Marty Russo 2233 RH 20515-1303 tel: 225-5736 fax: 225-0295
George E. Sangmeister 1607 LH 20515-1304 tel: 225-3635 fax: 225-4447
William O. Lipinski 1032 LH 20515-1305 tel: 225-5701 fax: 225-1012
Henry J. Hyde 2104 RH 20515-1306 tel: 225-4561 fax: 226-1240
Cardiss Collins 2264 RH 20515-1307 tel: 225-5006 fax: 225-8396
Dan Rostenkowski 2111 RH 20515-1308 tel: 225-4061 fax: 225-6064
Sidney R. Yates 2234 RH 20515-1309 tel: 225-2111 fax: 225-3493
John Edward Porter 1501 LH 20515-1310 tel: 225-4835 fax: 225-0157
Frank Annunzio 2303 RH 20515-1311 tel: 225-6661
Philip M. Crane 1035 LH 20515-1312 tel: 225-3711
Harris W. Fawell 318 CH 20515-1313 tel: 225-3515 fax: 225-9240
J. Dennis Hastert 515 CH 20515-1314 tel: 225-2976 fax: 225-0697
Edward R. Madigan 2109 RH 20515-1315 tel: 225-2371
Lynn M. Martin 1214 LH 20515-1316 tel: 225-5676
Lane Evans 328 CH 20515-1317 tel: 225-5905 fax: 225-5396
Robert H. Michel 2112 RH 20515-1318 tel: 225-6201 fax: 225-9461
Terry L. Bruce 419 CH 20515-1319 tel: 225-5001 fax: 225-9810
Richard J. Durbin 129 CH 20515-1320 tel: 225-5271
Jerry F. Costello 1529 LH 20515-1321 tel: 225-5661 fax: 225-0285
Glenn Poshard 1229 LH 20515-1322 tel: 225-5201 fax: 225-1541

Indiana: office phone
Burton, Dan (R-6th IN) 120 225-4511
Hamilton, Lee H. (D-9th IN) 2187 225-5315
Hiler, John (R-3rd IN) 407 225-3915
Jacobs, Andrew
Jontz, Jim (D-5th IN) 1039 225-5037
Long, Jill (D-4th IN) 1632 225-4436
McCloskey, Frank (D-8th IN) 127 225-4636
Meyers, John T. (R-7th IN) 2372 225-5805
Sharp, Philip R (D-2nd IN) 2217 225-3021
Visclosky, Peter J (D-1st IN) 420 225-2461

Iowa:
Grandy, Fred (R-6th IA) 418 225-5476
Leach,Jim (R-1st IA) 1514 225-6576
Lightfoot, Jim (R-5th) 1222 225-3806
Nagle, David R (D-3rd IA) 214 225-3301
Smith, Neal (D-4th IA) 2373 225-4426
Tauke, Thomas J (R-2nd IA) 2244 225-2911

Kansas
Pat Roberts 1323 LH 20515-1601 tel: 225-2715 fax: 225-5375
Jim Slattery 440 LH 20515-1602 tel: 225-6601
Jan Meyers 315 CH 20515-1603 tel: 225-2865 fax: 225-0554
Bob Whittaker
Dan Glickman

Kentucky
Carroll Hubbard, Jr. 2267 RH 20515-1701 tel: 225-3115 fax: 225-1622
William H. Natcher 2333 RH 20515-1702 tel: 225-3501
Romano L. Mazzoli 2246 RH 20515-1703 tel: 225-5401
Jim Bunning 116 CH 20515-1704 tel: 225-3465 fax: 225-0003
Harold Rogers 434 CH 20515-1705 tel: 225-4601 fax: 225-0940
Larry J. Hopkins 2437 RH 20515-1706 tel: 225-4706 fax: 225-1413
Carl C. Perkins 1004 LH 20515-1707 tel: 225-4935

Louisiana
Bob Livingston 2412 RH 20515-1801 tel: 225-3015 fax: 225-0739
Lindy Boggs 2353 RH 20515-1802 tel: 226-6636 fax: 226-1239
W.J.(Billy) Tauzin 2342 RH 20515-1803 tel: 225-4031
Jim McCrery 1721 LH 20515-1804 tel: 225-2777 fax: 225-8039
Jerry Huckaby 2182 RH 20515-1805 tel: 225-2376 fax: 225-2387
Richard Baker 404 CH 20515-1806 tel: 225-3901 fax: 225-7313
Jimmy Hayes 1028 LH 20515-1301 tel: 225-4372 fax: 225-7571
Clyde C. Holloway 1206 LH 20515-1808 tel: 225-4926 fax: 225-6252

MAINE
Joseph E. Brennan 1428 LH 20515-1901 tel: 225-6116 fax: 225-9065
Olympia J. Snowe 2464 RH 20515-1902 tel: 225-6306 fax: 225-8880

MARYLAND
Roy P. Dyson 326 CH 20515-2001 tel: 225-5331 fax: 225-0254
Helen Delich Bentley 1610 LH 20515-2002 tel: 225-3061 fax: 225-4251
Benjamin L. Cardin 507 CH 20515-2003 tel: 225-4016 fax: 225-9219
Tom McMillen 327 CH 20515-2004 tel: 225-8090 fax: 225-8099
Steny H. Hoyer 1513 LH 20515-2005 tel: 225-4131 fax: 225-4300
Beverly B. Byron 2430 RH 20515-2006 tel: 225-2721 fax: 225-6159
Kweisi Mfume 128 CH 20515-2007 tel: 225-4741
Constance A. Morella 1024 LH 20515-2008 tel: 225-5341 fax: 225-1389

MASSACHUSETTS
Silvio O. Conte 2300 RH 20515-2101 tel: 225-5335 fax: 226-1224
Richard E. Neal 1631 LH 20515-2102 tel: 225-5601 fax: 225-8112
Joseph D. Early 2349 RH 20515-2103 tel: 225-6101 fax: 225-3181
Barney Frank 1030 LH 20515-2104225-5931
Chester G. Atkins 504 CH 20515-2105 tel: 225-3411
Nicholas Mavroules 2432 RH 20515-2106 tel: 225-8020 fax: 225-8023
Edward J. Markey 2133 RH 20515-2107 tel: 225-2836
Joseph P. Kennedy II 1208 LH 20515-2108 tel: 225-5111 fax: 225-9322
Joe Moakley 221 CH 20515-2109 tel: 225-8273 fax: 225-7804
Gerry E. Studds 237 CH 20515-2110 tel: 225-3111
Brian Donnelly 2229 RH 20515-2111 tel: 225-3215

MICHIGAN
John Conyers, Jr. 2426 RH 20515-2201 tel: 225-5126 fax: 225-0072
Carl D. Pursell 1414 LH 20515-2202 tel: 225-4401
Howard Wolpe 1535 LH 20515-2203 tel: 225-5011 fax: 225-8602
Fred Upton 1713 LH 20515-2204 tel: 225-3761 fax: 225-4986
Paul B. Henry 215 CH 20515-2205 tel: 225-3831
Bob Carr 2439 RH 20515-2206 tel: 225-4872 fax: 225-1260
Dale E. Kildee 2262 RH 20515-2207 tel: 225-3611 fax: 225-3692
Bob Traxler 2366 RH 20515-2208 tel: 225-2806 fax: 225-3046
Guy Vander Jagt 2409 RH 20515-2209 tel: 225-3511
Bill Schuette 415 CH 20515-2210 tel: 225-3561 fax: 225-6971
Robert W. Davis 2417 RH 20515-2211 tel: 225-4735 fax: 225-3588
David E. Bonior 2242 RH 20515-2212 tel: 225-2106 fax: 226-1169
George W. Crockett, Jr. 2235 RH 20515-2213 tel: 225-2261
Dennis M. Hertel 2442 RH 20515-2214 tel: 225-6276
William D. Ford 239 CH 20515-2215 tel: 225-6261
John D. Dingell 2221 RH 20515-2216 tel: 225-4071 fax: 225-7426
Sander M. Levin 323 CH 20515-2217 tel: 225-4961
William S. Broomfield 2306 RH 20515-2218 tel: 225-6135 fax: 225-1807

MINNESOTA
Timothy J. Penny 436 CH 20515-2301 tel: 225-2472 fax: 225-0051
Vin Weber 106 CH 20515-2302 tel: 225-2331 fax: 225-0987
Bill Frenzel 1026 LH 20515-2303 tel: 225-2871 fax: 225-6351
Bruce F. Vento 2304 RH 20515-2304 tel: 225-6631 fax: 225-1968
Martin Olav Sabo 2201 RH 20515-2305 tel: 225-4755
Gerry Sikorski 414 CH 20515-2306 tel: 225-2271 fax: 225-4347
Arlan Stangeland 2245 RH 20515-2307 tel: 225-2165 fax: 225-1593
James L. Oberstar 2209 RH 20515-2308 tel: 225-6211 fax: 225-0699

MISSISSIPPI
Jamie L. Whitten 2314 RH 20515-2401 tel: 225-4306 fax: 225-4328
Mike Espy 216 CH 20515-2402 tel: 225-5876 fax: 225-5898
G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery 2184 RH 20515-2403 tel: 225-5031
Mike Parker 1725 LH 20515-2404 tel: 225-5865 fax: 225-5886
Larkin Smith 516 CH 20515-2405 tel: 225-5772 fax: 225-7074

MISSOURI
William L. (Bill) Clay 2470 RH 25015-2501 tel: 225-2406 fax: 225-1783
Jack Buechner 502 CH 20515-2502 tel: 225-2561 fax: 225-1378
Richard A. Gephardt 1432 LH 20515-2503 tel: 225-2671 fax: 225-7452
Ike Skelton 2134 RH 20515-2504 tel: 225-2876 fax: 225-2695
Alan Wheat 1204 LH 20515-2505 tel: 225-4535
E. Thomas Coleman 2468 RH 20515-2506 tel: 225-7041 fax: 225-4799
Mel Hancock 511 CH 20515-2507 tel: 225-6536 fax: 225-7700
Bill Emerson 438 CH 20515-2508 tel: 225-4404 fax: 225-9621
Harold L. Volkmer 2411 RH 20515-2509 tel: 225-2956 fax: 225-7834

MONTANA
Pat Williams 2457 RH 20515-2601 tel: 225-3211 fax: 225-1257
Ron Marlenee 2465 RH 20515-2602 tel: 225-1555 fax: 225-1558

NEBRASKA
Doug Bereuter 2446 RH 20515-2701 tel: 225-4806 fax: 226-1148
Peter Hoagland 1415 LH 20515-2702 tel: 225-4155 fax: 225-4684
Virginia Smith 2202 RH 20515-2703 tel: 225-6435 fax: 225-0207

NEVADA
James H. Bilbray 319 CH 20515-2801 tel: 225-5965 fax: 225-8808
Barbara Vucanovich 206 CH 20515-2802 tel: 225-6155 fax: 225-2319

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Robert C. Smith 115 CH 20515-2901 tel: 225-5456
Chuck Douglas 1338 LH 20515-2902 tel: 225-5206 fax: 225-0046

NEW JERSEY
James J. Florio 2162 RH 20515-3001 tel: 225-6501
William J. Hughes 341 CH 20515-3003 tel: 225-6572 fax: 226-1108
Frank Pallone, Jr. 1207 LH 20515-3003 tel: 225-4671 fax: 225-9665
Christopher H. Smith 2440 RH 25015-3004 tel: 225-3765 fax: 225-7768
Marge Roukema 303 CH 20515-3005 tel: 225-4465 fax: 225-9048
Bernard J. Dwyer 2428 RH 20515-3006 tel: 225-6301 fax: 225-1553
Matthew J. Rinaldo 2469 RH 20515-3007 tel: 225-5361 fax: 225-5679
Robert A. Roe 2243 RH 20515-3008 tel: 225-5751 fax: 225-3071
Robert G. Torricelli 317 CH 20515-3009 tel: 225-5061 fax: 225-0843
Donald Payne 417 CH 20515-3010 tel: 225-3436
Dean A. Gallo 1318 LH 20515-3011 tel: 225-5034 fax: 225-0658
Jim Courter 2422 RH 20515-3012 tel: 225-5801 fax: 225-9181
H. James Saxton 324 CH 20515-3013 tel: 225-4765 fax: 225-0778
Frank J. Guarini 2458 RH 20515-3014 tel: 225-2765 fax: 225-7023

NEW MEXICO
Steven H. Schiff 1520 LH 20515-3101 tel: 225-6316 fax: 225-4975
Joe Skeen 1007 LH 20515-3102 tel: 225-2365 fax: 225-9599
Bill Richardson 332 CH 20515-3103 tel: 225-6190

NEW YORK
George J. Hochbrueckner 124 CH 20515-3201 tel: 225-3826 fax: 225-0776
Thomas J. Downey 2232 RH 20515-3202 tel: 225-3335 fax: 226-1275
Robert J. Mrazek 306 CH 20515-3203 tel: 225-5956 fax: 225-7215
Norman F. Lent 2408 RH 20515-3204 tel: 225-7896 fax: 225-0357
Raymond J. McGrath 205 CH 20515-3205 tel: 225-5516 fax: 225-3625
Floyd H. Flake 1427 LH 20515-3206 tel: 225-3461 fax: 226-4169
Gary L. Ackerman 238 CH 20515-3207 tel: 225-2601 fax: 225-1589
James H. Scheuer 2466 RH 20515-3208 tel: 225-5471 fax: 225-9695
Thomas J. Manton 331 CH 20515-3209 tel: 225-3965 fax: 225-1452
Charles E. Schumer 126 CH 20515-3210 tel: 225-6616 fax: 225-4183
Edolphus Towns 1726 LH 20515-3211 tel: 225-5936 fax: 225-1018
Major R. Owens 114 CH 20515-3212 tel: 225-6231
Stephen J. Solarz 1536 LH 20515-3213 tel: 225-2361 fax: 225-9469
Guy V. Molinari 2453 RH 20515-3214 tel: 225-3371 fax: 226-1272
Bill Green 1110 LH 20515-3215 tel: 225-2436 fax: 225-0840
Charles B. Rangel 2252 RH 20515-3216 tel: 225-4365 fax: 225-0816
Ted Weiss 2467 RH 20515-3217 tel: 225-5635 fax: 225-6923
Robert Garcia 2238 RH 20515-3218 tel: 225-4361
Eliot L. Engel 1407 LH 20515-3219 tel: 225-2464
Nita M. Lowey 1313 LH 20515-3220 tel: 225-6506 fax: 225-0546
Hamilton Fish, Jr. 2269 RH 20515-3221 tel: 225-5441 fax: 225-0962
Benjamin A. Gilman 2185 RH 20515-3222 tel: 225-3776 fax: 225-9636
Michael R. McNulty 1431 LH 20515-3223 tel: 225-5076
Gerald B. Solomon 2265 RH 20515-3224 tel: 225-5614 fax: 225-1668
Sherwood L. Boehlert 1127 LH 20515-3225 tel: 225-3665 fax: 225-1891
David O'B. Martin 442 CH 20515-3226 tel: 225-4611
James T. Walsh 1238 LH 20515-3227 tel: 225-3701 fax: 225-4042
Matthew F. McHugh 2335 RH 20515-3228 tel: 225-6335 fax: 225-1799
Frank Horton 2108 RH 20515-3229 tel: 225-4916 fax: 225-5909
Louise M. Slaughter 1707 LH 20515-3230 tel: 225-3615 fax: 225-7822
Bill Paxon 1711 LH 20515-3231 tel: 225-5265 fax: 225-5910
John J. LaFalce 2367 RH 20515-3232 tel: 225-3231 fax: 225-8693
Henry J. Nowak 2240 RH 20515-3233 tel: 225-3306 fax: 225-3523
Amo Houghton 1217 LH 20515-3234 tel: 225-3161 fax: 225-5574

NORTH CAROLINA
Walter B. Jones 241 CH 20515-3301 tel: 225-3101
Tim Valentine 1510 LH 20515-3302 tel: 225-4531 fax: 225-1539
H. Martin Lancaster 1417 LH 20515-3303 tel: 225-3415 fax: 225-0666
David E. Price 1224 LH 20515-3304 tel: 225-1784 fax: 225-6314
Stephen L. Neal 2463 RH 20515-3305 tel: 225-2071 fax: 225-4060
Howard Coble 430 CH 20515-3306 tel: 225-3065 fax: 225-8611
Charlie Rose 2230 RH 20515-3307 tel: 225-2731 fax: 225-2470
W.G.(Bill) Hefner 2161 RH 20515-3308 tel: 225-3715 fax: 225-4036
Alex McMillan 401 CH 20515-3309 tel: 225-1976 fax: 225-8995
Cass Ballenger 218 CH 20515-3310 tel: 225-2576 fax: 225-0316
James McClure Clarke 217 CH 20515-3311 tel: 225-6401 fax: 225-0519

NORTH DAKOTA
Byron L. Dorgan 109 CH 20515-3401 tel: 225-2611 fax: 225-9436

OHIO
Thomas A. Luken 2368 RH 20515-3501 tel: 225-2216 fax: 225-2293
Willis D. Gradison, Jr. 2311 RH 20515-3502 tel: 225-3164
Tony P. Hall 2448 RH 20515-3503 tel: 225-6465 fax: 225-6766
Michael G. Oxley 1131 LH 20515-3504 tel: 225-2676
Paul E. Gillmor 1008 LH 20515-3505 tel: 225-6405
Bob McEwen 2431 RH 20515-3506 tel: 225-5705 fax: 225-0224
Michael DeWine 1705 LH 20515-3507 tel: 225-4324 fax: 225-1984
Donald E. (Buz) Lukens 117 CH 20515-3508 tel: 225-6205 fax: 225-0704
Marcy Kaptur 1228 LH 20515-3505 tel: 225-4146 fax: 225-7711
Clarence E. Miller 2308 RH 20515-3510 tel: 225-5131 fax: 225-5132
Dennis E. Eckart 1210 LH 20515-3511 tel: 225-6331 fax: 225-1514
John R. Kasich 113 LH 20515-3512 tel: 225-5355
Don J. Pease 2410 RH 20515-3513 tel: 225-3401 fax: 225-0066
Thomas C. Sawyer 1518 LH 20515-3514 tel: 225-5231 fax: 225-5278
Chalmers P. Wylie 2310 RH 20515-3515 tel: 225-2015 fax: 225-7548
Ralph Regula 2207 RH 20515-3516 tel: 225-3876 fax: 225-3059
James A. Traficant, Jr. 312 CH 20515-3517 tel: 225-5261 fax: 225-3719
Douglas Applegate 2183 RH 20515-3518 tel: 225-6265 fax: 225-3087
Edward F. Feighan 1124 LH 20515-3519 tel: 225-5731 fax: 226-1230
Mary Rose Oakar 2231 RH 20515-3520 tel: 225-5871 fax: 225-0663
Louis Stokes 2365 RH 20515-3521 tel: 225-7032 fax: 225-1339

OKLAHOMA
James M. Inhofe 408 CH 20515-3601 tel: 225-2211 fax: 225-9187
Mike Synar 2441 RH 20515-3602 tel: 225-2701 fax: 225-2796
Wes Watkins 2348 RH 20515-3603 tel: 225-4565 fax: 225-9029
Dave McCurdy 2344 RH 20515-3604 tel: 225-6165
Mickey Edwards 2330 RH 20515-3605 tel: 225-2132
Glenn English 2206 RH 20515-3606 tel: 225-5565 fax: 225-8698

OREGON
Les AuCoin 2159 RH 20515-3701 tel: 225-0855 fax: 225-2707
Robert F. (Bob) Smith 118 CH 20515-3702 tel: 225-6730 fax: 225-3129
Ron Wyden 2452 RH 20515-3703 tel: 225-4811
Peter A. DeFazio 1728 LH 20515-3704 tel: 225-6416 fax: 225-0694
Denny Smith 1213 LH 20515-3705 tel: 225-5711 fax: 225-9711

PENNSYLVANIA
Thomas M. Foglietta 231 CH 20515-3801 tel: 225-4731
William H. Gray III 2454 RH 20515-3802 tel: 225-4001 fax: 225-2995
Robert A. Borski 314 CH 20515-3803 tel: 225-8251 fax: 225-4628
Joe Kolter 212 CH 20515-3804 tel: 225-2565 fax: 225-0526
Richard T. Schulze 2369 RH 20515-3805 tel: 225-5761
Gus Yatron 2205 RH 20515-3806 tel: 225-5546 fax: 225-5548
Curt Weldon 1233 LH 20515-3807 tel: 225-2011 fax: 225-8137
Peter H. Kostmayer 123 CH 20515-3808 tel: 225-4276 fax: 225-5060
Bud Shuster 2268 RH 20515-3809 tel: 225-2431
Joseph M. McDade 2370 RH 20515-3810 tel: 225-3731 fax: 225-9594
Paul E. Kanjorski 424 CH 20515-3811 tel: 225-6511
John P. Murtha 2423 RH 20515-3812 tel: 225-2065 fax: 225-5709
Lawrence Coughlin 2309 RH 20515-3813 tel: 225-6111
William J. Coyne 2455 RH 20515-3814 tel: 225-2301 fax: 225-1844
Don Ritter 2447 RH 20515-3815 tel: 225-6411 fax: 225-52488
Robert S. Walker 2445 RH 20515-3816 tel: 225-2411 fax: 225-2484
George W. Gekas 1519 LH 20515-3817 tel: 225-4315 fax: 225-8440
Doug Walgren 2241 RH 20515-3818 tel: 225-2135 fax: 225-7747
William F. Goodling 2263 RH 20515-3819 tel: 225-5836 fax: 225-1000
Joseph M. Gaydos 2186 RH 20515-3820 tel: 225-4631
Tom Ridge 1714 LH 20515-3821 tel: 225-5406 fax: 225-1081
Austin J. Murghy 2210 RH 20515-3822 tel: 225-4665 fax: 225-4772
William F. Clinger, Jr. 2160 RH 20515-3823 tel: 225-5121 fax: 225-4681

RHODE ISLAND
Ron Machtley 1123 LH 20515-3901 tel: 225-4911
Claudine Schneider 1512 LH 20515-3902 tel: 225-2735 fax: 225-9580

SOUTH CAROLINA
Arthur Ravenel, Jr. 508 CH 20515-4001 tel: 225-3176 fax: 225-4340
Floyd Spence 2405 RH 20515-4002 tel: 225-2452 fax: 225-2455
Butler Derrick 201 CH 20515-4003 tel: 225-5301
Elizabeth J. Patterson 1641 LH 20515-4004 tel: 225-6030 fax: 225-7664
John M. Spratt, Jr. 1533 LH 20515-4005 tel: 225-5501 fax: 225-0464
Robin M. Tallon 432 CH 20515-4006 tel: 225-3315 fax: 225-2857

SOUTH DAKOTA
Tim Johnson 513 CH 20515-4101 tel: 225-2801 fax: 225-2427

TENNESSEE
James H. Quillen 102 CH 20515-4201 tel: 225-6356 fax: 225-7812
John J. Duncan, Jr. 506 CH 20515-4202 tel: 225-5435 fax: 225-6440
Marilyn Lloyd 2266 RH 20515-4203 tel: 225-3271 fax: 225-6974
Jim Cooper 125 CH 20515-4204 tel: 225-6831 fax: 225-4520
Bob Clement 325 CH 20515-4205 tel: 225-4311 fax: 226-1035
Bart Gordon 103 CH 20515-4206 tel: 225-4231 fax: 225-6887
Don Sundquist 230 CH 20515-4207 tel: 225-2811 fax: 225-2814
John Tanner 512 CH 20515-4208 tel: 225-4714 fax: 225-1765
Harold E. Ford 2305 RH 20515-4209 tel: 225-3265 fax: 225-9215

TEXAS
Jim Chapman 429 CH 20515-4301 tel: 225-3035 fax: 225-7265
Charles Wilson 2256 RH 20515-4302 tel: 225-2401 fax: 2251764
Steve Bartlett 1113 LH 20515-4303 tel: 225-4201
Ralph M. Hall 236 CH 20515-4304 tel: 225-6673 fax: 225-3332
John Bryant 208 CH 20515-4305 tel: 225-2231 fax: 225-9721
Joe L. Barton 1225 LH 20515-4306 tel: 225-2002 fax: 225-3052
Bill Archer 1135 LH 20515-4307 tel: 225-2571 fax: 225-4381
Jack Fields 108 CH 20515-4308 tel: 225-4901 fax: 225-6899
Jack Brooks 2449 RH 20515-4309 tel: 225-6565 fax: 225-1584
J.J. Pickle 242 CH 20515-4310 tel: 225-4865
Marvin Leath 336 CH 20515-4311 tel: 225-6105 fax: 225-0350
Jim Wright 1236 LH 20515-4312 tel: 225-5071
Bill Sarpalius 1223 LH 20515-4313 tel: 225-3706 fax: 225-6142
Greg Laughlin 1022 LH 20515-4134 tel: 225-2831
E (Kika) de la Garza 1401 LH 20515-4315 tel: 225-2531 fax: 225-2533
Ronald D. Coleman 416 CH 20515-4316 tel: 225-4831
Charles W. Stenholm 1226 LH 20515-4317 tel: 225-6605 fax: 225-2234
Mickey Leland 2236 RH 20515-4318 tel: 225-3816
Larry Combest 1527 LH 20515-4319 tel: 225-4005 fax: 225-9615
Henry B. Gonzalez 2413 RH 20515-4320 tel: 225-3236 fax: 225-1915
Lamar Smith 422 CH 20515-4321 tel: 225-4236 fax: 225-8628
Tom Delay 308 CH 20515-4322 tel: 225-5951 fax: 225-4251
Albert G. Bustamante 1116 LH 20515-4323 tel: 225-4551
Martin Frost 2459 RH 20515-4324 tel: 225-3605 fax: 225-4951
Michael A. Andrews 322 CH 20515-4325 tel: 225-7508 fax: 225-4210
Richard Armey 130 CH 20515-4326 tel: 225-7772 fax: 225-7614
Solomon P. Ortiz 1524 LH 20515-4327 tel: 225-7742 fax: 226-1134

UTAH
James V. Hansen 2421 RH 20515-4401 tel: 225-0453 fax: 225-5857
Wayne Owens 1728 LH 20515-4402 tel: 225-3011 fax: 225-3524
Howard C. Nielson 1122 LH 20515-4403 tel: 225-7751 fax: 226-1223

VERMONT
Peter Smith 1020 LH 20515-4501 tel: 225-4115 fax: 225-6790

VIRGIN ISLANDS
R. de Lugo

VIRGINIA
Herbert H. Bateman 1230 LH 20515-4601 tel: 225-4261 fax: 225-4382
Owen B. Pickett 1429 LH 20515-4602 tel: 225-4215 fax: 225-4218
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. 213 CH 20515-4603 tel: 225-2815
Norman Sisisky 426 CH 20515-4604 tel: 225-6365 fax: 225-1469
Lewis F. Payne, Jr. 1118 LH 20515-4605 tel: 225-4771 fax: 226-1147
Jim Olin 1314 LH 20515-4606 tel: 225-5431 fax: 225-9623
D. French Slaughter, Jr.1404 LH 20515-4607 tel: 225-6561 fax: 225-0500
Stan Parris 2434 RH 20515-4608 tel: 225-4376 fax: 225-0017
Rick Boucher 428 CH 20515-4609 tel: 225-3861
Frank R. Wolf 104 CH 20515-4610 tel: 225-5136 fax: 225-0437

WASHINGTON
John Miller 1406 LH 20515-4701 tel: 225-6311
Al Swift 1502 LH 20515-4702 tel: 225-2605
Jolene Unsoeld 1508 LH 20515-4703 tel: 225-3536 fax: 225-9095
Sid Morrison 1434 LH 20515-4704 tel: 225-5816 fax: 225-9293
Thomas S. Foley 1201 LH 20515-4705 tel: 225-2006
Norman D. Dicks 2429 RH 20515-4706 tel: 225-5916 fax: 226-1176
Jim McDermott 1107 LH 20515-4707 tel: 225-3106
Rod Chandler 223 CH 20515-4708 tel: 225-7761 fax: 225-0035

WEST VIRGINIA
Alan B. Mollohan 437 CH 20515-4801 tel: 225-4172 fax: 225-7564
Harley O. Staggers, Jr. 1504 LH 20515-4802 tel: 225-4331 fax: 225-2962
Bob Wise 1421 LH 20515-4803 tel: 225-2711 fax: 225-5325
Nick Joe Rahall II

WISCONSIN
Les Aspin 2336 RH 20515-4901 tel: 225-3031
Robert W. Kastenmeier 2328 RH 20515-4902 tel: 225-2906
Steve Gunderson 227 CH 20515-4903 tel: 225-5506 fax: 225-6195
Gerald D. Kleczka 226 CH 20515-4904 tel: 225-4572 fax: 225-0719
Jim Moody 1019 LH 20515-4905 tel: 225-3571 fax: 225-1396
Thomas E. Petri 2443 RH 20515-4906 tel: 225-2476
David Obey 2462 RH 20515-4907 tel: 225-3365 fax: 225-0561
Toby Roth 2352 RH 20515-4908 tel: 225-5665 fax: 225-0087
Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. 2444 RH 20515-4909 tel: 225-5101 fax: 225-3190

WYOMING

American Samoa
Eni Faleomavaega

VIRGIN ISLANDS
Ron de Lugo

--
Irwin Sheer | sheer@sapphire.gem.ssc.gov (internet)
tel: (214) 708-1050 | sheer@sscvx1.bitnet (bitnet)
fax: (214) 708-6354 | sscvx1::sheer (decnet)



___ ___ ___
(___ (___ | |
___) UPERCONDUCTING ___) UPER |___ OLLIDER |___ ABORATORY

2550 Beckleymeade Ave., MS-2000, Dallas TX 75237
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 23:42:00 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: harald johnstad ssc <johnstad@sscvx1.bitnet>
Subject: SSC: A message from the Director

CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITY ON SSC

A message from the Director

We were disappointed by the action taken on June 17 by the House of
Representatives in rejecting funding for the continuation of the Super
Collider project. This action is a serious blow to the future of
American and world progress in science and technology. It is worth
noting that the debate in the House focussed principally on issues
involving balancing the budget rather than on the SSC itself, and all
but ignored the substantial technical progress on the project.

In the first step in the budget process as it relates to the SSC, the
House voted to reduce FY1993 funding to $33.7 million. The
appropriations process moves now to the Senate, where we will
vigorously pursue restoration of the President's $650 million budget
request. It is our hope that the Senate will restore the funding and
that the final appropriation, agreeable to both houses of the
Congress, will provide continued support for the Super Collider. In
the next few days, many people who believe in the value of basic
science are planning to visit, call, or write their Senators,
representatives, and the White House to emphasize the need for
continued support of the SSC.

Because we recognize that there is great concern about the
implications of the House vote and myriad rumors afloat, an email
"hotline" has been established at the SSC Laboratory to help keep the
community informed. If you have any questions or concerns about the
current state of events, please contact us at HEPSSC@SSCVX1.

Roy F. Schwitters
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 23:34:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Ethics Kit

Ethics Kit

I thought some on SCIFRAUD would like to have this
information.

Al

++++++++++

from: in%"maner@andy.bgsu.edu" "walter maner" 22-jun-1992 14:36:42.26
to: al higgins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
CC:
Subj: COMPUTER ETHICS CURRICULUM KIT

Return-path: <SOS-DATA@UNCVM1.BITNET>
received: from albnyvm1 (mailer@albnyvm1) by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240;
Mon, 22 Jun 1992 14:36 EDT
Received: by ALBNYVM1 (Mailer R2.08) id 8864; Mon, 22 Jun 92 14:36:23 EDT
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1992 14:06:59 -0400
from: walter maner <maner@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: COMPUTER ETHICS CURRICULUM KIT
sender: "social science data list." <sos-data@uncvm1.bitnet>
to: al higgins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Reply-to: Walter Maner <maner@ANDY.BGSU.EDU>
message-id: <c1947504004008ca@albnyvms.bitnet>
X-Envelope-to: ACH13

TEACHING SOCIAL AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF COMPUTING:
A "STARTER KIT"

The Research Center on Computing and Society at Southern
Connecticut State University and Educational Media Resources, Inc.
(a not-for-profit organization specializing in educational
programming) have assembled a "Starter Kit" for teachers who wish
to introduce social and ethical implications of computing into
their computer science or computer engineering classes. The "Kit"
can also help computer science departments fulfill national
accreditation requirements (CSAC/CSAB).

The "Starter Kit" includes three video tapes and two monographs:

VIDEO TAPES: No. 1--Teaching Computing and Human Values (45 min.)
No. 2--What Is Computer Ethics (45 min.)
No. 3--Examples and Cases in Computer Ethics (45 min.)

MONOGRAPHS: No. 1--Teaching Computer Ethics (110 pages)
No. 2--Computing and Social Responsibility:
A Collection of Course Syllabi (142 pages)

Further information is available from the Research Center on
Computing and Society at Southern Connecticut State University:

E-Mail: RCCS@SCSU.CTSTATEU.EDU
Phone: (203) 397-4423 (Center and answering machine)
FAX: (203) 397-4681
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 00:13:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: An Anniversary

A Decade of Concern

It was on 23 June 1982 that an AAAS-sponsored symposium took
place in Santa Barbara, California. That conference resulted in
a book, The Dark Side of Science, Brock and Maria Kilbourne,
editors. (San Francisco, California: American Association for
th Advancement of Science, Pacific Division, 1983). That
conference was my first public statement concerning fraud in
science. That is just ten years ago and represents a decade of
concern.

I had been interested in this subject for several years
before the conference took place. Indeed Maria and Brock
had been graduate students here at the University at
Albany where Maria was my TA and Brock her fiance. Then, too,
they had both experienced fraud and fakery in science here at the
University and were forced to leave. Their personal, very bitter
experience combined with my continuing concern with the problem
were important factors in their continuing work on this topic.

My primary contribution to the conference was a short history
of the topic of fraud in science, an effort at contextualizing the
problem as I understood it: namely, that fraud in science is
nothing new, that it is not the result of the frenzy of
competition for frderal funds, that cheating in science is nothing
about which a special new theory of devience is needed. Indeed,
my thinking was and is that fraud in science is quite common and
very well known by practitioners. It is only the outsider who
finds science fraud and fakery especially shocking. It may only
be the uninformed public who believes the myths enshrined in
pro-science bias of our age. The truth of the matter is that
science has lots of warts.

Anniversaries are meant for reawakenings and recollections.
I thought is appropriate to post that initial offering. The
complete reference includes page numbers, pp. 9-26.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


THE GAMES OF SCIENCE: SCIENCE WATCHING


By
A. C. Higgins
State University of New York, Albany


In the past several years there have been recurrent reports
of cheating in science, various "goings-on" associated with these
names: Elias Alsabti (Broad 1980a, 1980b), Cyril Burt (Dorfman
1978; Hearnshaw 1981; Kamin 1974), John Darsee (Broad 1982a,
1982b), Robert Gillis (Science News 1977), Walter Levy (Science
News 1974), John Long (Dickson 1981; Harris, et al. 1981; Wade
1981), Zoltan Lucas ("Stanford denies Coverup..." 1981) Marc
Spector (Kolata 1981), Marc Straus (Broad 1981b, 1981c; Sun
1981), William Summerlin (Culliton 1974a, 1974b; Hixson 1976),
Paul Todd (Broad 1980e), as well as Vijay Soman and Philip Felig
(Broad 1980c, 1980d; Hunt 1981). Suspicions that dishonesty is
not uncommon have been published in surveys (Ian St.
James-Roberts 1976) and voiced in interviews (Gaston 1971, 1973).
There have been reminders that some Big Names in the history of
science may have been guilty of some of the same sorts of
deceptions: Isaac Newton (Westfall 1973, 1980), Galilei Galileo
(Feyerabend 1970, 1975; Koestler 1959; Koyre 1958, 1968),
Claudius Ptolemy (Newton 1977), Gregor Mendel (Fisher 1936), John
Dalton (Nash 1956; Thackray 1972), Louis Pasteur (Dubos 1976,
esp. pp. 359-400), and Sigmund Freud (Sulloway 1979; Szasz 1979).
Indeed, in the past several months some of these cases have
earned comment in the press (for example, "Fraud, hoax and simple
error," 1981; Golden 1981; Trafford 1981) and have been reviewed
in Science with a clear call for the further study of this "dark
side" of science (Broad 1981a). There have been hearings before
House and Senate Committees of the Congress regarding fraud in
science (Broad 1981b; Schmaus 1981; Sun 1981). All these seem to
suggest that there is something of a crisis in contemporary
science.

There is something particularly wrong when scientists cheat.
Scientists are supposed to be dedicated, honest, trustworthy
seekers after truth; science is supposed to be objective,
universal, verifiable truth. In their tellings and retellings of
the story of science, Western historians, philosophers,
sociologists, as well as the authors of scientific texts, have
typically described science and scientists in terms of Western
suppositions about science. But what happens when suppositions
prevail is that biographies become hagiographies and complex
events get simplified. Psychological consonance requires that
science be the work of great men. And it is precisely here that
cheating elicits so much hand-wringing, as mere mortals are
compared to idealizations.

Suspicion of science and scientists seems saner than the
idolatrizing published by some. The schoolboy images of science
are false and should be surrendered in an effort to understand
the paradoxes of knowledge generation. History is hard enough
without getting involved in myth and fable. J. D. Bernal (Bernal
1939; see also, Goldsmith & Mackay 1964) called for a science of
science in the 1930s, but the idealizations of contemporary
mythic science can never be a basis for such an enterprise.
Rather, examining the seamy side of science may provide an
opportunity to see science in a new way, a way which avoids the
blinders imposed by idealized science.

American sociology of science is a poor place to start
examining deviance in science. The functionalist
school--identified with Professor Robert K. Merton of
Columbia--specifically eschews deviance in science (Zuckerman &
Merton 1971; Zuckerman 1977). That school ex plains departures
from scientific universalism by particularistically explaining
deviance in terms of temporary aberrations (Barber 1961) or
situational exigencies (Storer 1977). Merton's macrosociological
approach to science seems bound in and determined by its
assumptions of what science ought to be.

Some European sociologists of science have employed a
microsociological approach, the examination of specific cases of
deviance--the Velikovsky affair (Mulkay 1969) and the operation
of a single department of physics (Mulkay & Williams 1971)--as a
useful alternative. These studies of specific science, in spite
of some logical difficulties with methods (Mulkay 1974), have
found evidences of a variety of particularisms which seem
essential rather than accidental to science. Using a variation
of this approach, offered here are reinterpretations of fudge and
fraud, deceit and deception in science.

The Drama of Deviance

In his Autobiography, Lincoln Steffens (1958) tells the
following story:

Some of us (students and former students at Leipzig with
Professor Wilhelm Wundt) were looking over the laboratory
records of an American student who had stood high with
the Professor and, therefore, with us all. He had gone
home, taken a professorship, and was holding high our
colors. He became afterward one of the leading men in
American science and education. His student papers were
models of neatness and as we looked we saw that they were
a masterpiece of caution, wisdom and mathematical labor.
The records of his experiment showed that he got, at
first, results which would have given aid and comfort to
the enemy and confounded one of Wundt's most axiomatic
premises. He must have suffered, that promising young
student; it was his thesis for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, which he needed for his career at home; he
must have thought, as a psychologist, that Wundt might
have been reluctant to crown a discovery which would
require the old philosopher to recast his philosophy and
rewrite the published volumes of his lifework. The budd-
ing psychologist solved the ethical problem before him by
deciding to alter his results, and his papers showed how
he did this, by changing the figures item by item, exper-
iment by experiment, as to make the curve of his averages
come out for rather than against our school. After a few
minutes of silent admiration of the mathematical feat
performed on the papers before us, we buried sadly these
remains of a great sacrifice to loyalty, to the school
spirit, and to practical ethics. (pp. 124-125)

This scandal shows how fudge, fraud, deceit and deception do
happen in science, just as they happen in any other sphere of
work: human beings are first and foremost tied up in human,
personal and social commitments and only secondarily with
abstractions. Put another way, whatever commitments one might
give to abstractions--truth, beauty, goodness, science--can be
given only after abiding with the interpersonal commitments which
are logically, emotionally and personally prior to any others.
Just so, the reader can empathize with the young American's
cheating: the tugs to deception were school spirit, loyalty and
Der Alte Professor. These are things which are more important
than straight science. To Steffens, in the specific situation in
which the young American found himself, the deception is
understandable. There is certainly no outrage and no shame
displayed by Steffens, the masterful muckraker. Instead, the
reader joins the writer in the recognition of the paradox of the
human condition, where right and wrong are paradoxically
intertwined.

The point here is that at least some frauds, deceits,
deceptions and dishonesties are all-too-human responses to the
complex situations which arise in science. These frauds are not
the result of flawed personality, immortality or essential
dishonesty. This is not a failure in science so much as it is a
recognition of priorities: the old school tie is not a myth. One
does not needlessly hurt one's mentors, one's elders. One fakes
an abstraction rather than debunk a colleague. Again, to
Steffens the deception is creditable.

Steffens sees such frauds as the ones perpetrated by the
young American as illustrative. Steffens is not burying the
evidence of this perfidy at all; here it is for all to read. The
tale is a parable told for instruction. That young student is
Everyman in a modern morality play.

Steffens is not trying to bring discredit to that student
who, later, and perhaps because of his deceptions, became "one of
the leading men in science and education." Quite the contrary,
Steffens describes the student's fabrications as "a
masterpiece..." Steffens implies here that this craft called
science may demand more than simple obedience to the norm of
universalism: the craft called science may involve a variety of
particularisms which are deniable only to those who insist on
self-deception in the name of idealizations. The point is,
again, that at least some frauds, deceits and dishonesties are
all-too-human responses to the complex situations which arise in
any human endeavor, including science. Having seen that much in
Steffens' story, it is possible to extend the search for other
instances of humanity in science.


Other Evidences

Bell's (1937) delightful Men of Mathematics is full of
gossipy stories about famous mathematicians. Here, for example,
is a terse comment on Pierre-Simon DeLaplace:

To call a spade a spade, Laplace stole outrageously,
right and left, whenever he could lay his hands on any-
thing of his contemporaries and predecessors which he
could use. From Legrange, for example, he lifted the
fundamental concept of the potential...; from Legendre he
took whatever he needed in the way of analysis; and
finally, in his masterpiece, the Mechanique Celeste, he
deliberately omits references to the work of others in-
corporated in his own, with the intention of leaving
posterity to infer that he alone created the mathemati-
cal theory of the heavens. (p. 174)

Newton's opponent in the priority dispute concerning the calculus
may have been unfairly treated by Newton's biased commission, but
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz had other things to hide. According to
Bell (1937):

Leibniz was grossly unethical over a matter--of all
things--of ethics. Leibniz seems to have believed in
applying his ethics to practical ends. He carried off
copious extracts from Spinoza's unpublished masterpiece
Ethica...a treatise on ethics developed in the manner of
Euclid's geometry. When Spinoza died (1677)...Leibniz
appears to have found it convenient to mislay his sou-
venirs of the Amsterdam visit. Scholars in this field
seem to agree that Leibniz' own philosophy whenever it
touches ethics was appropriated without acknowledgement
from Spinoza. (pp. 126-127)

And the following quote, again from Bell, is suggestive of the
reasons and rationalizations used by famous scientists in their
deceptions. Concerning Frederick Gauss, Bell (1956) writes:

Contemplating as a youth the close, unbreakable chains of
synthetic proofs in which Archimedes and Newton had tamed
their inspirations, Gauss resolved to follow their great
example and leave after his only finished works of art,
severely perfect, to which nothing could be taken away
without disfiguring the whole. The work must stand
forth, complete, simple and convincing, with no trace
remaining of the labor by which it had been achieved. A
cathedral is not a cathedral, he said, till the last
scaffolding is down and out of sight. (p. 305)

So some scientists have an "edifice complex" and in the name of
constructing cathedrals they can pretend that no blood, sweat and
tears were involved. They can disguise their labors of discovery
and obliterate the trails which led them to their "inspirations."
What this means is that we do not know how, in fact, innovators
got to their innovations. We do not know the process of
discovery.

What else do scientists hide? In this post-Watergate,
post-ABSCAM world, there are suspicions that a great deal is
hidden, a great deal remains secret. Twenty years ago Leroy
Wolins (1962) warned his psychology colleagues that a significant
portion of then recently published journal articles could not
comply with requests for their original data. These authors had
conveniently "lost" their data and there was no way of verifying
the materials reported in journal articles. Now there is no way
of proving that these authors fudged their publications but in a
suspicious frame of mind, one can wonder. Incidentally, a decade
after Wolins, something of the same result appeared in a
replication (Craig & Reese 1973). But these reports did not
produce a scandal in psychology because this sort of fudging is,
in fact, well known. Scientists know the many games of
publishing. For example, in their study of a physics department,
Mulkay and Williams (1971) report:

All our respondents thought the vast majority of papers
in the journals which they read were of poor quality or
of little significance. One respondent stated that 'only
2% of publications are significant and 50% are wrong'
(emphasis in original). (p. 74)

In is masterful review of mathematical literature, Kenneth May
reports that fully 43% of the articles which were published in a
particular sub-speciality were "trivia." He defined trivia as
"You'll grudge the time reading it, even if very interested in
the subject" (May 1968:366). Mathematicians know that trivia
abounds in their literature and this is not a scandal because
publications are not only abstract contributions to science;
publications have purposes besides scientific universalism and
"everybody knows it." Publishing is just another game in academe
and it is just one way of managing to "look good" in science.
Understood as a way of padding one's curriculum vita, there is
not real harm done and there is nothing new in any of this to the
scientific insider.

Scientists know the games of science. They are all aware of
trivial publications, fudged data, edifice complexes and outright
theft. There is nothing new to the scientific insider here. But
scientists do not admit these sorts of things to the laity. As
Mulkay (1979) suggests:

scientists enter the political context as purveyors of
certified knowledge. They have nothing to offer other
than the supposed certainties of science; and if they
were to present their conclusions as no more than plaus-
ible guesses, based on uncertain foundations, they would
carry little practical weight. (p. 117)

Scientists build and maintain images for "the political
context...", for outsiders from whom scientists derive social
benefits of various kinds. But creating and maintaining images
for external consumption are the jobs of "sages," in Znaniecki's
use of that term (1968), although I prefer the more descriptive
term "science watchers." The science watcher is here defined as
one who constructs and maintains the images of science, one who
is responsible for the public relations of science and other
human institutions.

Continued Next Message

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 00:13:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: An Anniversary

Science Watchers' Games

Fudge, fraud, deceit and deception are easily found in
histories and contemporary studies of science. If one looks for
cheating in science, it is easily found. Indeed, science
watchers have been unable to avoid finding evidences of
dishonesties in the history of science and they have, therefore,
developed various techniques for handling this "seamy side of
science." James Conant (1951)--chemist, scientific historian,
politician and administrator--provides good examples of what is
called the "discounting game" of scientific cheats. For example,
Conant writes of the Father of Modern Chemistry, Anton Lavoisier,
as if Lavoisier were a hapless victim of his times rather than a
gamesman of science. Lavoisier had drafted a paper on gases in
1776 which contained gross errors. Fortunately for him,
Lavoisier met the English chemist, Joseph Priestley, before the
error-ridden paper was published. Priestley provided Lavoisier
with the hints necessary to amend the article. The official
version, however, contains no reference to Priestley; Lavoisier
does not acknowledge the assistance he had been given. Lavoisier
pretends he did the work by himself, by stealing an idea. To
this Conant (1951) comments:

(With Priestley's corrections)...he was able to correct
the first version by a few deft strokes of the pen, and
as finally printed in official form in 1778 this 'clas-
sic' paper gives no hint either of his misstep or of
Priestley's unsolicitied assistance. The ethics of sci-
ence have changed since the eighteenth century. Today an
investigator would be scrupulous about acknowledging both
oral communication and prior publications (emphasis sup-
plied). (p. 188)

Elsewhere (Conant & Nash 1957) Conant further details Lavoisier's
theft of Priestley's ideas and explores Lavoisier's
rationalizations of the theft. After 1778, Lavoisier claimed
that he had discerned Priestley's hints which led to his famous
paper as early as 1772. Conant comments on this lie:
"(Lavoisier) never reported on his 1772 experiments which were in
part at least, erroneous" (Conant & Nash 1957:73). Conant has
clear evidence that Lavoisier is a liar and a thief but he simply
suggests that the lying was "erroneous" and the theft would not
happen today. Clearly, it is not consonant to have "The Father
of Modern Chemistry" thought of as a liar and a thief, so this
historian of science "discounts" these behaviors.

Conant provides other examples of his discountings of fraud
in the history of science. Regarding Pascal's experiments with
the barometer, Conant has it that Pascal had reasoned that a
column of mercury should be longer at the base of a mountain and
shorter at the top. The experiment was performed in 1648 by
Pascal's brother-in-law and was successful. Indeed, it was
spectacularly successful in terms of the reported measurements
taken on a blustery fall day. Pascal reports that his colleagues
were able to report measurements accurate to one twenty-fourth of
an inch. Conant (Conant & Nash 1957) comments:

One cannot help, however, but be somewhat skeptical of
the high degree of accuracy reported... To be able to
repeat the Torricellian experiment so that there was less
than a twelfth of an inch...difference in successive
readings, as claimed, is remarkable... This report...was
written it must be remembered, before standards of accu-
rate reporting in science had been established. It may be
that (Pascal) succumbed to the temptation of making his
argument appear convincing (emphasis supplied). (p. 8-9)

Pascal's is a clear case of "cooking" data, as Babbage called
such "improvements" in reports (Babbage 1969:175-183). Pascal is
guilty of making his data "look good," of establishing a degree
of accuracy that was impossible. Here is clear evidence that
like scientists to come later, early scientists tried to make
themselves "look good." Clearly, trying to look good in
science--and in other spheres of human activity--is nothing new.
But how does Conant handle these fabrications of data? He
suggests that this is, again, a case of scientific adolescence,
that "standards" would develop as science progressed. There is
certainly no outrage in Conant's version.

The point here is this: Pascal and Lavoisier tried to make
themselves look good and James Conant, the science watcher, is
trying to do the same sort of thing. Pascal and Lavoisier
promoted themselves, while Conant promotes what Lavoisier and
Pascal stood for, science. Conant, who is in a position to judge
the perfidies of Lavoisier and Pascal, behaves as an apologist
for fudge, fraud, deceit and deception. There is a parallelism
here: some scientists cheat directly while some science watchers
cheat indirectly by discounting, at least, some forms of
cheating. Some science watchers are guilty of deception too in
that they try to make science into what it is supposed to be. In
this, both scientists and science watchers may be viewed as
gamesmen.

The ploys used by science watchers are not limited to
discountings. Science watchers have a variety of techniques with
which to maintain the image of science in spite of obvious
deceptions. For example, Asimov's The New Intelligent Man's
Guide to Science beclouds the issue neatly. Recall that
Lavoisier's theft and mendacity were matters of dates: 1776,
1778, and 1772. Asimov (1965) informs his "intelligent" reader
simply "In experiments conducted in the 1770's..." (Asimov
1965:157) and the whole issue is sloughed off.

Douglas McKie (1959) goes so far as to call Lavoisier the
"Newton of Chemistry" and he does mention that Lavoisier met
Priestley, but McKie avoids any implication of impropriety. It
is, after all, unseemly--to say the least--to have our Newtons
described as having made their ways by cribbings. The sage
remains silent and the centrality of theft by Lavoisier in the
development of modern chemistry is hidden.

John White's (1932) sympathetic treatment of early chemistry
as a history which is very conscious of the social influences
which produced the shift from phlogiston theory, quite simply
avoids any implication that Lavoisier stole Priestley's ideas in
writing the famous memoir.

Bernard Jaffe's Crucibles does mention the omission of
references to Priestley's work and even cites a letter of
Priestley's complaining of Lavoisier's neglect. Jaffe adds, "It
is difficult to explain this omission..." (Jaffe 1976:78-79). I
argue that it is not difficult to explain at all unless one is
unwilling to report the fact that Lavoisier cribbed Priestley's
ideas. And that seems uppermost in the mind of Jaffe, the
science watcher.

Thomas Kuhn, Conant's student, is also kind to Pascal (Kuhn
1977:44-45) and writes only that Pascal's work was part of a
tradition of "mental experiments" which sufficed as "good
science." In other words, this historian of scientific
revolution is not so much interested in the tactics of scientific
revolutionaries so much as he is in "explaining" data faking.

One should not be misled into thinking that discounting a la
Conant and these few others is the only technique of the trade of
science watching. Daniel Greenberg (1981) used humor very
effectively in describing/disguising the games played by
scientists. Stephen Jay Gould (1977, 1978) manages to explore
the particularisms of biology and psychology using parody and
hyperbole. Stephen Bush (1974) has managed to recite some of the
sins of science by "reserving" the information to "mature
readers." C. P. Snow (1961) has dramatized the possibilities of
cheating in science by writing "fiction." But Snow and the
Cambridge scientists who worked with him, knew the power of good
fiction. Snow (1967) quotes Rutherford's reaction to his first
novel:

'It's a small world, you know,' he meant the world of
science. 'Keep off us as much as you can. People are
bound to think you are getting at some of us. And I sup-
pose we've all got things we don't want anyone to see.'
(p. 8-9)

These ploys of science watchers--telling the truth without
telling it--are all forms of image-maintenance to outsiders and
examples to insiders.

It is unnecessary to extend this list of cheats in science to
make the point that finding examples of famous cheats in science
is easy. Cheating in science is not uncommon. What is new here
is not that scientists cheat, but that science watchers persist
in their image maintenance for science. Here is the major shift
accomplished by this interpretive approach: one begins by trying
to understand fudge, fraud, deceit and deception committed by
scientists, and quickly finds that the context of understanding
fraud and fudge is not clear. It is necessary to understand the
interpreters of science, the science watchers. There is a new
game to be played: interpreting the interpreters.

In their tellings and retellings of the stories of Great
Science, science watchers persist in disguising the crafty paths
to truth. And there is this lovely paradox at the center of all
this: it is the very pretense to Great Science which becomes the
barrier to our understanding of what really goes on in science.
Our own best efforts to look good are the tragic flaws in our
efforts to understand ourselves.


The Manufacture of Villains

It is not only in hero construction that the science watchers
play their games. Not merely do science watchers discount
misdeeds, they are also responsible for the creation of villains,
the negative referents for vile science. It is the science
watcher who pontificates at the occasional, but necessary, auto
da fe.

Legend has it that Galileo was demonstrating his law of
uniform acceleration at the Leaning Tower of Pisa as early as
1591. The tale is a myth (Cooper 1935) and, in fact, Galileo
wrestled with that problem until late in his life. His "law" took
him forty years to perfect and any demonstrations of its utility
during his lifetime are suspect (Koyre 1953, 1968; Settle 1961).
Indeed, American astronauts took time on the moon to film their
own demonstration of its accuracy and their investment is
remarkable testimony that Galileo could never have convinced
"Doubting Thomists" by any demonstration in his day.
Rather, Galileo employed "mental experiments" and rational
arguments in describing what would happen when objects fall.

The case is clear: Galileo never performed experiments he
claimed to have done, he reported results he never obtained, and
he stole ideas from other people outrageously. Paul Feyerabend
(1975) has suggested that Galileo was forced to fudge in order to
nudge truth along. As a true revolutionary, Galileo had to
propagandize successfully if he were to succeed in the promotion
of modern science. Generalizing from the case of Galileo,
Feyerabend suggests that propagandizing may be necessary in
science if scientific revolutions are to succeed tactically and
strategically. Feyerabend as a science watcher suggests that the
scientist must be a heretic-revolutionary if he is to succeed.

Arthur Koestler (1959) goes further, suggesting that Galileo
was a mean-spirited thief who cribbed from Kepler and the Jesuit
astronomers of his day, shamelessly failing to credit his
sources. Alexandre Koyre (1958, 1968) similarly tells tales of
Galileo's deceptiveness: Galileo's reliance on mental
experiments, his cribbings from Kepler and others, and his abuse
of science for political purposes.

There are, then, some good reasons to think that Galileo
could be regarded as a miscreant in science but, rather, he is
judged a hero. It seems quite clear that this stature is an
ascription rather than a description. What Galileo did, and did
not do, is subject to the interpretations of science watchers who
credit Galileo with a variety of talents. One can see that it
could have gone the other way and that Galileo, for doing exactly
what he did, could have been interpreted a cheat in science. The
question is not whether Galileo should or should not be regarded
as a hero in science but, rather, "Why did science watchers
choose to make Galileo the hero he has become?" And we do not
know the answer. Yet this becomes even more intriguing when we
consider some of the other examples of this mysterious process.

Westfall (1974, 1980), for example, suggested that Isaac
Newton fudged his arithmetic and achieved a preposterous degree
of accuracy by cooking his data. Newton apparently succumbed to
the temptation of making his argument appear convincing. But
there is more to Newton's unscrupulousness than just cooking
data. In his manipulations of the Royal Society he was
positively Machiavellian in his destruction of Leibniz. It is
clear that he stacked the commission of the Royal Society charged
with examining the priority dispute between Newton and Leibniz
concerning the invention of the calculus. He abused his
Presidency of the Royal Society by commanding personal loyalty in
exchange for academic appointments throughout the British Isles.
His insistence on chauvinistic, English notation (i.e.,
Newtonian) undoubtedly set back British mathematics for a century
(Hall 1980; Manuel 1968). But in spite of all this, Newton is
regarded as a hero in science.

Mysterious, then, are some of the ways in which heroes can be
created. That is, science watchers simply interpret and
reinterpret whatever has been done and, voila, instant hero.
However, this much should be reasonably clear: heroes in science
are doing the same sorts of things as are the presumptive
villains of science. Both heroes and villains depart from
universalism, yet heroes are heroes and villains are villains.
Heroism and villainy are ascriptions rather than achievements.
One is accorded the status of a hero or a villain not by effort
alone but by being labeled a hero or a villain by science
watchers. If one is to understand this process, it is imperative
to understand science watchers because they are the action in the
field.


Contemporary Revisionism

With the suspicion that villains and heroes are in large part
the creation of science watchers, it is possible to reexamine the
"modern cheats" to see what they represent in the 1980s. A major
scandal of the 1970s was the case of William Summerlin, a cancer
researcher at Sloan-Kettering. There is no doubt that Summerlin
inked some tissue-grafts on mice so as to make it appear that he
had been successful in suppressing immunological reactions to
transplants (Hixson 1976). It was a fraud and he confessed to his
superior, colleague, mentor and erstwhile collaborator, Dr.
Robert A. Good, Director of Sloan-Kettering. His confession led
to a review of all of his work and the disgrace of being caught
as a cheat. He was fired at Sloan-Kettering. On the face of it,
the Summerlin case is a clear example of the effective operation
of social controls in science: cheats get caught and disgraced.

There are, however, some disquieting things about the
Summerlin affair. For one thing, Summerlin and Good were
collaborators in research and had co-authored several articles.
One might reasonably expect that partners would share in the
disgrace. Quite the contrary, Culliton reports that the review
committee of the Institute treated Dr. Good "ever so gently..."
(Culliton 1974a, 1974b:1157) and quotes informants at
Sloan-Kettering: "Good is too valuable a scientist. We can't let
him be dragged down by this" (Culliton 1974b:1157). Apparently,
Institute Directors are too important to be labeled cheats while
associate professors are not. Here, it would seem, cheating is
to be understood in terms of social status.

Another nettlesome point is that Summerlin got off quite
easy. The President of the Institute, Lewis Thomas, is quoted
(Culliton 1974b) as saying:

it has been agreed that the Center will provide Dr.
Summerlin with a period of medical leave on full salary
($40,000) beginning now, for up to 1 year, to enable him
to obtain the rest and professional care which his condi-
tion may require (emphasis supplied). (p. 1555)

This is, indeed, something of an uneasy resolution to a case of
scientific fraud. Were fraud really the heinous sin of science,
and Summerlin a confessed fraud, these niceties would be an
outrage. One guilty of abominations is not given medical leave,
at full salary, for rest and professional care. Summerlin,
driven from research, was allowed to return to the practice of
medicine where, as is said, he can bury his mistakes. In truth,
it does not appear that this sort of "punishment" fits any
"crime" at all. Much may be made of the social control
mechanisms whereby science polices itself, but in this case,
there is no evidence that science severely punishes those who
violate its universalism.

Some other images of science's social control appear to be
clearer. In 1927, for example, Paul Kammerer, a biologist, was
accused of fraud (coincidentally, inking a specimen) and, shortly
thereafter, killed himself. Concerning Kammerer, Aronson (1975)
writes:

I was familiar with this amazing story, for it was
regularly told to biology students as an object lesson.
In essence, falsifying evidence is just about the worst
sin that a scientist can commit since such actions
threaten to destroy the very heart of the scientific
system. (p. 115)

Those who would destroy the heart of the scientific system are
not given sick leave at full pay and allowed to retire to the
practice of medicine--or so students are told in their lessons.
Kammerer once symbolized that fraud in science is suicidal--and
that is powerful imagery.

But there is something wrong, even here. Aronson's quote,
above, is taken from his review of Arthur Koestler's biography of
Paul Kam merer, The Case of the Midwife Toad (1971). Aronson
dislikes Koestler's thesis which is, put bluntly, that Kammerer
was the victim of professional in-fighting among biologists.
Kammerer's being dis credited--his suicide--signaled the demise
of Lamarckianism and the apparent victory of neo-Darwinism. To
Koestler, Kammerer was not a scientific fraud but a human
sacrifice to professional in-fighting and Aronson is simply
trying to discount the Koestler thesis. Aronson's major point is
that young professionals, and the laity, ought to be aware of the
popularizers of pseudo-science, like Arthur Koestler. One science
watcher's hero is another's fraud. It really seems to depend on
who is doing the interpreting.

Another model of effective social control in science is that
of Rene Blondlot, the French physicist, who in 1903 reported the
discov-ery of n-rays, and was much rewarded by the French
government for his work. In 1904, the American physicist R. W.
Wood exposed Blondlot as a victim of self-deception. The unkind
exposure of Blondlot in Nature (Wood 1904) was presumptively
followed by ignominy and death (Langmuir 1968; Rostand 1960).
The image of Blondlot is supposed to be quite clear: do not be
made the fool.

However, Professor Blondlot did not die in disgrace but
survived quietly, until 1930 (Klotz 1980). Furthermore, the
Frenchman was "exposed" only after Wood had been egged on--more
or less goaded into it--at a meeting of the British Association
of the Advancement of Science. It is true that the American had
a reputation for exposing frauds; he liked using his skills in
debunking mediums and parapsy chologists (Seabrook 1941). But it
could be argued that this case represents a chauvinistic
particularism in science, at least since Newton, the French, the
British and the Germans have politicized science for their
respective national prides. Blondlot may represent nothing more
than a tactical victory for the Germans and the British in that
continuing war.

Blondlot, according to this reinterpretation, is a victim of
political warfare in science--scientific nationalism which belies
the claims of science to universalism. Blondlot is, therefore, a
poor example, a poor object lesson, to hold up to students.
Blondlot's real stupidity was that he did not see the American as
a potential threat, a British agent, a scientific gamesperson
bent on embarrassing the French. There are lessons to be learned
from Blondlot's case including this: keep laboratory doors
locked in that "we've all got things we don't want anyone to
see." Blondlot is evidence that scien tists ought to be at least
sometimes suspicious of one another.

Such an examination of heroes and villains as the above in
science leads to this point: in order to understand heroism or
cheating in science it is necessary to examine the science
watchers who label heroes and villains. The labeled cannot
inform us why they have been labeled. One can ask, What do the
science watchers derive from their assignment of labels? Or,
What does an interpretation profit those who make the
interpretation? It is in terms of science watchers that the
answer must be given. Their interpretations must be looked at as
if they were to the benefit of those using them. With this in
mind, it is possible to reexamine the spate of contemporary
cheats of whom so much has recently been made. One can now ask
what this handwring ing is all about.

The few cases of recent cheats--from Alsabti through Soman
and Felig--can be used as evidence that the system of social
control in science is working. In this the publicizing of a few
recent science scandals may be self-serving. These few cases are
purported demon strations that science is, in fact, as it is
supposed to be, self-correcting. These few cases of cheats,
dragged out whenever evidence may be required, are what passes
for evidence of the adequacy of science's own policing methods.
These cases may, however, be differ ently interpreted.

By focusing on specific areas of research in which frauds
have occurred, other areas of science are left virtually
unexamined and untouched. Most of the cheats cited earlier are
engaged in medical research sponsored by the federal government.
These few scapegoats seem positively heavensent in the lost War
on Cancer as there is not another area in contemporary research
in which the taxpayers' need of confidence is greater. Evidence
of any professional self-control is reassuring. Moreover, with
these few scapegoats, Defense Department R & D looks positively
clean. And university administrators can per sist in whatever
passes for control of research so long as they can wring their
hands over, say, Summerlin's inked mice.

Third, excepting the Burt case, medical personnel are vastly
overrepresented on the list of cheats. It could be argued that
physi cians are being used to represent misdeeds in science.
This may be academic gamesmanship at its worst: it may be an
attempt to get even with physicians whose salaries and social
status are higher than those of other academics.

And, finally, the case of Sir Cyril Burt is felicitous for its
symbolic value: Burt's censure is useful because his work had
been used to support an unpopular, hereditarian position in
psychology. In finding Burt a cheat, environmentalists have
created a useful straw man.

These four "interpretations" are offered as alternatives to
the more customary image-maintenance functions engaged in by the
sages of science. They are meant to be provocative in that they
suggest that there are "things" going on among science watchers.
The contemporary freshet of exposed cheats in science is, then,
something of a fabrication, a science watcher's ploy. This does
not mean that the accused are "innocent" of the "crimes" of which
they are accused; the evidence against Burt (Dorfman 1978;
Hearnshaw 1979), for example, is convincing. Rather, it is in
their pretended indignation that contemporary science watchers
betray their colors (Hunt 1981). My whole point is that there is
nothing new to cheating in science and there is nothing new to
the pretenses of science watching.

There are, as Steffens (1958) suggested in his Autobiography,
good reasons to cheat in science. The task of the sage of
science is to cover up those reasons, to pretend that cheating
does not happensave for the few rotten apples in the otherwise
healthy barrel. In this, the science watchers conveniently
rewrite the history of science. For the sages of science are
ultimately loyalists who see the games of science played
according to the rules of fraternity; there is no whistleblowing.

There are steep costs to this fraternal organization of
scientists and science watchers, not the least of which derive
from the self imposed blinders science watchers wear. There are,
too, the costs borne by fledgling scientists who must learn the
subtle rules of gaming without being told that gaming is going
on; in this, each individual must learn by himself just how to
play the games of sci ence. How much more reasonable would it be
to instruct tyros on the rules of the scientific games.

And finally, there is a gambit used by some which should be
mentioned in any appeal to air the games of science. It is
this: there is a logical objection to observing science watchers
because there should be someone observing the observers and so ad
infinitum. This is just another ploy for continuing the old
games of science and it is time for a change.


CONCLUSIONS

Fraud, fudge, deceit and deception are quite common in
science. The current spate of cheats ought to be looked at in
this light and interpreted in terms of the functions they serve
as symbols of "effective social controls in science."

Not only do scientists play the games of science but there is
another game worthy of study: the game of science watching
whereby science maintains its image. There is a need to study
the sages of science if we are to understand science itself.

Finally, it should be clear from the context, that any new
policies of federal agencies to beef up the control mechanisms of
contemporary science are to be counted as inept until there are
some efforts to understand the games being played in the name of
science.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aronson, L. R. The case of the midwife toad. Behavior Genetics,
1975, 115-125.
Asimov, I. The new intelligent man's guide to science. New
York: Basic Books, 1965.
Babbage, C. Reflections on the decline of science in England,
and on some of its causes. London: Gregg International,
1969. (Originally published, 1830.)
Barber, B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery.
Science, 1961, 134, 596-602.
Bell, E. T. Men of mathematics. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1937.
Bell, E. T. Grass, the prince of mathematicians, In J. R. Newman
(Ed.), The World of Mathematics. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1956.
Bernal, J. D. The social function of science. London:
Routledge, 1939.
Broad, W. J. Would be academician pirates papers. Science, 1980,
208, 1438-1440. (a)
Broad, W. J. Jordanian denies he pirated papers. Science, 1980,
209, 249. (b)
Broad, W. J. Imbroglio at Yale (I): Emergence of a fraud.
Science, 1980, 210, 38-41. (c)
Broad, W. J. Imbroglio at Yale (II): A top job lost. Science,
1980, 210, 171-173. (d)
Broad, W. J. The Case of the unmentioned malignancy. Science,
1980, 210, 1229-1230. (e)
Broad, W. J. Fraud and the structure of science. Science, 1981,
212, 137-141. (a)
Broad, W. J. Congress told fraud issue 'exaggerated.' Science,
1981, 212, 421. (b)
Broad, W. J. Team research: Responsibility at the top. Science,
1981, 213, 518-520. (c)
Broad, W. J. Harvard delays in reporting fraud. Science, 1982,
215, 478-482. (a)
Broad, W. J. Report absolves Harvard in case of fakery.
Science, 1982, 215, 874-876.
Brush, S. G. Should the history of science be rated X? Science,
1974, 183, 1164-1172.
Conant, J. B. Science and common sense. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1951.
Conant,J. B., & Nash, L. K. (Eds.) Harvard case histories in
experimental science (2 Vols). Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1957.
Cooper, L. Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa. Ithaca,
New York: Cornell University Press, 1935.
Craig, J.R., & Reese, S. C. Retention of raw data: A problem
re-visited. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 723.
Culliton, B. J. The Sloan-Kettering affair: A story without a
hero. Science, 1974, 184, 644-650. (a)
Culliton, B. J. The Sloan-Kettering affair (II): An uneasy
resolution. Science, 1974, 184, 1154-1157. (b)
Dickson, D. Contaminated cell lines. Nature, 1981, 289, 227.
Dorfman, D. D. The Cyril Burt question: New findings. Science,
1978, 201, 1177-1186.
Dubos, R. Louis Pasteur: Free lance of science. New York:
Scribner's, 1976.
Feyerabend, P. K. Problems of empiricism, Part II, In R. Kolodny,
(Ed.), The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. Pitts-
burgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970.
Feyerabend, P. K. Against method: Outline of an anarchistic
theory of knowledge. London: NLB, 1975.
Fisher, R. A. Has Mendel's work been rediscovered? Annals of
Science, 1936, 1, 115-137.
Fraud, hoax and simple error. The Economist, January 24, 1981, p.
99.
Gaston, J. Secretiveness and competition for priority of
discovery in physics. Minerva, 1971, 9, 472-492.
Gaston, J. Originality and competition in science. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Golden, F. Fudging data for fun and profit. Time, December 7,
1981, p. 83.
Goldsmith, M. & Mackay, A. (Eds.). Society and science. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1964.
Gould, S. J. Ever since Darwin: Reflections on natural history.
New York: Norton, 1977.
Gould, S. J. The finagle factor. Human Nature, 1978, 1(7),
80-87.
Greenberg, D. S. The grant swinger papers. Washington, D.C.:
Science and Government Report, 1981.
Hall, A. R. Philosophers at war: The quarrel between Newton and
Leibniz. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Harris, N. L., Gang, D. L., Quay, S. C., Poppema, S., Zamecnik,
P. C., Nelson-Reis, W. A., & O'Brien, S. J. Contamination
of Hodgkin's disease cell cultures. Nature, 1981, 289,
228-230.
Hearnshaw, L. S. Cyril Burt psychologist. New York: Random House,
1979.
Hixson, J. The patchwork mouse. Garden City, New York: Doubleday,
1976.
Hunt, M. A fraud that shook the world of science. New York Times
Magazine, November 1, 1981, pp. 42-46, 50-58, 68.
Jaffe, B. Crucibles: The story of chemistry (4th ed.). New York:
Dover, 1976.
Kamin, L. J. The science and politics of IQ. New York: Wiley,
1974.
Klotz, I. M. The N-ray affair. Scientific American, 1980,
242(5), 168-175.
Koestler, A. The sleepwalkers. New York: Macmillan, 1959.
Koestler, A. The case of the midwife toad. New York: Random
House, 1971.
Kolata, G. B. Reevaluation of cancer data eagerly awaited.
Science, 1981, 214, 316-318.
Koyre, A. An experiment in measurement. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, 1953, 97, 222-237.
Koyre, A. From the closed world to the infinite universe. New
York: Harper Torchbacks, 1958.
Koyre, A. Metaphysics and measurement. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1968.
Kuhn, T. S. The essential tension. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1977.
Langmuir, I. Pathological science. Colloquium given at the
Knolls Research Laboratory, December 18, 1953.
Transcribed and edited by R. Hall (1968). General
Electric Research and Development Center Report 68-C-035
(April).
Manuel, F. A portrait of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: The Belknap
Press, 1968.
May, K. O. Growth and quality of the mathematical literature.
Isis, 1968, 59, 363-371.
McKie, D. The birth of modern chemistry. In A short history of
science. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959.
Mulkay, M. J. Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural
sciences. Social Research, 1969, 36, 22-53.
Mulkay, M. J. Methodology in the sociology of science: Some
reflections on the study of radio astronomy. Social
Science Information, 1974, 13, 109-119.
Mulkay, M. J. Science and the sociology of knowledge. London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1979.
Mulkay, M.J., & Williams, A. T. A sociological study of a
physics department. British Journal of Sociology, 1971,
22, 68-82.
Nash, L. K. Chemical atomic theory. Isis, 1956, 47, 101-116.
Newton, R. R. The crime of Claudius Ptolemy. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1977.
Roberts, I. St. J. Cheating in science. New Scientist, 1976, 71,
466-469.
Schmaus, W. Fraud and sloppiness in science. Perspectives, 1981,
1, 1-4.
Science News, Researcher found cheating at PSI lab. Science News,
1974, 106, 100-101.
Science News, Research admits he faked journal data. Science
News, 1977, 111, 150-151.
Seabrook, W. Doctor Wood. New York: Harcourt, 1941.
Snow, C. P. The affair. New York: Scribner's, 1961.
Snow, C. P. Variety of men. London: Macmillan, 1967.
"Stanford denies cover-up of research fraud," New York Times,
August 23, 1981, p. 31.
Steffens, L. The autobiography of Lincoln Steffens (abridged
ed.). New York: Harcourt, 1958.
Storer, N. W. The sociological context of the Velikovsky affair,
In D. Goldsmith (Ed.), Scientists confront Velikovsky.
New York: Cornell University Press, 1977.
Sullowar, F. J. Freud, biologist of the mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1979.
Sun, M. Hatch batters NCI with Straus case... Science, 1981,
212, 1366-1367.
Szasz, T. S. The lying truths of psychiatry, In R. Duncan & M.
Weston-Smith (Eds.), Lying truths. New York: Pergammon
Press, 1979.
Thackray, A. John Dalton: Critical assessments of his life and
science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Trafford, A. Behind the scandals in science. U.S. News and World
Report, March 2, 1981, p. 54.
Wade, N. A diversion of the quest for truth. Science, 1981,
211, 1022-1025.
Westfall, R. S. Newton and the fudge factor. Sciences, 1973,
179, 751-758.
Westfall, R. S. Never at rest: A biography of Isaac Newton. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
White, J. H. The history of the phlogiston theory. London:
Edward Arnold, 1932.
Wolins, L. Responsibility for raw data. American Psychologist,
1962, 17, 657-658.
Wood, R. W. The n-rays. Nature, 1904, 70, 530-531.
Znaniecki, F. The social role of the man of knowledge. New York:
Harper Torchbooks, 1968.
Zuckerman, H. Deviant behavior and social control in science, In
E. Sagarin (Ed.), Deviance and social change. Beverly
Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1977.
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. Patterns of evaluation in
science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of
the referee system. Minerva, 1971, 9, 66-100.
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 10:57:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet
Subject: WATCHING THE WATCHERS

In the spirit of Al's decade-old caveat that the science
watchers themselves ought to be watched, I share with you all
the following musings, stimulated by the recent case of the
Harvard medical student's confession to having fabricated data
reported in a journal article and the formal announcement by the
journal that the article was fraudulent. Thence followed our
chief science watcher's (Al's) response to these things, which
included the irate rejection of the journal's behavior as
grossly inadequate. The student was portrayed as a lamb
sacrificed by the cult of science to preserve the standing of
this evil enterprise.

Here are two morsels of food for thought. Back around 1985, a
young reporter for the Washington Post was awarded a Pulitzer
Prize (not a Nobel, but prestigious) for a brilliant series of
articles about an 8-year-old drug addict. Perhaps some of you
read the series, were deeply moved by it. Later, the reporter
confessed that the story was fabricated, the 8-year-old was a
fictitious creation; the Washington Post returned the Pulitzer
Prize. Would anyone say that the reporter was a sacrificial lamb
for the evil empire of journalism? Yet we know that journalism
is far more hospitable to fraud than is science. If we need to
be reminded of that, we need only go to the supermarket and look
at the newspapers (yes, they are newspapers) standing in the
racks.

I have a friend with a prodigious memory. A few years ago he
read a novel in which a fictional academic character was quoted
as having made a rather intelligent comment. Recently, while
reading a nonfiction book, he discovered the same quotation,
dutifully attributed to the fictional character who had spoken
the quotation in the novel. Now, however, the academic was
presented as a real person, someone to whom we might all listen.

Now, the two morsels I've presented are different. Without doing
an investigation, I will guess that the reporter knowingly
cheated, the author of the second book stumbled/fumbled in a
journey through the academic-social science landscape. Again,
would anyone say that the academic world ought to be thrown out,
policed, excoriated?

(Names of novel and nonfiction book available upon request.)

Bob Barasch
STMIKES@NORWICH.BITNET
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 14:11:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: OMB's Proposed A-130

OMB's Proposed A-130

The OMB has proposed new guidelines for users of goverment
data in its revised circular. The revisions appear to have both
strengths and weaknesses.

Al Higgins

+++++++++++++

from: in%"love@pucc.bitnet" "james p love" 23-jun-1992 16:16:52.35
to: al higgins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
CC:
Subj: OMB A130 REVISION - CORRECTED POST

Return-path: <SOS-DATA@UNCVM1.BITNET>
received: from albnyvm1 (mailer@albnyvm1) by albnyvms.bitnet with pmdf#10240;
Tue, 23 Jun 1992 16:16 EDT
Received: by ALBNYVM1 (Mailer R2.08) id 8929; Tue, 23 Jun 92 16:16:30 EDT
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1992 16:13:30 EDT
from: james p love <love@pucc.bitnet>
Subject: OMB A130 REVISION - CORRECTED POST
sender: "social science data list." <sos-data@uncvm1.bitnet>
to: al higgins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Reply-to: James P Love <LOVE@PUCC.BITNET>
message-id: <98be3f6e604018ef@albnyvms.bitnet>
X-Envelope-to: ACH13

Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
June 23, 1992

THE APRIL 29, 1992 PROPOSED REVISION TO OMB CIRCULAR A-130.


SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

- Important policy advisory for all federal agencies
concerning the management of federal information resources.

- Proposed Revision is an improvement over the existing A-130,
but needs considerable work. Your comments are needed.

- Public comments due by August 27, 1992

- Comments can be filed at any time before the deadline by
email. Send to (Internet): omba130@nist.gov


INTRODUCTION

On April 29, 1992 OMB published a notice in the Federal Register
asking for public comments on proposed revisions of its OMB
Circular A-130. This important circular is a policy advisory
from OMB to all federal agencies concerning the management of
government information resources.

Since it was first issued in 1985 A-130 has been a controversial
document. In its earlier versions A-130 was used to eliminate or
raise prices on many free publications, and to promote the
privatization of the dissemination of government information.

The April 29, 1992 draft is a major improvement from the 1985
circular or any of the previous attempts to revise it. There are
also a number of problems with A-130.


GOOD NEWS

The best new features of the Circular are its decreased emphasis
on privatization, the much more generous mandate to use computer
technologies to disseminate government information (its ok for a
government agency to "add value"), and OMB's very good statement
on pricing of government information (no more than the cost of
dissemination).

BAD NEWS

DEPOSITORY LIBRARIES

OMB contends that federal agencies do not have to give electronic
information products and services to the federal depository
library program. There are 1,400 federal depository libraries,
including most major research libraries. They provide free
access to thousands of federal publications. By law all federal
agencies are required to provide copies of paper productions to
this program, which was organized in the middle of the 19th
century. OMB's proposal, which may not be legal, is a major
change of philosophy, and it should be criticized strongly. We
don't need a technological sunset of this important program which
provides universal access to federal information resources.


WHAT'S MISSING FROM THE CIRCULAR

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

A surprisingly large number of agencies have contracts with
private firms to carry out data processing or information
dissemination tasks, when the contractor is also a potential
competing outlet for the information. The conflicts of interest,
both real and potential, are huge, and of great importance.
Consider the following examples:

SEC's Insider trading data. The SEC hires InvestNet to data
punch its insider trading reports. InvestNet provides a
copy of its work to the National Archives, missing the field
of the shareholder's address. This makes the government's
copy of the data worthless for many users. InvestNet then
the public sells access to the complete data for very high
fees.

SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC hires Mead Data Central to
disseminate the electronic records for EDGAR. Meanwhile,
Mead wants to sell the public access to those same records.
The result is one of the most restrictive systems for public
access that one could imagine.

LANDSAT. GM and GE are given a monopoly on the sale of
LANDSAT data. Forget GM's conflict of interest in making
data on air pollution and climate available to environmental
groups. GM, through its Hughes subsidiary, wants to force
people to buy its value added services, "enhancing" the
LANDSAT data, before its disseminated.

JURIS. The Department of Justice hires Westlaw to key punch
federal court decisions. Westlaw, of course, is one of two
commercial sources (with Mead Data Central) of legal
information online. West provides the government with its
headnotes, which West copyrights. West then can exercise a
copyright over the entire database, which otherwise consists
of the LAW itself. West has used this to prevent the public
from having access to the JURIS online system and from
preventing potential competitors from obtaining the records
under FOIA.

There are dozens of other cases of conflicts of interest. OMB
should address this issue in A-130.


PUBLIC NOTICE

OMB is still acting as though the only reason for public notice
is if there is a major decision on the creation or termination of
an information product or service. We believe the public should
have regular opportunities to comment on agency policies and
practices. For example, since JURIS has never been available to
the public, there hasn't been any public notice. Or, the SEC's
public notice of EDGAR was years and years ago, before anyone
knew what it was really going to do. What if the public wants
something new that doesn't exist, or wants to criticize an agency
choice of standards? Some of the most important issues concern
the types of incremental adjustments that agencies need to make.

We support the extensive public comment provisions that are
described in Representative Owens' Improvement of Information
Access Act (IIA Act, HR 3459). Let's do it right in A-130, and
pay more attention to data users problems.


NTIS

Ever since Congress required NTIS to operate without taxpayer
funds (funded entirely on user fees), it has used electronic
products and services to subsidize its money losing paper
products. Agencies now sell electronic products through NTIS,
splitting fees. The records are no longer available through
FOIA, and A-130's policy on pricing (no more than dissemination
costs) is completely undermined. NTIS charges huge prices for
its data in electronic formats. (As much as $1,000 or more for a
single real of magnetic tape). This loophole is causing immense
problems, and should be addressed in A-130.


STANDARDS

If the three most important things about information in a
networked environment are standards, standards, and standards,
then A-130 should talk more about standards. And when you talk
about standards, you have to talk about *regular* public comment.
Users have to be involved. Again, we support the Owens bill (HR
3459) approach on this.

CONCLUSION

Omb Circular A-130 is a pivotal federal document, and it will be
important to file your comments by the August 27, 1992 deadline.
OMB is making this very easy by allowing comments to be filed by
email any time before the deadline, at omba130@nist.gov.

For more information, contact OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.

Information Policy Branch internet: ombA130@nist.gov
Office of Information and voice: 202/395-3785
Regulatory Affairs
OMB
Room 3235
New Executive Office Building
Washington, DC 20503

James Love voice: 609/683-0534
Director, Taxpayer fax: 202/234-5176
Assets Project internet: love@essential.org
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 15:50:37 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mantel <mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: SSC isn't dead yet

I would like to know if any body on the scifraud list has a posting concerning
the man and/or the paper about the need for science and engineering degrees due
to a forth coming shortage. The man was suppose to be in front of a
congressional hearing to discuss his questionable sources and research in
obtaining his conclusion. I don't remember who the man was or what the title
of his paper was but the posting came out from 1 to 4 months ago. If someone
could e-mail this posting to me I would be very appreciative. I have not
looked in the archives because I do not have the disc quota available to down
load a whole months worth of postings. Let alone the time to sort through them.
Thanks,
Jaime Mantel
Mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 17:24:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on Gallo

More on Gallo

The investigators continue their investigations and this
case is far from over. This is a major scandal in Big Science
and a fascinating case study of bumbling one's way to the Nobel
prize. This is hardly the image of science in the schoolboy's
mind, the stereotyped search for truth. This is an excellent
source for the study of the seamy side of science.

The pressure on Gallo is intense. He has been in the
spotlight of Big Science for decades but this is not the kind of
eminence he would prefer. There are costs to doing science at
this level.

Here is an annotation of an article in the New York Times on
some recent interviews of the former chief of staff at HHS.

++++++++++


\Hilts, Philip J. "Doctor Accused Anew on AIDS
Studies," New York Times, 25 June 1992, p. A22.\

"A former senior health official says the
Government was misled by Dr. Robert C. Gallo's claim to
have been the sole discoverer of the cause of AIDS, and
that now the United States has a 'moral duty' to turn
over the credit and the royalties to the French.
"Comments by C. McClain Haddow in recent
interviews are part of the increasing pressure being
put on the Government to reverse its stand behind Dr.
Gallo. At the same time, lawyers for the Pasteur
Institute in France are lobbying officials of both the
White House and the Department of Health and Human
Services. And two independent bodies have attacked Dr.
Gallo and what they said was the Government's limp
investigation.
"'Had we known then what we know today, we would
have had a moral obligation to allow the French to have
all the royalties,' said Mr. Haddow, chief of staff at
the Department of Health and Human Services from 1983
to 1987. 'We have no right to them.'"

There is some corroboration for the judgments by
Haddow and there is some evidence that the Department
was very concerned about losing any court case that
might arise.

Gallo's attorney said he could not accept Haddow
as a credible source of information as he had been
convicted six years ago of a conflict of interest and
served four months in prison.

There is a brief history of the OSI investigation
but it is reported here that as soon as OSI's report
come out, it was branded a whitewash by the Richards
Panel and by Congressman John Dingell.

"Haddow now says that from the beginning some top
H.H.S. officials had doubts about Dr. Gallo's account.
"The officials at Health and Human Services
'believed that Gallo was incorrect when he said he did
not use the French virus," Mr. Haddow said. 'There was
some question about the significant of the use, but
they were aware that it had been used in some fashion.
The recommendation was to play it out as best we can,
and if we can get a settlement where we share the
credit, let's do it.'"

"As chief of staff in the Department of Health and
Human Services, Mr. Haddow was a key adviser to the
Secretary, then Margaret Heckler, and participated in
the decision to share credit for the discovery with the
French rather than defend in court Dr. Gallo's claim to
be the first discoverer.
"Had the Gallo claims been tested in court, Mr.
Haddow said, top officials believed they might well
lose the case.
"'We might end up losing in court, and then being
in a position to have to share the credit anyway,' Mr.
Haddow said. Asked why government officials did not
press Dr. Gallo harder, Mr. Haddow said: 'I wasn't in
a position to challenge Gallo. He was and is a
preeminent researcher on retroviruses.'"

++++++++++



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 18:06:54 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Shortage of science and engineering degrees

Mantel might try looking at the work of David Breneman,
currently at Harvard's School of Education. Breneman is
one of the best-known commentators about the state of higher
education in the USA today. I don't have any particular
source on him, though. He's been publishing on such things
since the mid-1970s.
I think talk of there being a shortage of engineers and
scientists is a whole lot older than one to four months ago,
however. I first heard such talk in the mid-to-late 1980s.
I also heard that historians of science and technology like
me could, if they were part of my generation, look forward
to taking their picks of chaired professorships by the time
they reached age fifty or so. I can't wait. I only have
seven years to go.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 17:53:23 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mantel <mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Shortage of science and engineering degrees

<Mantel might try looking at the work of David Breneman,
<currently at Harvard's School of Education. Breneman is
<one of the best-known commentators about the state of higher
<education in the USA today. I don't have any particular
<source on him, though. He's been publishing on such things
<since the mid-1970s.
< I think talk of there being a shortage of engineers and
<scientists is a whole lot older than one to four months ago,
<however. I first heard such talk in the mid-to-late 1980s.
<I also heard that historians of science and technology like
<me could, if they were part of my generation, look forward
<to taking their picks of chaired professorships by the time
<they reached age fifty or so. I can't wait. I only have
<seven years to go.

I know of the research into the shortage of science, math, and engineering
majors. what I want is the posting that dealt with the Author of one such
paper which was basically untrue and the author is now being investigated by
the congress. The NSF is also under fire for the fraudulant practices by the
author.
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1992 19:25:30 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Fraudulent shortage

Oops, sorry. I don't know WHO would be the person who'd
fraudulently claim a shortage of engineers, mathematicians,
and scientists. I'd be VERY surprised to learn that it
was Breneman, that's for sure.
Sorry I can't help further. Can anyone else help?
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 01:48:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Shortage of science and engineering degrees

That reference you are looking for: Marshall, Eliot. "Was
The Shortfall Phony?" Science 256 (10 April 1992), p. 172.
(Thanks to Pete Meadows.)

Al
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 11:37:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: Fraudulent shortage

The dubious projection was done in a Division of NSF devoted to statistical
studies of manpower supply and demand. The NSF director at the time,
Bloch, has squealed foul at being tagged with responsibility for the
projection. There were articles on the debacle in Science magazine
in the last few months; I do not have references, but if somemone wants
to follow up, this might be where to look.

Alpherr@union
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 11:39:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: Fraudulent shortage

I too am positive it could not be Breneman. In the days when I personally
was involved in manpower projections, he was one of those who seemed top
know what he was about.

Alpherr@union
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1992 13:21:11 CDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: access to reserach records

The following posting on another list, is, I think of interest to the readers
of this list.

-phil


+


| |
| CRTNET |
| |
| June 26, 1992 |
| |
+


| Number 581 |
+


| |
| COMMUNICATION RESEARCH AND THEORY NETWORK |
| |
+


| Edited by Tom Benson, Penn State University |
+


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

CONTENTS --

-- Ethics and the Privacy of Research Files
(Bill Gardner)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

{forwarded from xlchc}
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 92 19:50:36 -0700
{from} mcole%weber.ucsd.edu@Sdsc.BITnet (Mike Cole)
Subject: ethics and the privacy of research files

>from: bill gardner <wpg@ethics.med.pitt.edu>
Subject: Privacy of Research Files

There is a significant research ethics question raised in an
article in the 6/19/92 issue of Science (M. Barinaga, "Who
controls a researcher's files?", vol. 256, pp. 1620-1621).

The essence of the story is this: JAMA published three
articles last year about how children respond to the "Old
Joe Camel" cartoon character (Fischer, et al. (1991), 266,
p. 3145; DiFranza, et al. (1991) 266, p. 3149; Pierce, et
al. (1991) 266, p. 3154). This research has been cited by
in a suit against the R. J. Reynolds company in California
(DiFranza's research is also evidence in a complaint filed
with the Federal Trade Comission). The litigants claim that
Reynolds has violated CA's unfair business practices laws by
distributing materials with the "Old Joe" character that did
not include the Surgeon General's warning about cancer and
smoking.

In response, Reynolds has served subpoenas on the lead
authors of the 3 articles seeking access to their research
files. DiFranza, a family physician in Fitchburg, MA, lost
an appeal in MA and turned over his files to Reynolds.
Reynolds later showed some (or all, it isn't clear) of these
materials to a journalist. The materials included a memo
about plans for the study from DiFranza to his collaborators
in which he wrote "I have an idea for a project that will
give us a couple of smoking guns to bring to the national
media." Reynolds interprets this as evidence of bias. They
also claim that DiFranza omitted data that did not support
his conclusions, which DiFranza denies. Reynolds also
claims that there are methodological problems with the study
that contribute to bias (it isn't clear whether this claim
is based on information obtained from the files).

Remarkably, Reynolds also asked for the names of the
children who had participated in the research. They
withdrew that request before the judge could rule on it.
Reynolds says that their intention had been to call each of
the families to verify that the children had actually
participated in the research. I hope that the MA judge
would have denied this (and rebuked Reynolds) but who knows?

Reynolds' position is that they need access to the files to
defend themselves against the CA suit. Specifically, they
need to be able to determine whether there was fraud or bias
in the research. It has the effect, however, of harassing
these researchers. It also threatens to undermine the
confidentiality of research data, which could deter IRBs
from approving potentially controversial studies and could
also deter people from participating in this research.

I draw several conclusions from this case.

1. Recent problems of scientific integrity opened the door
for these intrusions into researchers files. We need to
clean up our acts about make sure that published data are
available in a form that does not jeopardize
confidentiality. This means that there should be clearer
criteria specifying what information has to be disclosed are
where it should be archived (from my own experience I can
say that published data have essentially the life expectancy
of a PC hard drive). With a clear statement of what should
be publically available, we would be in a stronger position
to protect our own privacy and that of the participants in
our research.

It also needs to made clear that the "bias" relevant to
evaluating scientific research concerns the research
practices of the investigator, not his or her motivations.

2. The principle should be established that if someone
wants access to additional information that the researcher
does not wish to share, they need some reason or cause for
the belief that there are scientific or ethical problems.
Perhaps a lawyer can present another view on this point, but
I think that if a defendant in a suit can go fishing for
problems without a reasonable cause it will chill scientific
inquiry on controversial topics.

3. If someone wants access to sensitive information on
participants in research -- e.g., the names of children -- I
think they should have to convince a judge that not only is
there is a compelling need for the information for the
defense but also that it will be handled in a way that does
not harm the research participants.

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} William Gardner {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{} /_ o / / Psychiatry Dept, School of Medicine 412-681-1102 {}
{} /__) / / / University of Pittsburgh wpg@ethics.med.pitt.edu {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} Pittsburgh, PA 15213 {}{}{} FAX:412-624-0901 {}{}

+


| CRTNET is edited by: |
| |
| Tom Benson | INTERNET: t3b@psuvm.psu.edu |
| Dept. of Speech Communication | BITNET: T3B@PSUVM |
| Penn State University | FAX: 814-863-7986 |
| 227 Sparks Building | OFFICE: 814-865-4201 |
| University Park, PA 16802 USA | HOME: 814-238-5277 |
| | DEPT: 814-865-3461 |
| |
+


| BACK ISSUES |
| Back issues of CRTNET may be obtained from two sources. |
| (1) LISTSERV@PSUVM archives CRTNET; if you are able to use |
| interactive messaging, try TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM HELP to get |
| started; for an index of CRTNET files, try TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM |
| INDex CRTNET |
| (2) COMSERVE@RPIECS (bitnet) will respond to interactive commands |
| or electronic mail; try asking for HELP; or send the command SEND |
| CRTNET DIRECTRY for a directory of back issues. |
+


+


| SUBSCRIPTIONS |
| Subscriptions to CRTNET are free to all. Send electronic mail |
| requests to editor T3B@PSUVM or CRTNET@PSUVM (Bitnet); or you may |
| be able to send an interactive message: TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM SUB |
| CRTNET <your> <name> |
+


+


| CONTRIBUTIONS |
| Readers are encouraged to contribute abstracts, articles, book |
| reviews, announcements, comments, questions, and discussion to |
| CRTNET. All topics relating to the general area of human |
| communication are welcome. |
+


+



** END OF CRTNET **




--
J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 {362-2694(FAX)}
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1992 22:13:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Pop Science

Pop Science

There are ways and there are ways of viewing science
fraud. One can take a simplistic view, it can be called the
psychological or psychiatric, that cheats in science are
psychopaths, or some such thing, explaining with that sad
metaphor: science cheats are a few bad apples, their "badness" the
result of flawed character. This is the preferred American view
of deviance: it is the deviant who is at fault, is the problem.

Second, Americans love explanations which include an
economic basis of behavior. Money is, after all, the "root of all
evil." Big science is big bucks and when there is a lot of money
around and the competition fierce, people start cutting corners.

It should not be surprising that popular explanations of
fraud in science focus on the economic and the psychological
explanations for the frauds in science. Simple assumptions, simple
explanations, and simplistic solutions to the problem: more and
better control, ethics courses, and, of course, get rid of the few
miscreants. And, oh, while you are at it, it would be a good idea
to bring back the good old days when American science was the best
in the world and something we, and John Wayne, could be proud of:
lots of money.

Here is an annotation of a recent piece in Omni. This
derives from the usual source, the SCIFRAUD database.

+++++++++++++++

\Marsa, Linda. "Scientific Fraud" Omni, June 1992,
pp. 39ff.\

What with the Gallo case drawing the attention of
the networks and Baltimore's travails common news, it
is no longer true that science fraud can be swept under
the rug. Big names caught out in major scandals
combine with the billions lavished on science by
government and the misbehaviors of members of the AAU
in terms of billing the government, scientific
misconduct is newsworthy material. And here is a slick
magazine's telling of some of the stories in
contemporary science and at least hinting briefly at
the misbehaviors of some of the Big Names of the past.
Indeed, the front cover of this issue boasts that it
list the "Top 10 Science Frauds of All Time."

As far as the top 10 go, the magazine does have an
insert (p. 40) which is headed: "Grand Illusions: the
Top Ten Known or Suspected Science Frauds." And
provides a bare-bones statement about the doubtful work
of: Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Dalton, Mendel, Robert
Millikan, Cyril Burt, William T. Summerlin, and John
Darsee. Mention is also made of the Piltdown Man to
fill the "10" they insist on listing. It is a rather
arbitrary list and identification of fraudulent
behaviors, i.e., Newton is accused of diddling with his
data to get them to conform to his theory but there is
so much more to Newton's misbehaviors than that! Then,
too, why not include Pasteur? Darwin? Freud? And
finally, Summerlin, Burt and Darsee are hardly in the
same league as the Big Names of science.

There is a brief telling of the emerging story of
Robert Gallo's work on AIDS, cold fusion, Baltimore,
Stephen Breuning, and the sad stories of Robert Sprague
and Margot O'Toole as representatives of whistle-
blowers and their fate. Clearly, nothing novel to the
readers of this board.

Two things are disappointing in the piece: first,
there is reliance on the "economics" of science fraud,
an explanation which focuses on the shortage of funds
in Big Science, the competitive nature of Big Science,
and the similarity between the winning of awards and
the winning of contracts at the Pentagon. Robert Bell,
author of Impure Science, is quoted: "'Like the
Pentagon's defense contractors, the science community
has evolved into another patronage system which
enriches those at the top. Universities have a vested
interest in not finding anyone guilty of fraud.
Because if they do, they may have to return the
delinquent researcher's grants. When someone blows the
whistle, universities set up investigatory panels,
which are almost inevitably kangaroo courts that cover
up abuses.'"
"Indeed, science is big business..." (p. 42)

Second, the author is quite optimistic and upbeat
about the meaning of fraud in science: "But these
jolting scandals may ultimately prove salutary. A
number of hopeful signs demonstrate the obviously
shaken scientific community--acting out of enlightened
self-interest--intends to clean house and stop the
university cover-ups, the federal foot dragging and the
witch hunts of whistle blowers, all of which allow
abuses to flourish.
"The OSI staff may grow from 19 investigators to
28, including three lawyers, and, to ensure
objectivity, the office may be moved away from the NIH.
The NSF has issued stricter guidelines regarding
misconduct and is keeping a tighter rein on
universities. And a 22 member panel of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) in Washington, D.C., has
worked for more than two years to hammer out the
principles of good scientific conduct.
"The NIH also now requires ethics programs in
graduate students' curriculum..." (pp. 82-83)

It ends with this paragraph: "If the science
community can eliminate the harmful politicking that
has corrupted the research process and restore the high
ethical standards--the boldness of vision and the sense
of mission that historically has made American science
great--it will be because of men like Robert Sprague."
"Science had better learn to police itself," warns the
NIH's Bernadine Healy. "The future of research is
intimately linked with the seriousness to which we
address the issue of scientific conduct. Because if we
lose the trust on which research is built, we lose
everything."

++++++++++++++++

One can be sanguine about this and say that people are
finally becoming aware of the problem. They may not know what to
do about the problem, but they recognize it as a problem. This is
a very real change over the last few years when fraud in science
was an oxymoron for the public and knowledge of it the mark of the
insider in science. It is being discussed and people are
wondering what to do about it. At the start, things are always
confused and poorly understood. Simplistic explanations get used
until better ones can be devised. But let us be sanguine:
skepticism is growing and that is a good thing.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1992 23:27:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Book Review

Book Review

A former colleague here at Albany, now at Syracuse
University, has written a sane and witty book on lying with maps.
He appreciates that maps, like numbers, command extraordinary
respect and are overly valued for their apparent presentation of
truth. In a manner reminiscent of Huff's How to Lie With
Statistics (which he acknowledges as his model), Mark Momonier has
written a brief but valuble book on cartography. Would that
others would warn the naive of the dangers in data of all kinds.

Monmonier acknowledges that there are frauds with deceit on
their minds out there practicing a variety of arts and crafts.
Warning the map users of these crafty fakes is a useful goal but
he goes one important step further in describing what he calls
the "cartographic paradox" viz, that "to present a truthful and
useful picture, the accurate map must tell white lies." All our
descriptions combined do not exhaust reality: there are always--
there must be--things which are selectively left out of
descriptions. Error is inherent in all descriptions, or, perhaps
a better way of putting it: all descriptions are inherently
inadequate and selective but may still have some uses.

We tend to forget about inadequacies and perceive our
descriptions as "truthful and exhaustive." It is well to be
reminded that they are not.

The annotation is, as usual, from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Monmonier, Mark. How To Lie with Maps. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1991.\

As Monmonier acknowledges (p. xi), the book and
its title are indebted to Darrell Huff whose How to Lie
with Statistics is something of the model for this
work. More specifically, Monmonier is interested in
displaying the art and craft of map making by
demonstrating how the untutored and immoral map makers
can use their arts in deceitful ways. Yet, he starts
out with a much more insightful recognition than that
brigands are brigands. Rather, he suggests "To avoid
hiding critical information in a fog of detail, the map
must offer a selective incomplete view of reality.
There is no escape from the cartographic paradox: the
present a useful and truthful picture, an accurate map
must tell white lies." (p. 1) Now that is much more
insightful than the idea that some people cheat.

Users of maps are frequently unaware of the
cartographic paradox and "...often fail to appreciate
the map's power as a tool of falsification or subtle
propaganda." (p. 1) So this book is not a warning
about unscrupulous map makers so much as it is designed
to: "promote a healthy skepticism about maps, not to
foster either cynicism or deliberate dishonesty." ...
"The potential for cartographic mischief extends well
beyond the deliberate suppression used by some
cartographer-politicians and the electronic blunders
made by the cartographically ignorant. If any single
caveat can alert map users to their unhealthy but
widespread naivete, it is that a single map is but one
of an indefinitely large number of maps that might be
produced for the same situation or from the same data."
(emphasis in the original) (p. 2)

"In showing how to lie with maps, I want to make
readers aware that maps, like speeches and paintings,
are authored collections of information and also are
subject to distortions arising from ignorance, greed,
ideological blindness, or malice." (p. 2)

And this education in cartography has as its goal:
"Maps, like numbers, are often arcane images accorded
undue respect and credibility. This book's principal
goal is to dispel this cartographic mystique and
promote a more informed use of maps based upon an
understanding and appreciation of their flexibility as
a medium of communication." (p. 3)

Cartographic fallibility and outright mischief are
admixed here in a display of the need for skepticism.
It is one thing to appreciate that cartographers are
human and make mistakes like the rest of us. Poorly
drawn maps have consequences for us: "Modern warfare
is particularly vulnerable to bad maps, as the 1983
invasion of Granda by United States troops and their
Caribbean allies demonstrates. The only cartographic
intelligence distributed to troops carrying out this
politically convenient rescue of American medical
students consisted on hastily printed copies of a few
obsolete British maps and a tourist map with a military
grid added. An air attack destroyed a mental hospital
not marked on the maps. Another air strike, ordered by
a field commander using one set of grid coordinates but
carried out by planes using a map with another grid,
wounded eighteen soldiers, one fatally." (p. 45)

In a chapter entitled "Maps for Political
Propaganda," Monmonier suggests: "Political persuasion
often concerns territorial claims, nationalities,
national pride, borders, strategic positions,
conquests, attacks, troop movements, defenses, spheres
of influence, regional inequality and other geographic
phenomena conveniently portrayed cartographically. The
propagandist molds the map's message by emphasizing
supporting features, suppressing contradictory
information and choosing provocative, dramatic symbols.
People trust maps, and intriguing maps attract the eye
as well as connote authority. Naive citizens willingly
accept as truth maps based on a biased and sometimes
fraudulent selection of facts." (p. 87)

"As historian of cartography Brian Harley has
noted, government maps have for centuries been
ideological statements rather than fully objective,
'value-free' scientific representations of geographic
reality. Harley observed that governments practice two
forms of cartographic censorship--a censorship of
secrecy to serve military defense and a censorship of
silence to enforce or reinforce social and political
values." (p. 122)

The brief epilogue restates Monmonier's position
well: "The preceding chapters have explored the wide
variety of ways maps can lie: why maps usually must
tell some white lies, how maps can be exploited to tell
manipulative lies, and why maps often distort the truth
when a well-intentioned map author fails to understand
cartographic generalization and graphic principles. A
wise map user is thus a skeptic, ever wary of confusing
or misleading distortions conceived by ignorant or
diabolical map authors." (p. 157)

Reference:

Harley, J. B. and David Woodward, eds. The
History of Cartography. 6 vols. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1987-

++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 18:30:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Moral Courage

Moral Courage

Here is a small item from the Chronicle of Higher Education
of 1 July 1992. Whistle-blowers are sometimes rewarded.

++++++++++

\Footnotes, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 July
1992, p. A8.\

"Rewards for whistle blowers are rare. In
science, even staying employed after accusing a
colleague of fraud has been difficult.
"But a small foundation in Cambridge, Mass.,
awarded $10,000 last week to Margot O'Toole, a former
postdoctoral researcher at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology who raised suspicions about the accuracy
of a scientific paper. One of the paper's authors was
the Nobel Laureate David Baltimore.
"Ms. O'Toole's doubts ultimately triggered four
investigations, including one by Congress, but the case
is still not resolved. The U.S. attorney's office in
Baltimore is reviewing the matter to see if criminal
charges are warranted.
"The $10,000 given to Ms. O'Toole came from the
Cavallo Foundation, set up by an independent investor,
Michael Cavallo.
"The award was one of the annual Cavallo Prizes
for Moral Courage, given to recognize those who 'have
chosen to speak out when it would have been far easier
to remain silent.'"


++++++++++



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 08:22:55 MST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: bob stringfield <bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil>
Subject: Re: John Masly: Information

The following query was posted to me but I did not know of a single
source. Can anyone help or at least point in the correct direction?
Thanks...
--bob


from: john masly <jmasly@mainz-emh2.army.mil>
Subject: Information

Just thinking (I know thats strange around
here)....do you have a list of all the
'rabble rousing' BBSs and/or individuals,
that may be interested in waste/fraud/
abuse in their government?

Don't send me any of their postings, just
their E-Mail addresses, and briefly what
subjects they are interested in.

(Don't ask any questions, and I won't have
to adapt the truth).

John



Robert (Bob) L. Stringfield Mainz Army Depot
UNIT 24218 P.O. Box 52: APO AE 09185
COML (No ETS or Autovon available): 06131-696328 (Germany)
FAX: 06131-696467 IRC Nick - DeathStar (:ds)
bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil or bstring%mainz-emh2.army.mil@vm1.nodak.edu
Truth: IGNORANCE hates knowledge....


Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 21:10:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: The Error Term

Error Terms

There are error terms and there are error terms. Some error
terms are bad, some are worse and some are just plain silly. Here
is an example of the last kind. The good news here is that those
involved are aware of the limitations of their data and are
willing to state those limitations clearly. The bad news is that
decisions are being made, being forced, and the numbers, with all
their ambiguities, are being used for political and economic
purposes. Here, again, is an example of science being unable to
help resolve an important issue: scientists do not have the data
and probably cannot get them. Politicians will, nonetheless, make
decisions.

Of course there is nothing new in any of this. Perhaps I
just admire the candor of the Cornell acoustics specialist,
Christopher Clark, who used such an apt comparison. In any case,
he made his point. As usual, environmentalists and whale hunters
will have to fall back on their interests without any help from
science. It is a good example of what science cannot do: provide
answers to important questions. There is a pretense that science
can help but that is mainly myth.

In any case, here is a good example of estimating the
quality of one's data. (There are even inconsistencies in numbers
within the article itself.)

++++++++++


\McNeil, Donald G., Jr. "Why Whale-Lovers and Whale-Hunters
Can't agree," New York Times, 5 July 1992, p. E2.\

Counting whales is difficult. There are no
accurate counts except for some species in the northern
hemisphere and "enumerating" the rest is just next to
impossible. But the numbers are very important: if
the world is to resume whale hunting, we have to be
sure that the species have recovered enough to allow
hunting without endangering the species.

The problem is sharpened with the collapse of the
ban imposed by the International Whaling Commission.
Norway said it would again begin hunting and Iceland
quit the commission. Japan has been taking about 300
whales per year for research and would like to take
more.

The issue is joined over minke whales.
Unfortunately, little is known about minkes. And the
debate over the ban has revealed why it is so hard to
count whales: the different species are not easy to
count. Killer whales are easy to count because they
congregate in easily accessible places.

"But the hardest whales to count are the ones
scientists and hunters are most concerned about: the
baleen whales of the Antarctic like blues, seis, fins
and minkes. The best estimates are that there are 700
blue whales left in the hemisphere -- down from 250,000
in the 1920's. Fins and seis number between 10,000 and
12,000.
"The 8-ton minkes were not worth hunting before.
But even the best counts have error margins of 50
percent. There might be 300,000 minkes, or 900,000.
The problems in counting them are numerous: a watcher
sits in a crow's nest in the Antarctic looking for fins
or spouts on seas of whitecaps, ice floes or glaring
sun. The boat spends days following the same path a
boat did the previous season. 'You might see 400
animals a month,' said Dr. Clark (Christopher Clark of
Cornell). 'Then that goes into the statistical meat-
grinder with seasonable variations and things and comes
up with trends in counts of tends of thousands.' He
compared it to walking through Central Park with
blinkers on, counting dogs, and then estimating the
number of dogs in New York State. Ravaged species like
blue whales are harder..."

Yes, the estimates are a bit off. Now, decision
making on these data are ... scientific? Political?
Possible? The case should be instructive.


++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 15:37:22 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Paper napkins and the backs of envelopes

I don't get it, Al. What's the problem with estimation techniques?
One of the first things I learned when I was an undergraduate at
Caltech is that you're a fool if, first off, you don't make a few
quick and dirty stabs at gauging the rough dimensions of the phenomenon
under study. We all do it all the time. You're going to repaint
your house, for example. How many gallons of paint to buy? One
way to do it, of course, is to conduct meticulous experiments to
determine as precisely as you can how many square feet of your
walls this particular paint will cover, given the exact conditions
of your wall materials, etcetera, then to measure out as precisely
as you can, again using meticulous techniques, the exact square
footage you need to paint. Nobody does that. Instead, you
use 400 square feet as a rough estimate of the coverage of a
gallon of paint, eyeball the height of your house by holding a
pencil out at arm's length and then using a little simple trig,
pace off the width of each wall face by walking around, use those
to calculate a total square footage including windows and doors,
then subtract ten per cent for said windows and doors. It ain't
perfect, but it's APPROPRIATE for the task. That's fraud?
I happen to have spent a wonderful few hours a few years ago
watching in awe as a minke whale cavorted around our boat off
Provincetown, Massachusetts. I don't know how much it weighed,
and I don't know how many of them there are, but I greatly
admired the animal and would hate for our grandchildren not
to have a similar opportunity for wonderment. I'd also hate
for our grandchildren to have to cope with the disruption, if
not total destruction, of whatever food chains minkes are in
because we saw fit to err on the side of recklesssness in the
face of rough numerical estimates. In other words, is it the
scientists' fault if special interests, for their own
reasons, start insisting that quantitative estimates
are either incontrovertibly correct or utterly useless?
I think not. As best as I've been able to tell, the
scientists put error bars (which they try to calculate
as precisely as they can) around their data points on
their graphs a hell of a lot more often than advertisers
or politicians do on theirs. Where's the SCIFRAUD here?
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
P.S. to the person soliciting email addresses from supposedly
weird listservs: Why would people concerned about trying to do
something about fraud in science (or in any other endeavor) be
considered weird, whereas people who design equipment that can kill
hundreds of thousands of human beings in an instant are considered
"normal", indeed "patriotic"? In such a value system, call me
weird and put my email address on the list of those you want
to target first, please.
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 17:05:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Dire Warnings

Dire Warnings

Economic times are hard. The auguries are gloomy. The
doomsayers are warning us against withdrawing support for basic
science.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has meant the loss of the
"gap" argument for endowing research. With the Russian menace
gone, Congress may lose its zest for generously supporting R&D.
Oh, some of science's Big Projects are still on track but,
everyone must wonder, for how long? Consider the doubts
surrounding funding for the SSC.

Here William Broad of the Times warns readers of the impact
of the go-go 80s on industrial R&D. Junk bond dealers are not
the sort to make investments, especially in something as esoteric
as science. Science may be seen as a "variable overhead expense."

+++++++++++


\Broad, William J. "How the Leading Edge Was Lost,"
New York Times, 5 July 1992, p. E2.\

"A hidden legacy of the go-go 1980's turns out to
be the substantial cuts in private industry;s support
of scientific research, traditionally the engine of
innovation and technological leadership in the United
States. The mountain of corporate debt accumulated
during the blitz of takeovers, mergers and acquisitions
put the squeeze on investments in scientific research.
"'All of you are a variable overhead expense,' a
Wall Street adviser told hundreds of corporate research
chiefs in 1990 at a meetings of the Industrial Research
Institute, a trade group. Worries about the squeeze
have sparked a spate of scholarly studies and angst in
the pages of scientific journals. The Congressional
Office of Technology Assessment, after studying 19
manufacturing firms involved in mergers or acquisition,
including Stauffer Chemical Company, Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corporation, Polaroid Corporation, Tenneco
Inc., Zenith Electronics Company and Caterpillar Inc.,
concluded that heavy debt loads have hurt research.
"Evidence of damage is widespread. The National
Science Foundation recently reported that industrial
spending n research and development, which peaked at
$79 billion in 1989, had begun to contract in 1990.
"And last year, all the top holders of new United
States patents were Japanese companies--Toshiba,
Mitsubishi and Hitachi."

++++++++++++

Not a happy prospect for the weekend of the 4th!



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 13:33:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Classic Statement

A Classic Paper

Fraud in science is, of course, not new. And various people
have commented on its many forms. Here in its entirety is a very
brief essay by P. B. Medawar which was broadcast in the autumn of
1963 by BBC. His interest in this topic has continued, of
course, and he repeated some of these ideas in his The Art of the
Soluble. Here, however, is his original essay.

+++++++++++


Is The Scientific Paper a Fraud?

by P. B. Medawar

I have chosen for my title a question: Is the
scientific paper a fraud? I ought to explain that a
scientific 'paper' is a printed communication to a
learned journal, and scientists make their work known
almost wholly through papers and not through books, so
papers are very important in scientific communication.
As to what I mean by asking 'is the scientific paper a
fraud? -- I do not of course mean 'does the scientific
paper misrepresent facts,' and I do not mean that the
interpretations you find in a scientific paper are
wrong or deliberately mistaken. I mean the scientific
paper may be a fraud because it misrepresents the
process of thought that accompanied or gave rise to the
work that is described in the paper. That is the
question, and I will say right away that my answer to
it is 'yes.' The scientific paper in its orthodox form
does embody a totally mistaken conception, even a
travesty, of the nature of scientific thought.

Just consider for a moment the traditional form of
a scientific paper (incidentally, it is a form which
editors themselves often insist upon). The structure
of a scientific paper in the biological sciences is
something like this. First, there is a section called
the 'introduction' in which you merely describe the
general field in which your scientific talents are
going to be exercised, followed by a section called
'previous work' in which you concede, more or less
graciously, that others have dimly groped towards the
fundamental truths that you are now about the expound.
The a section on 'methods' --that is O.K. Then comes
the section called 'results.' The section called
'results' consists of a stream of factual information
in which it is considered extremely bad form to discuss
the significance of the results you are getting. You
have to pretend that you mind is, so to speak, a virgin
receptacle, an empty vessel, for information which
floods into it from the external world for no reason
which you yourself revealed. You reserve all appraisal
of scientific evidence until the 'discussion,' and in
the discussion you adopt the ludicrous pretence of
asking yourself if the information you have collected
actually means anything; of asking yourself if any
general truths are going to emerge from the
contemplation of all the evidence you brandished in the
section called 'results.'

Of course, what I am saying is rather an
exaggeration, but there is more than a merely element
of truth in it. The conception underlying this style
of scientific writing is that scientific discovery is
an inductive process. What induction implies in its
cruder form is roughly speaking this: scientific
discovery, or the formulation of scientific theory,
starts with the unvarnished and unembroidered evidence
of the senses. It starts with simple observation --
simple, unbiased, unprejudiced, naive, or innocent
observation -- and out of this sensory evidence,
embodied in the form of simple propositions or
declaration of fact, generalizations will grow up and
take shape, almost as if some process of
crystallization or condensation were taking place. Out
of a disorderly array of facts, an orderly conception
of scientific discovery in which the initiative comes
from the unembroidered evidence of the senses was
mainly the work of a great and wise, but in this
context, I think, very mistaken man -- John Stuart
Mill.

John Stuart Mill saw, as of course a great many
others had seen before him, including Bacon, that
deduction in itself is quite powerless as a method of
scientific discovery -- and for this simple reason:
that the process of deduction as such only uncovers,
brings out into the open, makes explicit, information
that is already present in the axioms or premises from
which the process of deduction started. The process of
deduction reveals nothing to us except what the
infirmity of our own minds had so far concealed from
us. It was Mill's belief that induction was the method
of science --'that great mental operation,' as he
called it, 'the operation of discovering and proving
general propositions.' And around this conception
there grew up an inductive logic, of which the business
was 'to provide rules to which, inductive arguments
conform, those arguments are conclusive.' Now, John
Stuart Mill's deeper motive in working out what he
conceived to be the essential method of science was to
apply that method to the solution of sociological
problems: he wanted to apply to sociology the methods
which the practice of science had shown to be immensely
powerful and exact.

It is ironical that the application to sociology
of the inductive method, more or less in the form in
which Mill himself conceived it, should have been an
almost entirely fruitless one. The simplest
application of the Millsian process of induction to
sociology came in a rather strange movement called Mass
Observation. The beliefs underlying Mass Observation
was apparently this: that if one could only record and
set down the actual raw facts about what people do and
what say in pubs in trains, when they make love to each
other, when they are playing games, and so on, then
somehow, from this wealth of information, a great
generalization would inevitably emerge. Well, in point
of fact, nothing important emerged from this approach,
unless somebody's been holing out of me. I believe the
pioneers of Mass Observation were ornithologists.
Certainly they were man-watching -- were applying to
sociology the very methods which had done so much to
bring ornithology into disrepute.

The theory underlying the inductive method cannot
be sustained. Let me give three good reasons why not.
In the first place, the starting point of induction,
naive observation, innocent observation, is a mere
philosophic fiction. There is no such thing as
unprejudiced observation. Every act of observation we
make is biased. What we see or otherwise sense is a
function of what we have seen or sensed in the past.

The second point is this. Scientific discovery or
the formulation of the scientific idea on the one hand,
and demonstration or proof on the other hand, are two
entirely different notions, and Mill confused them.
Mill said that induction was the 'operation of
discovering and proving general propositions,' as if
one act of mind would do for both. Now discovery and
proof could depend on the same act of mind, and in
deduction they do. When we indulge in the process of
deduction -- as in deducing a theorem from Euclidian
axioms or postulates -- the theorem contains the
discovery (or, more exactly, the uncovery of something
which was there in the axioms and postulates, thought
it was no actually evident) and process of deduction
itself, if it has been carried out correctly, is also
the proof that the 'discovery' is valid, is logically
correct. So in the process of deduction, discovery and
proof can depend on the same process. But in
scientific activity they are not the same thing -- they
are, in fact, totally separate acts of mind.

But the most fundamental objection is this. It
simply is not logically possible to arrive with
certainty at any generalization containing more
information than the sum of the particular statements
upon which that generalization was founded, out of
which it was woven. How could a mere act of mind lead
to the discovery of new information? It would negate a
law as fundamental as the law of conservation of
matter: it would violate the law of conservation of
information.

In view of all these objections, it is hardly
surprising that Bertrand Russell in a famous footnote
that occurs in his Principles of Mathematics of 1903
should have said that, so far as he could see,
induction was a mere method of making plausible
guesses. And our greatest modern authority on the
nature of scientific method, Professor Karl Popper, has
no use for induction at all: he regards the inductive
process of thought as a myth. 'There is no need even
to mention induction,' he says in his great treatise,
on The Logic of Scientific Discovery -- though of
course he does.

Now let me go back to the scientific papers. What
is wrong with the tradition form of scientific paper is
simply this: that all scientific work of an
experimental or exploratory character starts with some
expectation about the outcome of the inquiry and
governs its actual form. It is in the light of this
expectations that some observations are held relevant
and others not; that some methods are chosen, others
discarded; that some experiments are done rather than
others. It is only in the light of this prior
expectation that the activities the scientist reports
in his scientific papers really have any meaning at
all.

Hypotheses arise by guesswork. That is to put it
in its crudest form. I should say rather that they
arise by inspiration; but in any event they arise by
processes that form part of the subject-matter of
psychology and certainly not of logic, for their is no
logically rigorous method for devising hypotheses. It
is a vulgar error, often committed, to speak of
'deducing' hypotheses. Indeed one does not deduce
hypotheses: hypotheses are what one deduces things
from. So the actual formulation of a hypothesis is --
let us say a guess; is inspirational in character.
But hypotheses can be tested rigorously -- they are
tested by experiment, using the word 'experiment' in a
rather general sense to mean an act performed to test a
hypothesis, that is, to test the deductive consequences
of a hypothesis. If one formulates a hypothesis, one
can deduce from it certain consequences which are
predictions or declarations about what will, or with
not, be the case. If these predictions and
declarations or mistaken, then the hypothesis must be
discarded, or at least modified. If, on the other
hand, the predictions turn out correct, then the
hypothesis has stood up to trial, and remains on
probation as before. This formulation illustrates very
well, I think, the distinction between on the one hand
the discovery or formulation of a scientific idea or
generalization, which is to a greater or lesser degree
an imaginative or inspirational act, and on the other
hand the proof, or rather the testing of a hypothesis,
which is indeed a strictly logical and rigorous
process, based upon deductive arguments.

This alternative interpretation of the nature of
the scientific process,s of the nature of scientific
method, is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive
interpretation and this is the view which Professor
Karl Popper in the Logic of Scientific Discovery has
persuaded us is the correct one. To give credit where
credit is surely due, it is proper to say that the
first professional scientist to express a fully
reasoned opinion upon the way scientists actually think
where they come upon their scientific discoveries --
namely William Whewell, a geologist, and incidentally
the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge -- was also
the first person to formulate this hypothetico-
deductive interpretation of scientific activity.
Whewell, like his contemporary Mill, wrote at great
length -- unnecessarily great length, one is nowadays
inclined to think -- and I cannot recapitulate his
argument, but one or two quotations will make the gist
of this thought clear. He said: 'An art of discovery
is not possible. We can give no rules for the pursuit
of truth which should be universally and peremptorily
applicable.' And of hypotheses, he said, with great
daring -- why it was daring I will explain in just a
second -- 'a facility in devising hypotheses, so far
from being a fault in the intellectual character of a
discoverer, is a faculty indispensable to his task.' I
said this was daring because the word 'hypothesis' and
the conception it stood for was still in Whewell's day
a rather discreditable one. Hypotheses had a flavor
about them of what was wanton and irresponsible. The
great Newton, you remember, had frowned upon
hypothesis. 'Hupotheses non fingo,' he said, and this
is another version in which he says 'hypotheses non
sequor -- I do not pursue hypotheses.

So to go back once again to the scientific paper:
the scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it
does given a totally misleading narrative of the
process of thought that go into the making of
scientific discoveries. The inductive format of the
scientific paper should be discarded. The discussion
which in the traditional scientific paper goes last
should surely come at the beginning. The scientific
facts and scientific acts should follow the discussion,
and scientists should not be ashamed to admit, as many
of them apparently are ashamed to admit, that
hypotheses appear in their minds along uncharted by-
ways of thought; that they are imaginative and
inspiration in character; that they are indeed
adventures of the mind. What, after all, is the good
of scientists reproaching others for their neglect of,
or indifference to, the scientific style of thinking
they set such great store by, if their own writings
show that they themselves have no clear understanding
of it?

Anyhow, I am practicing what I preach. What I
have said about the nature of scientific discovery you
can regard as being itself a hypothesis, and the
hypothesis comes where I think it should be, namely, it
comes at the beginning of the series. Later speakers
will provide the facts which will enable you to test
and appraise this hypothesis, and I think you will find
-- I hope you will find -- that the evidence they will
produce about the nature of scientific discovery will
bear me out.



+++++++++++

A beautiful statement which ought to be read by each
generation as it begins the games of publishing its scientific
research. Here is a clear reminder of the games played and the
contradictions which should be so unsettling to us all.

Reference

Edge, David, editor. Experiment: A Series of Scientific Case
Histories First Broadcast in the BBC Third Programme. London:
British Broadcasting Corporation, 1964, pp. 7-13.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 20:33:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on A Case

More on A Case of Peer Review

It was on 9 October 1991 that I posted a SCIFRAUD note on A
Case of Peer Review. My interpretations did not go unchallenged
at that time. Disagreement centered on generalizing from a single
case and the same argument can be made against this continuance of
that case. And there was comment on generalizing about the
"opportunity structure" rather than the psychology of the
situation. However, case studies can be valuable, and opportunity
structures need explanations and, I suggest, case studies of the
peer review process are rare and should be seized on when they
become available.

Briefly, the background to this case: in 1984 Ms.
Libby Zion was admitted to New York Hospital-Cornell Medical
Center. She had a very high fever. She died 8 hours after her
admission and after being given incompatible drugs by an intern
and a resident. Her family physician, Raymond Sherman, refused
to get out of bed to attend his patient.

An internist at Lenox Hill Hospital was asked by the Office
of Professional Medical Conduct to review Ms. Zion's treatment.
He examined the case and made his judgment against the care
providers. Again in 1987, Hoffman was called upon to testify at a
hearing of the State Health Department hearing in the case and
again Hoffman was critical of the Zion family physician and New
York-Cornell. In the 1987 hearing, the hospital admitted
negligence and was fined $13,000 by the state health authorities.
In 1990, the resident and intern were charged with gross
negligence and Sherman was charged with negligence. The Regents
of the State of New York found Sherman not guilty but did decide
to enforce a change in the working conditions of residence and
interns working in New York which had been recommended and
approved in 1987.

In 1989, Lenox Hill Hospital and New York-Cornell attempted
to affiliate, to mutual advantage: Lenox Hill would provide
clinical facilities for Cornell's students and, in return,
physicians at Lenox Hill would get academic appointments at Cornell.
While there are always difficulties involved in institutional
affiliations, this attempt was, it turns out, fatally flawed
by the existence on the staff at Lenox Hill of Dr. Hoffman.
Loyalists in both facilities remained loyalists and the case,
emotionally charged.

The latest chapter: the two institutions have announced
that the affiliation will be terminated next year (1993) when
Lenox Hill will affiliate with N.Y.U.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation on the latest in this
continuing case of peer review,

++++++++++

\Kleinfield, N. R. "Lenox Hill Hospital Cutting Tie
With New York-Cornell," New York Times, 6 July 1992,
p. B3.\

It has been a long time in coming but, ever since
a union between Lenox Hill Hospital and New York-
Cornell Medical Center was initiated in 1989, things
have not gone well. The sticking point, or better,
person, was Dr. Ira Hoffman, an internist at Lenox
Hill. He had been very critical of his peers at New
York-Cornell in 1984 when the New York State Health
Department asked him to judged the care afforded Libby
Zion, a short-term patient at the Cornell hospital who
died, mysteriously, 8 hours after her admission.
Hoffman was very critical of the care provided and
blamed her personal physician, Dr. Raymond Sherman, for
not coming to his patient's assistance as well as the
staff at the hospital for inept handling of the case.
Indeed, the state agreed to some extent and fined New
York-Cornell for its mistreatment of Ms. Zion. Small
solace to her parents.

The case has been examined here, on SCIFRAUD,
before and is illustrative of the sorry state of peer
review: one uses peer review to cover oneself, not to
prevent abuse. There are, apparently, implicit rules
of the process: one never criticizes a "peer."
Loyalists in medicine, and elsewhere, use peer review
as a way of deceiving the public. Indeed, loyalists at
both Lenox Hill and at New York-Cornell made it next to
impossible for the merger to succeed. And now those
loyalists have destroyed the effort at union: Lenox
Hill has withdrawn its agreement with New York-Cornell
and has proposed an alternative union with N.Y.U. The
new union will take effect in July, 1993 and meantime,
the tenuous relationships between Lenox Hill and New
York-Cornell will continue.

The article has a brief heading: "Animosity among
doctors raises questions about the peer review
process." This is precisely the point. This one
instance of peer review--supposedly a process in which
physicians participate all the time--has been galling
physicians at these two facilities for the past 8
years. "Dr. Hoffman was notified several weeks ago
that he was being given the faculty appointment at
Cornell, effective last Wednesday. By then, however,
the issue was moot, since in April Lenox Hill had
resolved to disaffiliate with New York Hospital-Cornell
and by the end of May it had essentially reached an
affiliation agreement with N.Y.U. Medical Center."

"Dr. Hoffman declined to comment on the change in
affiliations, though he has made his displeasure with
New York Hospital clear.
"New York Hospital also had no comment other than
to say that the affiliation agreement with Lenox Hill
was being dissolved."

++++++++++

Whistle-blowing in medicine is a no-no. An negative
evaluator becomes a pariah. The rule is not to be a peer but a
pal. And when that unspoken rule is broken, the sanctions are
enormous.

As I said in the previous review: Peers are reviewed in a
social structure within which there are assumptions about
membership. Honest reviewers bring those assumptions into
questions, i.e., raise the matter of possible heresy and
betrayal. Peer review is an interesting structural situation, a
structural paradox, as he or she confronts two potentially
contradictory demands: be truthful and be loyal. Indeed, some
of the recently raised questions about OSI implicitly recognize
these difficulties. Many apparently prefer to avoid peers and to
go to court. They may be right.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 13:34:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: No Indictment

No Indictment

The United States Attorney has refused to indict Dr. Thereza
Imanishi-Kari in the famous case concerning the 1986 Cell paper.
Here in its entirety is the article which appeared in the New
York Times concerning that decision.

++++++++++

\Hilts, Philip J. "Researcher Accused of Fraud in Her
Data Will Not Be Indicted," New York Times, 14 July
1992, p. C3.\

Washington, July 13 -- A prosecutor in Maryland
today declined to prosecute Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari
of Tufts University, the scientist who has been accused
of faking data in a celebrated scientific misconduct
case. He said the evidence was persuasive but might
prove too complex for a jury.

The decision not to indict Dr. Imanishi-Kari drew
cheers from her lawyer and from Dr. David Baltimore,
the senior author of the article containing the
disputed data supplied by Dr. Imanishi-Kari.

Dr. Baltimore, a professor at the Rockefeller
University, said the action was a vindication of his
position that there had been no fraud.

The decision not to indict Dr. Imanishi-Kari
stunned critics of Dr. Imanish-Kari and Dr. Baltimore,
the two chief defenders of their 1986 research paper
published in the journal Cell, which investigators at
the National Institutes of Health had found to contain
faked scientific data. The Assistant United States
Attorney in the case, Geoffrey Gardiner, said that he
had complete confidence in the Secret Service evidence
indicating that the data were faked. But he said, "We
don't to bring a case that we have a change of losing.

"You can't expect a jury to step in and reach a
fairer conclusion than the scientists already looking
into the case at the Office of Scientific Integrity,"
he said.

He said that the Secret Service testimony "is very
persuasive," adding: "But it is possible both to
believe the Secret Service and still believe you do not
have necessary elements to convince a jury. You must
prove corrupt intent."

It was only recently that the United States
Attorney agreed to turn over the Secret Service data to
Mr. Singal so that Dr. Imanish-Kari's own expert could
criticize it.

Dr. Baltimore, who previously asked that the
research paper in question be retracted because of
doubts about it, said today that he would retract his
retraction because of the decision of the United States
Attorney and the testimony of Dr. Imanishi-Kari's
forensic expert.

"This seems a powerful statement that there is no
validity to the Secret Service analysis," Dr. Baltimore
said. "I will write to Cell and tell them I consider
the paper a valid contribution to the scientific
discourse and there is no longer any reason to doubt
it. I see no reason that the scientific community
should consider this a retracted paper any more."

As for Government officials, Dr. Baltimore said,
"I think they should apologize for putting her through
six years of hell, they should give her grants back and
let her go on being the good scientist she is. I
consider that the issue of the scientific validity of
this paper is closed."

Representative John D. Dingell, chairman of the
House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has been
investigating the case for several years, said today:
"The decision not to prosecute does not change the fact
that the Cell paper was retracted because of serious,
and extensive, irregularities. Nor does it change the
fact that the experiments in question have not been
replicated.

"The subcommittee has been informed that the
United States Attorney's office agreed with the Secret
Service findings of falsification but believed the
matter could be clouded by other issues," he said.

A Congressional investigator said that the signal
sent by the prosecutor to scientists was that
"obfuscation works" and that things that seem too
complicated would not be pursued.

Mr. Garinther disputed that, pointing out that the
United States Attorney in Baltimore has successfully
prosecuted cases of misconduct in science on several
occasions.

The case will continue to be reviewed by the
Department of Health and Human Services.

The case began with a research paper published in
the journal Cell on April 25, 1986. It described
experiments that purported to show that when scientists
inserted a foreign gene into mice, it had a notable and
unexpected effect on the mouse's own genes.

But one of Dr. Imanish-Kari's postdoctoral
researchers, Dr. Margot O'Toole was unable to duplicate
the findings. She charged that the 1986 paper was
wrong and raised questions about the veracity of the
data.

After inquiries by officials at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Tufts, the National Institutes
of Health, and Mr. Dingell's committee, the evidence
that convinced a scientific panel appointed by the
institute that falsification had occurred was that
produced by the Secret Service.

The agency's forensic experts gathered more than
60 notebooks from 1981 to 1986 from scientists who
worked in the offices around Dr. Imanishi-Kari. They
compared the data tapes from all of the radiation
counters in the building where she worked with data
tapes that other scientists had got from the same
machines.

An examination of the type style, paper, and inks
used in the data tapes showed that a few of Dr.
Imanishi-Kari's tapes -- the ones containing suspect
data -- had been falsified, the Secret Service
concluded. The tapes had been made years before the
experiment could have been conducted and had been
pasted into her notebook as if they were fresh.

But Albert H. Lyter, the forensic expert hired by
Dr. Imanishi-Kari's lawyer, said in an affidavit
released today: "In my opinion that the findings and
conclusions reached by the Secret Service are erroneous
and are not supportable by the test results or the
available data."

++++++++++

Surely some comments are in order.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 14:50:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Another View

Another View

The Associated Press had quite a different story than the one
presented in the Times of 14 July concerning the decision not to
prosecute Thereza Imanishi-Kari. The Associated Press notes that
the U.S. Attorney in the case is critical of David Baltimore's
interpretation of the decision not to prosecute. Baltimore views
that decision as "vindication" of his judgment regarding
Imanishi-Kari's work. The prosecutor insists that his decision
means no such thing.

Here is the item in its entirety as it appeared in the
Albany Times-Union.

++++++++++

\Albany Times-Union, "No Prosecution in Scientific
Fraud Case," Albany Times-Union, 14 July 1992, p. A-3.\

"Associated Press, New York -- A Nobel Prize
winner embroiled in the nation's most notorious
allegation of scientific fraud claimed Monday he has
been vindicated by a U.S. prosecutor's decision not to
take the case to court.
"The Prosecutor sharply disagreed, saying the
decision not to seek a criminal indictment had no
bearing on the validity of the scientific research. "I
do consider this a complete vindication of my own
position" that there was no fraud said the scientist,
David Baltimore, a professor at Rockefeller University
in New York City. Told of Baltimore's comments,
Richard D. Bennett, the U.S. attorney for Maryland,
said, "Anyone that who take a decision to prosecute or
not prosecute as being a complete vindication within the
scientific community is probably misspeaking."
"The dispute involved a scientific paper published
in 1986 by Baltimore and Thereza Imanishi-Kari, who
were at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"On Monday, Bennett announced he would not seek to
indict Imanishi-Kari.
"The paper dealt with a potentially important new
method of simulating the body to produce defenses
against disease.
"Shortly after the paper appeared, Margot O'Toole,
a student in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory, charged that
the data in Imanishi-Kari's notebooks did not support
the findings in the published research.
"The matter was ultimately investigated by
Congress and by the National Institutes of Health. In
a preliminary report leaked to reporters last year, the
National Institutes of Health concluded that Imanishi-
Kari had falsified data.
"Even though Baltimore has not been accused of
wrongdoing, the taint of the scandal forced him to
resign last year as president of Rockefeller
University."

++++++++++

Baltimore is clearly interpreting the facts in this case
rather selectively.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 18:24:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Follow-Up

A Follow-up on Libby Zion

In a posting a few days ago, I provided a follow-up of the
case of Libby Zion and a case study of peer review and its
consequences. Here is a brief spinoff concerning that case. The
physician/chairman of the New York State committee which wrote
the Libby Zion rules regarding the working conditions of
residents, and who has been a champion of those rules since their
enactment in 1986, is, himself, in trouble for trying to enforce
the Libby Zion rules.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++


\Belkin, Lisa. "Bold Doctor Is Dismissed by Dean,"
New York Times, 9 July 1992, p. B5.\

Here is something of a spinoff from a previous
posting concerning Libby Zion, the young woman who was
a victim of mistreatment at New York Hospital-Cornell
Medical in 1984. Libby Zion died in part because, New
York State found, her medical care had been provided by
overtired and overworked residents and interns. In an
effort to prevent this kind of patient abuse from
recurring, the state health department enacted what are
known as the Libby Zion rules which limit the number
of hours residents can work and increase the
supervision provided residents. The man who chaired
the committee which wrote those rules was Bertrand M.
Bell and he has remained a staunch supporter of
enforcement of those rules. In the years since 1986,
he has critical of the City's abuse of residents. He
has been a "zealot" about those rules.

Enforcing state regulations which conflict with
medical-professional tradition can be expensive for the
individual. Doctor Bell's insistence on rule
implementation has cost him. When one champions
restructuring graduate medical education by
administrative fiat, one runs risks: traditions are
highly valued and bureaucratic regulations, resented.
The sanction for such unprofessional behavior as
bureaucratic whistle-blowing are severe, as Dr. Bell
has learned.

Bell has been critical of the dean of Albert
Einstein Medical College for his flouting the rules
regarding working conditions for residents. The dean,
Dominick P. Purpura, has removed Dr. Bell from his
position as director of ambulatory-care services at
Bronx Municipal Hospital; Dr. Purpura can do this in
that as dean of Einstein, through Einstein's
affiliation with Bronx Municipal, he has the say as to
staffing at Bronx Municipal. Bert Bell is presently
out of his job even though he retains his academic
appointment.

There is no question that being a zealot
regarding the education of young physicians got him
into trouble; being a zealot is always risky. Now the
whistle-blower is out and the best the authorities can
do it hope that a rapprochement can be achieved.

Whistle-blowers take note. There may be some
successes but there are still problems.

++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:12:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Yet Another Classic Statement

Another "Classic" Statement

Here, from the same source as provided Medawar's article on
the scientific paper as a fraud, is an additional essay about
forms of pretense in science.

The reference is to W. T. Williams, "The Computer Botanist,"
in Experiment: A Series of Scientific Case Histories First
Broadcast in the BBC Third Programme, edited by David Edge.
London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1964, pp. 48-54.

++++++++++

The Computer Botanist

W. T. Williams

Every piece of scientific research has two
historical introductions. There is the one you publish
in your paper: it puts your research in its scientific
context; it is informative, erudite, and probably
slightly dishonest, in that you usually have not read
all the references anyway. But the real history is the
story of how you came to take up the problem at all,
the train of events that brought you and the problem
together; and it is usually as illogical and
accidental as any other chance meeting.

My story begins in March 1953. We were
interviewing applicants for a vacant post in my
department, as the lecturer who dealt with the more
descriptive aspects of botany had just retired. Among
the candidates was a short, square, vigorous person
called Joyce Lambert, who announced that she was really
interested in ecology -- that is, in the relationship
between pants and the places where they grow. I
remarked mildly that I thought ecology was a woolly
subject, and hardly worth the effort. This provoked a
first-class row of such intensity that we appointed the
lady on the spot and the row has been hilariously
raging ever since. It was the first accident.

The second accident was the both our researches
had reached a stage familiar to all scientists -- they
were going a bit stale on us. Dr. Lambert had been
working for some time on the origin of the Norfolk
Broads, and she was getting just a little tired of
them. I had been working on stomata -- the breathing-
pores on leaves -- and I was also growing tired of
them; they began to need increasingly complex and
delicate apparatus, and I am too clumsy for that sort
of thing. We were in fact, both in that critical stage
where Satan finds scientific mischief for idle hands to
do.

Now, it so happened that Dr. Lambert had already
become interested in the problem of classifying
different sorts of vegetation. This had long been a
favorite pastime on the continent, where there were two
powerful, and rival, schools; and the game had just
begun to spread to England. Its language has a certain
Gallic charm: plans are described as being in varying
degrees 'faithful' or 'constant' to their communities.
The whole system was (and is) a gigantic sorting
process, at the end of which the types of vegetation --
the different plant communities -- are more clearly
defined than they were at the start. But it is the
start that is the trouble. Somebody, somewhere, has to
select the units at the beginning; top say that this
is a pretty homogeneous piece of vegetation, and that
that is another, and we will use these as the units --
the starting points -- to begin our refining process.

At that time, however objective the sorting and
refining process could be made, it was based on a
completely subjective beginning; there was a very real
possibility that the sort of answers that emerged were
the ones you had yourself built in. And Dr. Lambert,
knowing that I had an amateur interest in statistics,
asked me whether there was not a possibility of using
some mathematical sorting method right from the start.
She wanted to be able to take unbiased samples of
vegetation and sort them without any preconceived ideas
of how they should be grouped. Was there any such
method?

So the stage was set for exploiting the third
accident; which was simply that, when I was a small
boy at school, one of my close friends was a lad of my
own age named David Goodall. Although our paths had
diverged in later life, we had both become professional
botanists and had never quite lost touch with each
other; we sent each other reprints of our scientific
papers. And I remembered that, while he was in
Australia, Goodall had himself attacked precisely this
problem; I remembered, too, that he had sent me a copy
of his paper which I still had around somewhere; I
found it, and re-read it. It was a brilliant paper;
it showed very clearly the sort of way in which the
problem must be attacked if it was to be solved,
without quite solving it. The method was novel and
ingenious and obviously represented a considerable
advance; but the results were uncertain and ambiguous,
and it was clear that there must, somewhere, be a flaw
in the argument. Goodall, of course, had had to
compute entirely by hand. The amount of sheer
mechanical work had been tremendous; it would have
completely submerged a lesser man, and it certainly
prevented Goodall from trying more than a few
possibilities. But we at Southampton would soon not be
so limited; for the university was shortly to receive a
Ferranti 'Pegasus' computer -- and it is this that I
think of as a fourth and last accident. For it was no
accident, but simply the result of Dr. Lambert's
persistence, that made me have myself trained as a
programmer, and enlist the interest of the then
Director of Computation -- Dr. Lance.

And now I must try to explain exactly what is was
that Goodall did. He had taken a lot of little sample
areas -- each a metre square -- scattered at random
over the bit of country he was interested in; and for
each he had a list of the plant species in it. So for
the whole lot he had a list of all the different plants
that occurred anywhere in his whole region, and for
each small sample area he had a note, for every
different kind of plant, as to whether it was there or
not. What he wanted to do was to divide his complete
set of samples into groups, so that the members of each
group were as alike as possible, and unlike all the
members of other groups. The first job was obviously
to find out whether there was any point in dividing
into groups at all -- whether, in his whole set of
samples, there was really more than one community --
one sort of vegetation.

It was not too difficult. It had been pointed out
by Scandinavian workers some years before that, if an
area was much the same all over, all the different
plants had equal chances of being anywhere within it;
they would not tend to go together and others would not
tend to go together. To take an exaggerated example,
suppose my sample areas included, unknown to me, some
from a wood and some from a heath. All the samples
from the heath would have heather and other heathy
plants in them, and where I found one of these I would
have a good chance of finding others. Similarly for
the samples from the wood. But I should not expect to
find many samples containing both oak-trees and
heather.

Goodall set about putting all this on a
quantitative basis. For every pair of different plant
species he wanted some sort of measure of whether the
pair tended to occur more or less at random,
independently of each other, or whether they tended to
be non-random -- either going together or keeping
apart. The thing he decided to calculate was a measure
long familiar to statisticians known as chi-square;
it does not matter precisely how this is done -- it is
just one possible measure of whether things are
connected or not. If it is a high value, this is
evidence that the two things are not independent.

Since Goodall had done this for every possible
pair of plant species in his whole area, he finished up
with a large square table of figures. This was a row,
and a column, for every species; and where the row for
plant A crossed the column for plant B (or vice versa)
there was a value of chi-square showing the extend to
which they were associated. Now, Goodall used this
table for one purpose, and one purpose only: to find
out whether there were enough high chi-square values to
make it worth dividing up the area at all. As it
happens, I did not agree with the precise criterion he
had used, but this is unimportant; there can be no
doubt that the table can be used for this purpose, even
though there could be (and incidentally still are)
different views as to precisely how you are to use it.

Well, Goodall found plenty of high values in his
table, and so he decided that the whole group of
samples should be divided up. But how? What he wanted
was the most informative plant species, what a modern
ecologist would call an 'indicator species,' the one
whose presence or absence would give the best
indication of some change in the whole area. He tried
a few possibilities, and came out, roughly, in favor of
the commonest species -- the one that occurred most
often in his samples. The results were, frankly,
disappointing; the divisions did not seem to be clear-
cut or sufficiently different from one another. And at
this point Goodall left the problem.

We tried it Goodall's way. With the help of a
devoted research student we took samples in Denny Wood
in the New Forest. The first computations were done
laboriously, by hand. Yes, there was enough in the
chi-square table to justify dividing. But immediately
it became clear to us that the commonest species was no
going to help us much: beech, oak, holly and ivy were
almost equally common and over most of the wood anyway.
Perhaps our calculations were wrong; even the best of
human computers tires and makes mistakes sometimes.
Dr. Lance had by now completed a computer programme for
calculating the table, and we tried it, but it did not
help. By now I was becoming increasingly bothered by
the choice of species to be used for the subdivision;
I was sure that the commonest species was wrong, but
what was right? Always I came back to the chi-square
table. That table contained all the information about
heterogeneity. If it could tell us that subdivision
was worth while, could it not also be persuaded to tell
us how to subdivide?

The table had a column (of a row, since it was
symmetrical) for every species; and in that column was
all the information that species had contributed to our
knowledge of the beterogeneity of the whole system.
Why not simply add up the column and use it as a
measure of the information in each species? Then all
one would have to do would be to pick out the species
whose column sum was largest. Dr. Lance amended his
programme and we tried it on Denny Wood. It
immediately picked out something completely
unexpected -- a small herbaceous thing, a Potentilla.
A glance at the map showed us that the computer had
spotted the grassy 'rides' which crossed the wood, for
it was there that the Potentilla grew; these rides
were very different from the rest of the wood -- though
we had forgotten that they were there -- and the
computer was obviously behaving sensibly in separating
them off. It looked as though we were on to something.
So I made up a little artificial system: it had only
three species in it, but I arranged them so that there
was a definite 'right' answer, and that the commonest
species was the wrong one. The method unerringly
selected the right one.

By now we were at work on the computer programme,
making it fully automatic. But I still wanted to do
some work by hand, where I could see what was happening
at every stage. So I asked Dr. Lambert to find me a
simple real-life problem, with an obvious answer but
only about five or six different plant species. She
found an area in the New Forest near Beaulieu Road
Station, an area burnt in patches by sparks from
passing trains. Could the computer find the burnt
patches. It could, and did, contemptuously ranking
them as of minor importance; but it made its main
division along a line we had not expected. When we
went back and looked this line turned out to be a major
soil difference that we had not known was there. We
were home, and ready to publish.

But editors are not very fond of purely empirical
papers -- papers that just say 'We had a hunch, and did
this, and it seems to work.' Understandably, they
prefer an author to know why it works. So I approached
two statisticians whom I knew slightly, and asked them
what was the statistical significance of adding up the
chi-square columns in the way I had. To do them
justice, I probably did not make my problem clear to
them; but the immediate result was that they both told
me that I must not do this; that the quantities I had
calculated could not be added in this off-hand way;
the process would be invalid and the results
meaningless. The trouble was that it worked. And so I
had to think again. After much thinking I came up with
a story: if I added, not the values themselves, but
their square roots, I could pretend that what I was
doing was a crude approximation to another, and
reasonably respectable, process known as factor
analysis. The argument was, frankly, tortuous and not
very convincing; but it was all I had and it had to
do.

So we tried it on some more data, and it always
worked very well and produced interesting and
unexpected results, and we published it, square root,
tortuous explanation and all. Quite a lot of people
were interested; we were invited to try it on
delinquents for the Home Office, homeless Borstal boys
for Cambridge, and early school leavers for the London
School of Economics; the BBC contemplated using it for
Listener Research, and we might even have tried it,
like the Rev. A.Q.Morton, on the Pauline epistles, only
our programme was not large enough. The programme got
rewritten for other computers and we received
invitations to visit other departments and talk about
our method. And so it came about that one evening in
February 1962 I was talking about it in the Biometric
United in Oxford. Statistics was their job; they were
professionals and I was an amateur. But they listened
kindly, they seemed interested, and they asked a lot of
questions. At the end and American Professor who was
visiting the Unit asked gently why I had bothered with
such a roundabout and complicated explanation, and why
I had taken square roots to back it up; surely, he
said, it was obvious that all that was necessary was to
add up the columns of the original table of chi-square
values? A few days later he sent me a brief and
elegant proof. And then, a few months later, a friend
of mine, a statistician in the Home Office, sent me a
draft of a paper he was working on. He had been
attacking quite a different problem, one concerning
prediction but he was able to show, incidentally, that
my problem could be regarded as a special case of his;
and that the answer I wanted could be obtained by
adding up the columns of my chi-square table. The same
answer, but reached by an entirely different route;
and what I had done quite instinctively at the very
beginning of the work turned out to be correct; only
whereas at that time I had no proof of its correctness,
now I had two.

But how does one instinctively arrive at a correct
answer? We usually explain such thing by supposing
that our subconscious minds go to work on the problem,
and then come up with the result when they are ready.
But this will not do. Both the proofs I had been given
involved statistical knowledge I did not possess (and,
for that matter, still do not); and so neither of them
was available to my subconscious mind. And this is the
way it goes with most ideas in scientific research.
They just come to you from nowhere, as themes come to a
composer. The comparison is a good one, since many
scientists are amateur musicians. And scientists
differ quantitatively among themselves in much the same
way as composers. In the days when key-signatures were
still popular, Tschaikowsky, Greig, Dvorak, Elgar could
all pout out memorable tunes -- as, in later and more
frivolous field, could Coward, Gershwin, and Kern. But
other composers are now remembered only by a single
tune. Great scientists throw off new ideas all the
time; the rest of us have one now and then. But
whether they are few or many, they all have this in
common -- that they simply appear in your mind from no
source you can ever identify. And this is why no paper
is every written with its real, genuine, honest
historical introduction; because somewhere in the
middle of it would have to be the statement 'At this
point I had an idea.' Editors -- and I am one myself -
- cannot accept this; it removes science from its
austere pedestal and makes it into a creative art --
which of course it is, but we are not supposed to say
so in public.


++++++++++

Comments?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:37:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: More on the Politics of Numbers

More on The Politics of Numbers

Here in its entirety is a brief piece from the New York
Times concerning the distribution of the largess of the Reagan
years. Previous postings have suggested some of this story but
the main point is that data are very malleable: one can diddle
delightfully.

How one lies with the numbers is determined by what result
is wanted. Those Republicans who wish to show the Reagan decade
full of growth have their means of calculating, while those Democrats
who wish to show the maldistribution of growth during those same
years have their methods. Statistics are "useful" to one
or another political perspective which, one need not add, is
determining of the methods one uses. Numbers never speak for
themselves but are generated for a particular purpose which can be
chosen well in advance of publication.

This election year is likely to see more displayed in terms of
SCIFRAUD. The "politics" become more obvious but this does not mean
that the politics of numbers are any less intrusive in off-years. The
politics of numbers are to be laughed at at any time.

In any case, here is Treasury making its do with the
numbers. The boss is up for reelection and loyalists do the best
they can.


++++++++++

\Nasar, Sylvia. "The Rich Get Richer, But the
Question Is by How Much," New York Times, 20 July
1992, p. D1.\

Washington, July 18 -- Trying the challenge the
widespread impression that the rich got a wildly
disproportionate share of the gains from the Reagan
economic boom, the Treasury has been quietly
circulating a "primer" on income distribution to
journalists and economics.
The 24-page document, prepared by R. Glen Hubbard,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis, asserts
that the richest 1 percent of American taxpayers reaped
only 11.3 percent of the income gains in the 1980's.
The Treasury tracked the same individuals -- those who
had extremely high incomes in 1979 -- from 1979 to
1988.
The Treasury concludes that the top 1 percent of
taxpayers "fared somewhat better on average over the
10-year period than many other taxpayers covered by the
Treasury panel, but not very much better (and certainly
did not capture a major share of the income gain.)"
But experts in the field who reviewed the
Treasury's calculation were highly critical, saying
that the Treasury economist had fallen into a well-
known statistical trap that all but guaranteed that the
gains for the top groups of income earners would appear
modest.
"It's not a meaningful calculation," said Lawrence
F. Katz, an economist at Harvard University.
The Treasury's calculation contrasts sharply with
one by an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Paul R. Krugman, that the richest 1 percent
of American families reaped 70 percent of the growth in
average family incomes from 1977 to 1988. Professor
Krugman's data are now enshrined in Gov. Bill Clinton's
economic program as the Democratic candidate and
dismissed by the Treasury as a "meaningless statistical
artifact."
There are many meaningful ways to look at the
fortunes of various income groups.
But economists said that by arbitrarily defining
the top 1 percent as those who were in the group in
1979 as the Treasury did -- as opposed, for example, to
those who were in the top 1 percent in the midpoint of
the 10-year period or those who fell into the top 1
percent based on their average income in the decade --
automatically introduces a downward bias in the
results.
"It makes a big difference how you define the
rich, whether you define them at the beginning or end
of the period," said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist
at the Urban Institute, a research organization.
To demonstrate this potential bias, Ms. Sawhill
calculated how the income of the top 20 percent of
income earners changed between 1976 and 1986.
"If you define the top quintile as people who had
high incomes in 1977 and follow them for the next
decade, you find their incomes declined by 11 percent,"
she said.
"But if you define them as people who had high
incomes in 1986, and compare them to where they were in
1977, you find their incomes went up by 65 percent."
Researchers can produce skewed results in one
direction or another based on whether the group being
studied is culled from the year that starts a period or
from the year that ends it. Those at the top in one
year have only one place to go in subsequent years they
move out of the group: down. Some retire, some get
fired, and others, who may have just had an unusually
prosperous year, go on to have more normal earnings.
The average gain for this group is dragged down by
those whose incomes move down.
Those who were in the top 1 percent at the end of
the period under study could have moved up from only
one place in the years past: from somewhere below. So
the average gain for this group is inflated by people
who joined the group by dint of big income gains.
"I would ask Treasury to redo their calculation on
the top 1 percent defined by 1988 income," said Joel B.
Slemrod, an economist at the University of Michigan.
"I'm pretty sure the numbers would change quite a bit."
A reporter had, in fact, asked Mr. Hubbard several
times to make such a calculation, but he refused on the
ground that it the results would be uninteresting.
Another statistic -- the Treasury's own -- is not
mentioned in the Treasury's primer: In a comparison of
the incomes of the top 1 percent of taxpayers in 1979
with those of the top group in 1988, the very rich
accounted for nearly half of all taxpayers' gains in
income.
"The gains of the 1980's were incredibly unevenly
distributed," said Mark Condon, a researcher at Urban
Institute who was co-author with Ms. Sawhill of a
recent study of income mobility.
"That's what the Treasury is trying to refute,"
Mr. Condon added," and that's what the Krugman
calculation gets across pretty well."

++++++++++



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:48:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet

SET NOMAIL
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:20:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Virus Myths

Computer Virus Myths

(8th Edition, March 1992)

by Rob Rosenberger
with Ross M. Greenberg

A number of myths have surfaced about the threat of computer
"viruses." There are myths about how widespread they are, how
dangerous they are, and even myths about what a computer virus
really is. We's like the facts to be known.

The first thing to learn is that a virus is a malicious
programming technique in the realm of "Trojan horses." All
viruses are Trojan horses, but few Trojan horses can be called a
virus.

That having been said, it's time to go over the terminology we
use when we lecture:

BBS Bulletin Board System. If you have a modem, you
can call a BBS and leave messages, transfer
computer files back and forth, and learn a lot
about computers. (What you're reading right
now, for example, most likely came to you from a
BBS.

Bug an accidental flaw in the logic of a program
which makes it do things it shouldn't be doing.
Programmers don't mean to put bugs in their
program, but they always creep in. Programmers
tend to spend more time debugging their programs
than they do writing them in the first place.
Inadvertent bugs have caused more data loss than
all the viruses combined.

Hacker someone who really loves computers and who wants
to push them to the limit. Hackers have a
healthy sense of curiosity: they try doorknobs
just to see if they're locked, and they tinker
with a piece of equipment until it's "just
right." The computer revolution itself is a
result of hackers.

Shareware a distribution method for quality software
available on a "try before you buy" basis. You
pay for the program only if you find it useful.
Shareware programs can be downloaded from BBSs
and you are encouraged to give evaluation copies
to friends. Many shareware applications rival
the power of off-the-shelf counterparts, at just
a fraction of the price. (You must pay for the
shareware you continue to use -- otherwise
you're stealing software.)

Trojan horse a generic term describing a set of computer
instructions purposely hidden inside a program.
Trojan horses tell a program to do things you
don't expect it to do. The terms comes a
legendary battle in which the ancient city of
Troy received the gift of a large wooden horse.
The "gift" secretly held soldiers in its belly,
and when the Trojans rolled it into their
fortified city...

Virus a term for a very specialized Trojan horse which
spread to other computers by secretly
"infecting" programs with a copy of itself. A
virus is the only type of Trojan horse which is
contagious, like the common cold. If it doesn't
meet this definition, then it isn't a virus.

Worm a term similar to a Trojan horse, but there is
no "gift" involved. If the Trojans had left
that wooden horse outside the city, they
wouldn't have been attacked. Worms, on the
other hand, can bypass your defenses without
having to deceive you into dropping your guard.
An example is a program, designed to spread
itself by exploiting bugs in a network software
package. Worms are usually released by someone
who has normal access to a computer or network.

Wormers the name given to the people who unleash
destructive Trojan horses. Let's face it, these
people aren't angels. What they do hurts us.
They deserve our disrespect.

Viruses, like all Trojan horses, purposely make a program do
things you don;t expect it to do. Some viruses are just an
annoyance, perhaps only displaying a "Peace on earth" greeting.
The viruses we're worries about are designed to destroy your data
(the most valuable asset of your computer!) and waste your
valuable time in recovering from an attack.

Now you know the difference between a virus and a Trojan horse
and a big. Let's get into some of the myths:

"All purposely destructive code comes as a virus."
Wrong. Remember, "Trojan horse" is the general term for
purposely destructive code. Very few Trojan horses actually
qualify as viruses. Few newspaper or magazine reporters have a
real understanding of computer crimes, so they tend to call
almost anything a virus.

"Viruses and Trojan horses are a recent phenomenon."
Trojan horses have been around since the first days of the
computer; hackers toyed with viruses in the early 1960s as a
form of amusement. Many different Trojan horse techniques
emerged over the years to embezzle money, destroy data, etc. The
general public didn't know of this problem until the IBM PC
revolution brought it into the spotlight. Banks still hush up
computerized embezzlements (as they did during the 1980s) because
they believe customers will lose faith in their computer systems
if the word get out.

"Viruses are written by hackers."
Yes, hackers have purposely unleashed viruses, but so have a
computer magazine publisher. According to one trusted military
publication, the U.S. Defense Department develops them as
weapons. Middle-aged men wearing business suits created Trojan
horses for decades before the advent of computer viruses. We
call people "wormers" when they abuse their knowledge of
computers. You shouldn't' fear hackers just because they know
how to write viruses. This is an ethics issue, not a technology
issue. Hackers know a lot about computers; wormers abuse their
knowledge. Hackers (as a whole) got a bum rap when the mass
media corrupted the term.

"Viruses infect 25% of all IBM PCs every month."
If 25% suffer an infection every month, then 100% would have a
virus every four months assuming the user took no preventive
measures -- in other words, every IBM PC would suffer an
infection three times per year. This astronomical estimate
surfaced after virus expert (and antivirus vendor) Dr. Peter
Tippett published "The Kinetics of Computer Virus Replication," a
complex thesis on how viruses might spread in the future.
Computer viruses exist all over the planet, yes -- but they won't
take over the world. Only about 400 different viruses exist at
this time and some of them have been completely eliminated "from
the wild." (Of course, virus experts retain copies of even
"extinct" viruses in their archives.) You can easily reduce your
exposure to viruses with a few simple precautions. Yes, it's
still safe to turn on your compute!

"Only 400 different viruses? But most experts talk about them in
the thousands."
The virus experts who "originate" these numbers tend to work
for antivirus firms. They count even the most insignificant
variations of viruses as part of the grand total for advertising
purposes. When the Marijuana virus first appeared, for example,
it displayed the word "legalese," but a miscreant later modified
it to read "legalize." Any program capable of detecting the
original virus will detect the version with one letter changed --
but antivirus companies count them as "two" viruses. Such
obscure differentiations quickly add up.

"Viruses could destroy all the files on my disks."
Yes, and a spilled cup of coffee will do the same thing. If
you have adequate backup copies of your data, you can recover
from any virus or coffee problem. Backups mean the difference
between a nuisance and a disaster. It is safe to presume there
has been more accidental loss of data than loss by viruses and
Trojan horses.

"Viruses have been documented on over 300,000 computers (1988)."
"Viruses have been documented on over 400,000 computers (1989)."
"Viruses have been estimated on over 5,000,000 computers (1992)."
These numbers come from John McAfee, a self-styled virus
fighter who craves attention and media recognition. If we assume
it took him a mere five minutes to adequately document each viral
infection, it would have taken four man-years of effort to
document a problem only two years old by 1989. We further assume
McAfee;s statements include every floppy disk ever infected up to
that time by a virus, as well as all of the computers
participating in the Christmas and InterNet worm attacks. (Worms
cannot be included in virus infection statistics.)
McAfee prefers to "estimate" his totals these days. Let's
assume we have about 100 million computers of all types and
models in use around the world. McAfee{s estimate means 1 out of
every 20 computers on the planet supposedly has a virus. It
sounds like a pretty astronomical number to most other virus
experts.

"Viruses can hide inside a data file."
Data files can't wreak havoc on your computer -- only an
executable program file can do that (including the one that runs
when you first turn on your computer.) If a virus infected a
data file, it would be a waster effort. But let's be realistic:
what you think is 'data' may actually be an executable program
file. For example, a "batch file" qualifies as text on an IBM
PC, yet the MS-DOS operating system treats it just like a
program.

"BBSs and shareware programs spread viruses."
Here's another scary myth drummed up in the big virus panic,
this one spouted as gospel by many "experts" who claim to know
how viruses spread. "The truth," says PC Magazine publisher Bill
Machrone, "is that all major viruses to date were transmitted by
{retail} packages and private mail system, often in
universities." (PC Magazine, October 11, 1988.) Machrone said
this back in 1988 and it still applies to this day. Almost 50
retail companies so far have admitted spreading infected master
disks to tens of thousands of customers since 1988 -- compared to
only five shareware authors who have spread viruses on master
disks to less than 100 customers. Machrone goes on to say
"bulletin boards and shareware authors work extraordinarily hard
at policing themselves to keep viruses out." Reputable sysops
check every file for Trojan horse; nationwide sysop networks
help spread the word about dangerous files. Yes, you should
beware of the software you get from BBSs and shareware authors,
but you should also beware of the retail software you find on
store shelves. (By the way, many stores now have software return
policies. Do you know for sure you were the only one who used
those master disks?)

"My computer could be infected if I call an infected BBB."
BBSs can't write information on your disks -- the
communications software you use performs this task. You can only
transfer a dangerous file to your computer if you let your
software do it. And there is no "300bps subcarrier" that lets a
virus slip through a high speed modem. A joker names Mike
RoChenle (IBM's "micro channel" PS/2 architecture, get it?)
started the 300bps myth when he left a techy-joke message on a
public BBB. Unfortunately, a few highly respected journalists
were taken in by the joke.

"So-called 'boot sector' viruses travel primarily in software
downloaded from BBSs."
This is common myth -- touted as gospel even by Australia;s
Computer Virus Information Group -- expounds on the mythical role
computer bulletin boards play in spreading viruses. Boot section
viruses can only spread by direct contact and "booting" the
computer from an infected disk. BBSs deal exclusively in program
files and have no need to pass along copies of disk boot sector
viruses and they download software.
We should make a special note about "dropper" programs
developed by virus researchers as an easy way to transfer boot
sector viruses among themselves. Since they don't replicate,
"dropper" programs don;t qualify as a virus in and of themselves.
Such programs have never been discovered on any BBB and have no
real use other than to transfer infected boot sectors.

"My file are damages, so it must have been a virus attack."
It also could have happened because of a power flux, or static
electricity, or a fingerprint on a floppy disk, or a bug in your
software, or perhaps a simple error on your part. Power failures
and spilled cups of coffee have destroyed more data than all
viruses combined.

"Donald Burleson was convicted of releasing a virus."
Newspapers all over the country hailed a Texas computer crime
trial as a "virus" trial. The defendant, Donald Burleson, was in
a position to release a destructive Trojan horse on his
employer's mainframe computer. This particular software couldn't
spread to other computers, so it couldn't possibly have qualified
as a virus. Davis McCown, the prosecuting attorney, claims he
"never brought up the word virus" during the trial. So why did
the media call it one?
1. David Kinney, an expert witness testifying for the
defense, claimed Burleson had unleashed a virus. The
prosecuting attorney didn't argue the point and we don't
blame him -- Kinney's bizarre claim probably helped sway
the jury to convict Burleson, and it was the defense's
fault for letting him testify.
2. McCown gave reporters the facts behind the case and let
them come up with their own definitions. The Associated
Press and USA Today, among others, use such vague
definitions that any program would have qualified as a
virus. If we applied their definitions to the medical
world, we could safely label penicillin as a biological
virus (which is, of course, absurd).
3. McCown claims many quotes attributed to him were
"misleading or fabricated" and identified one in
particular which "is total fiction." Reporters sometimes
print a quote out of context, and McCown apparently fell
victim to it. (It's possible a few bizarre quotes from
David Kinney or John McAfee were accidentally attributed
to McCown.)

"Robert Morris Jr. released a benign virus on a defense network."
It may have been benign but it wasn't a virus. Morris, the
son of a chief computer scientist at the U.S. National Security
Agency, decided one day to take advantage of a bug in the Defense
Department;s networking software. This tiny bug let him send a
worm through the network. Among other thing, Morris's InterNet"
worm sent copies of itself to other computers in the network,
Unfortunately, the network clogged up in a matter of hours due to
some bugs in the worm module itself. The press originally called
it a "virus," like it called the Christmas work a virus, because
it spread to other computers. Yet Morris's programs didn't
infect any computers. A few notes:
1. Reporters finally started called it a worm a year after
the fact, but only because lawyers in the case constantly
referred to it as a worm.
2. The worm operated only on Sun-3 & Vax computers which
employ a UNIX operating system and were specifically
linked into the InterNet network at the time.
3. The 6,200 affected computers cannot be counted in virus
infection statistics (since they weren't infected).
4. It cost way less than $98 million to clean up the attack.
An official Cornell University report claims John McAfee,
the man behind this wild estimate, "was probably
serving {him}self" in an effort to drum up business.
People familiar with the case estimated the final figure
at under $1 million.
5. Yes, Morris could easily have added some infection code
to make it a worm/virus if he'd had the urge.
6. The network bug exploited in the attack has since been
fixed.
7. Morris went to trial for launching the InterNet worm and
received a federal conviction. The Supreme Court refused
to hear the case, so his conviction stands.

"The U.S. government planted a virus in Iraq military computers
during the Gulf War."
U.S. News & World Report published a story in early 1992
accusing the National Security Agency of replacing a computer
chip in a printer bound for Iraq just before the Gulf War with a
secret computer chip containing a virus. The magazine cited "two
unidentified senior U.S. officials" as their source, saying "once
the virus was in the {Iraqi computer} system, ... each time an
Iraqi technician opened a "window" on his computer screen to
access information, the contents of the screen simply vanished."
However, the USN&WR story shows amazing similarities to a 1991
April Fool's story published by InfoWorld magazine. Most
computer experts dismiss the USN&WR story as a hoax -- an "urban
legend" innocently created by the InfoWorld joke. Some notes:
1. USN&WR has refused to retract the story, but it did issue
a "clarification" stating "it could not be confirmed that
the {virus} was ultimately successful." The editors broke
with tradition and refused to publish any of the numerous
letters readers submitted about the virus story.
2. Ted Koppel, a well-known American news anchor, opened one
of his "Nightline" broadcasts with a reports on the
alleged virus. Koppel's staff politely refers people to
talk with USN&WR about the story's validity.
3. InfoWorld didn't label their story as fiction, but the
last paragraph identified it as an April Fool's joke.

"Viruses can spread to all sorts of computers."
All Trojan horses are limited to a family of computers, and
this is especially true for viruses. A virus designed to spread
on IBM PCs cannot infect an IBM 4300 series mainframe, nor can it
infect a Commodore C64, nor can it infect an Apple Macintosh.

"My backups will be worthless if I back up a virus."
No, they won't. Let's suppose a virus does get back up with
your files. You can restore important documents and databases --
your valuable data -- without restoring an infected program. You
just reinstall programs from master disks. It's tedious work,
but not as hard as some people claim.

"Antivirus software will protect me from viruses."
There is no such thing as a foolproof antivirus program.
Trojan horses and viruses can be (and have been) designed to
bypass them. Antivirus products themselves can be tricky to use
at times, and they occasionally have bugs. Always use a good set
of backups as your first line of defense; rely on antivirus
software as a second line of defense.

"Read-only files are safe from virus infection."
This common myth among IBM PC users has been printed even in
some computer magazines. Supposedly, you can protect yourself by
using the DOS ATTRIB command to set the read-only attribute on
program files. However, ATTRIB is software -- and what it can
do, a virus can undo. The ATTRIB command seldom halts the spread
of viruses.

"Viruses can infect files on write-protected disks."
Here's another common IBM PC myth. If viruses can modify read-
only files, people assume they can modify write-protected
floppies. However, the disk drive itself knows when a floppy is
protected and refuses to write to it. You can physically disable
an IBM PC drive's write-protect sensor, but you can't override it
with a software command.

We hope this dispels the many computer virus myths. Viruses DO
exist, than ARE out there, they WANT to spread to other
computers, and they CAN cause you problems. But you can defend
yourself with a cool head and a good set of backups.

The following guidelines can shield you from Trojan horses and
viruses. They will lower your chances of being infected and
raise your chances of recovering from an attack.

1. Implement a procedure to regularly back up your files and
follow it religiously. Consider purchasing a user-
friendly program to take the drudgery out of this task.
(There are plenty to choose from.)
2. Rotate between at least two sets of backups for better
security (use set #1, then set #2, then set #1...). The
more sets you use, the better protected you are. Many
people take a "master" backup of their entire hard disk,
then take "incremental" backups of those files which
changed since the last time they backed up. Incremental
backups might only require five minutes of your time each
day.
3. Download files only from reputable BBSs where the sysop
checks every program for Trojan horses. If you're still
afraid, consider getting programs from a BBB or
"disk vendor" company which get them direct from the
authors.
4. Let newly uploaded files "mature" on a BBB for one or two
weeks before you download it (Others will put it through
its paces).
5. Consider using a program that searches, or "scans," disks
for known viruses. Almost all infections to date involved
viruses known to antivirus companies. A recent copy of
any "scanning" program will in all probability identify a
virus before it gets the chance to infect your computer --
and as they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure." A scanning program can dramatically lower your
chances of getting infected by a computer virus in the
first place. (But remember: there is no perfect
antivirus defense.)
6. Consider using a program that creates a unique
"signature" of all the programs on your computer. Run
this program once in a while to see if any of your
software applications have been modified -- either by a
virus or by a fingerprint on a floppy disk or perhaps even
by a stray gamma ray.
7. DON'T PANIC if your computer starts acting weird. It may
be a virus, but then again maybe not. Immediately turn
off all power to your computer and disconnect it from any
local area networks. Reboot from a write-protected copy
of your master DOS disk. Do NOT run any programs on a
"regular" disk (you might activate a Trojan horse). If
you don;t have adequate backups, try to bring them up to
date. Yes, you might back up a virus as well, but it
can't hurt you if you don't use your normal programs. Set
your backups off to the side. Only then can your safely
hunt for the problem.
8. If you can't figure out what's wrong and you aren't sure
what to do next, turn off your computer and call for
help. Consider calling a local computer group before you
call for an expert. If you need a professional, consider a
regular computer consultant first. Some "virus removal
experts" charge prices far beyond their actual value.
9. Consider this ONLY as a last resort.} If you can't
figure out what's wrong and you are sure of yourself,
execute both a low-level and a high level format on all
your regular disks. Next, carefully reinstall all
software from the master disks (not from the backups).
Make sure the master disks have write-protect tabs! Then,
carefully restore only the data files (not the program
files) from your backup disks.

We'd appreciate it if you would mail us a copy of any Trojan
horse or virus you discover. (Be careful you don't damage the
data on your disks while trying to do this!) Include as much
information as you can and put a label on the disk saying it
contains a malicious program. Send it to Ross M. Greenberg, PO
Box 908, Margaretville, NY 12254. Thank you.

Ross M,. Greenberg is the author of both shareware and retail
virus detection program. Rob Rosenberger is the author of
various phone productivity applications. (Products are not
mentioned by name because this isn't the place for
advertisements.) They each write for national computer
magazines. These men communicated entire by modem while
writing this treatise.

Copyright 1988, 92 by Rob Rosenberger & Ross Greenberg

Rosenberger can be reached electronically on CompuServe as
{74017,1344}, on GEnie as R.ROSENBERGE, on InterNet as
'74017.1344@compuserve.com' and on various national BBB linkups.
Greenberg can be reached on MCI and BIX as 'greenber', on UseNet
as 'c-rossgr@microsoft.com' and on CompuServe as {72461,3212}.

You may give copies of this treatise to anyone if you pass it
along in its entirety. Publications may reprint it at no charge
if they give due credit to the authors and send two copies to:
Rob Rosenberger, P. O. Box 643, O'Fallon, IL 62269.


+++++++++++++++++++



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:09:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: A Threesome

A Threesome

Today's Times provides, in its NWR section, three brief
statements of interest to SCIFRAUD readers: a report on an item
previously posted on SCIFRAUD concerning Treasury's efforts at
making its boss look good, a statement by William J. Broad (whose
book on Edward Teller was reviewed here some weeks ago) concerning
the ending of the testing of X-ray lasers, and a brief statement
concerning the AIDS Conference in Amsterdam.

Here are the three of them.

++++++++++

\Nasar, Sylvia. "The Rich Get Richer. True or
False?" New York Times, 26 July 1992, p. 2E.\

"Stung by the assertion that the super-rich did
extraordinarily well in the 1980's. The Treasury
Department struck back last week. But its initiative
flopped and the exercise turned out to be an
embarrassment.
"Treasury was taking aim at a calculation -- made
by the M.I.T. economist Paul R. Krugman and embraced by
Bill Clinton -- that shows that the richest 1 percent
reaped 70 percent of the rise in average family income
between 1977 and 1989.
"To shoot down the report, Treasury fired off its
own statistic showing that the top 1 percent got a mere
11 percent of the total income gains between 1979 and
1988. The very rich, the Treasury said, 'fared
somewhat better than average, but not very much
better.'
"But experts instantly spotted that the Treasury
statistic was calculated in a way that all but
guaranteed that the gains of the rich would appear
modest. To come up with its politically correct 11
percent figure, Treasury had arbitrarily defined the
top 1 percent as those with very high incomes in 1979.
But, as Will Rogers would have appreciated, people at
the top at the beginning of the period had nowhere to
go, if they moved at all, but down.
"A less biased approach would have been to
calculate the gains of those who fell into the top 1
percent based on their average income over the whole
period.
"This analysis the Treasury has declined to
provide, but some enterprising academic will surely do
it for them."

++++++++++

\Broad, William J. "X-Ray Laser Zapped," New York
Times, 26 July 1992, p. 2E.\

"A gaping pit in the Nevada desert, 10 feet wide
and 2,100 feet deep, has become a bleak memorial to a
dream pursued by legions of Federal scientists at a
cost of more than $1 billion.
"The X-ray laser, powered by a nuclear blast, was
a top-secret proposal that in the early 1980's first
aroused White House interest in 'Star Wars' defenses.
In theory, its powerful beams would zap enemy missiles.
The program was zealously promoted by Edward Teller,
architect of the H-bomb, but in 10 underground tests of
the rudimentary idea in Nevada over as many years, the
wonder weapon failed to materialize, embarrassing Mr.
Teller and his Lawrence Livermore laboratory in
California and generating much controversy in
Washington.
"Last week the effort came to a halt as the Bush
Administration tightened its nuclear testing rules in
an effect to dodge a Congressional ban on underground
explosions. At the Government's 1,350-square-mile test
site in Nevada, engineers are preparing to disassemble
gear from what was to have been the latest X-ray laser
test. Code named Greenwater, it had been scheduled for
September.
"The deep pit dug to contain the explosion will be
capped and possibly used for some other nuclear test in
the future."

++++++++++

\McNeil, Donald G., Jr. "Once Again, the Disease
Confounds Science," New York Times, 26 July 1992, p.
2E.\

"For a while it sounded like the start of the
epidemic all over again: a few doctors report treating
patients with a mysterious disease that wastes the
immune system, but for which they cannot find a cause.
Federal health officials are disbelieving. Then more
doctors speak up, saying they have patients dying the
same way. A public health crisis develops -- fear for
the blood supply, doubts about tests that reassured the
worried.
"But this time, it all took a week, not years, and
it all happened inside the walls of a conference in
Amsterdam that was already studying the disease that
rose out of nowhere in the 1980's and now will almost
certainly kill tens of millions: AIDS.
"The new mystery is that doctors from cities as
desperate as Los Angeles, New York, Edinburgh and the
Hague reported cases -- they seemed to total about 30 -
- of people who were dying of AIDS-like symptoms but
tested negative for the two known H.I.V. viruses.
"The question became: Is a new virus out there?
Or is there another cause? Whatever it is, are blood
transfusions safe? Does a negative AIDS test still
mean anything?
"By week's end, the Federal Centers for Disease
Control had dropped their initial skeptical tone and
said tracking down the answers would be 'an extremely
important priority.'
A California doctor said he had found a new virus
in a 66-year-old woman with AIDS-like symptoms and in
her healthy 38-year-old daughter. The mother was in no
known risk group but had a blood transfusion in the
early 1950's, before her daughter was born. Other
virologists said it would take months to test his
discovery, since stray and harmless viruses contaminate
virtually every lab tissue experiment.
"And while the conference vibrated as each new
doctor came up to toss his patients' records on the
table, other reports, just as discouraging if not as
startling, were released: The disease, which first
struck largely at men, is now spreading much more
rapidly through heterosexual transmission, particularly
in Africa and Southeast Asia. It is following roads
and navigable rivers into rural areas, and soon will
reach the point where it begins claiming more women
each year -- which also means that many more children
will be born with the disease, or will be left orphans
by it.
"The price of caring for AIDS patients is
skyrocketing because of the cost of new drugs that seem
to keep patients healthier but may not make them live
longer. The lifetime cost of treating an AIDS patient
in the United States is now $102,000 up from $57,000 as
recently as 1988.
And the disparity between rich and poor seemed
even more evidence in AIDS treatment as it is in other
things. The annual amount spent per patient, the
conference was told, is $38,000 in the United States,
$22,300 in Western Europe, $2,000 in Latin America --
and $393 in Africa."

++++++++++

Would anyone care to spell out some of the implications of
these three items? Certainly there is much to be said about each
one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:27:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Continuing the Politics ...

More on The Politics of Numbers

The Times has been citing Professor Krugman's startling
statistic both early in this past week and in its News of the Week
in Review on Sunday. It is a popular estimate with political uses
and Governor Clinton has picked up on it. But there are others
who insist that these figures are political artifacts to be
interpreted in other ways. Here, with some justice, the Times
publishes a piece by an economic analyst at The National Review.

The piece is quoted in its entirety and is, as usual, drawn
from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Rubenstein, Edwin S. "Time to Get Back to
Reaganomics," New York Times, 24 July 1992, p. F13.\

"The assertions have been made, in a number of
articles in this paper and others, that the wealthiest
1 percent of American families received 60 percent of
the total income growth during the 1980's. The
evidence for these claims -- trumpeted by Presidential
candidate Bill Clinton in his acceptance speech at the
Democratic National Convention -- is based on an
analysis of data from the Congressional Budget Office
done by Prof. Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
"Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office
numbers are seriously flawed. They attribute far too
much income to the 'rich,' while shortchanging the
middle class and poor.
"By counting only taxable income, for example, the
budget office excludes the untaxed proceeds from the
sale of a home, as well as capital gains accruing to
middle-class families in the form of pension funds.
The budget office ignores the value transfers, which
account for a growing share of income received by the
poor.
"According to the budget office's estimates, the
average income of the top 1 percent of families
increased from $$289,743 (in 1990 dollars) in 1977, to
$548,970 in 1990, a 94.2 percent rise. Capital gains,
up 171 percent, was allegedly the fastest-growing
source of income for this well-heeled group.
"But the budget office failed to adjust capital
gains for inflation. By its reckoning, someone who
bought an asset for $50,000 in 1977 and sold it for
$100,000 in 1990 had a capital gain of $50,000, even
though -- adjusted for inflation -- the asset really
sold for less than its purchase price. In a letter to
Congress in March, Robert Reischauer, director of the
Congressional Budget Office, acknowledged an
overstatement of $134 billion from this error.
"The analysis also errs in choosing 1977 to 1989
as the period to appraise growth for the 80's. Census
data show that 85 percent of the income decline
allegedly suffered by the middle fifth of families
actually occurred between 1977 and 1980. The suffering
was in the Carter years, not the Reagan years. In 1980
alone, the poorest 20 percent suffered losses that
offset all Reagan-era gains.
"When these corrections are made, the share of
pretax income growth received by the top 1 percent
during the 1980 to 1989 period falls to 38 percent,
according to the budget office. On an after-tax basis,
only 25 percent of income growth during this period
went to the top 1 percent.
"While the rich as a class got richer during the
1980's, the individuals that comprise the "rich" and
the "poor" changed dramatically. A recent Treasury
Department study tracing the income reported by 14,351
taxpayers between 1979 and 1988 found that 53 percent
of individuals in the top 1 percent in 1979 had dropped
to lower rungs by 1988. This sample was restricted to
individuals who filed tax returns each year, thereby
understating mobility since people are always dropping
out or coming into the system.
"Of those in the bottom quintile, the Treasury
study found 85.8 percent had climbed to a higher
quintile by 1988. Only 14.2 percent remained stuck at
the bottom while 14.7 percent rose to the top quintile.
In other words, a person in the bottom quintile in 1979
was more likely to be found in the top quintile than in
the bottom quintile in 1988.
"Unfortunately, these positive trends have been
ignored by the budget office, Mr. Krugman and Mr.
Clinton. They should know better. As a result, income
mobility remains the 'dirty little secret' of the
fairness debate. It's time to get back to
Reaganomics."

++++++++++

That one sentence ought not be missed: "In other words, a
person in the bottom quintile in 1979 was more likely to be found
in the top quintile than in the bottom quintile in 1988."

Data are there, like mountains to be scaled.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:01:00 PDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: donaldz@msmail.human.cornell.edu
Subject: historical introductions

The communication of 7/20/92 on "The Computer Botanist"
by W.T. Williams, raised a number of interesting points.
I should like to address the question of whether
scientific papers should have "historical introductions".
At one point, Boyle for example, would report all the
difficulties and failures of his experiments with the
air-pump. But ever since Newton a more stylized version
of the publication has become customary. The
Introduction is supposed to set the rest of the paper in
a context so that readers will be able to connect the new
findings, as well as the authors' reasoning, to concepts
they already know. So far so good, but the question of
FRAUD comes in when, at the end of the Introduction the
author announces: "In the present study we set out to
investigate the validity of the hypothesis that....".
This is usually rather far removed from the truth, as
Williams concludes in his account.
The author does not wish to admit that the hypothesis was
arrived at by a backward look over the past year's work,
requiring extensive reconstructions of the sequences and
omissions of 'failed experiments'; 'failed experiments'
would include those that are not easily interpretable in
light of this 'new' hypothesis.
In addition to the deceptive aspects of the text itself,
there are probably unjustified conclusions based on the
interpretation of statistical evaluations that usually
presume that the experiments were designed with the
hypothesis up front.
At what point do such distortions reach a stage of fraud
that should be avoided?


Don Zilversmit
Professor Emeritus
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:52:25 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mantel <mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Continuing the Politics ...

Sure it is time to get back to Reagonomics if you want to put the country in
worse debt than it is now and allow drugs and political corruption to run
rampant. I was in the bottom Quintile in 1979 and am still in the bottom
quintile.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:54:00 +0300
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: rwerman@hujivms.bitnet
Subject: Re: Continuing the Politics ...

{Unsigned} writes:

Sure it is time to get back to Reagonomics if you want to put the country in
worse debt than it is now and allow drugs and political corruption to run
rampant. I was in the bottom Quintile in 1979 and am still in the bottom
quintile.



May I suggest that continuing to write without identifying yourself
is NOT the way to get out of the bottom quintile. At least not in
my country.


__Bob Werman rwerman@hujivms.bitnet rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il
Jerusalem
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:56:50 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "brian p. watson" <bwatson@stlawu.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Continuing the Politics ...
in-reply-to: message of wed, 29 jul 1992 09:54:00 +0300 from <rwerman@hujivms>

To Bob Werman and others who blow their stack when they see an "anonymous"
posting:
Infrequent users of this list do not always know that local mail handling
programs sometimes remove the routing information that gives the sender's
return address. This happened to me within the last year and I was unfairly
castigated for making an "unsigned" posting. It is not unreasonable to
assume that one's electronic address is included in a message. So cool it.
If it really bothers you to see an "unsigned" posting now and then, perhaps
you learn how to change the options on what routing information you receive.

Brian Watson bwatson@stlawu
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:21:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Impure Science

A Review

One can take a variety of perspectives on science fraud.
The psychopathological is by far the most often used by scientists
themselves. Thus, William Summerlin was given time off from his job
to get the "psychiatric care he needed." And earlier, Paul
Kammerer evidenced his pathology not only by doctoring specimins
for his discreditable Lamarckianism but by killing himself to
boot. Loyalists have insisted, too, that the study of
pathology in science reveals nothing about science, only about
pathology: an interesting gambit.

Here is my review of a book which takes an economic
perspective of science in our society. Here, focus is on the fat
cats, the greedy, the military-industrial-medical-university
complex. And the picture painted is not flattering either to
those who participate in wallowing at the public trough or to
those who sit back and say nothing, whose silence countenances
the abuses.

There are interesting and up-to-date case histories
provided. The author has done his homework and provides the
reader with detail. It is a fascinating read.

The review is from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Bell, Robert. Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise
and Political Influence in Scientific Research. New
York: Wiley, 1992.\

Robert Bell, a Professor of Economics at
Brooklyn College, puts it simply and right at the
beginning: "My primary purpose is to show that
the American scientific community is as 'pure' and
unbiased as the political machinery that dispenses
its patronage and its funding." (p. xii) He does
this simply and directly: he "follows the money."
This is because, to him and to so many others,
"Scientists cannot conduct scientific inquiries
without money." (p. xii) In our go-go world one
can get rich doing science and there are scientists
getting rich. They cut corners and make their
fortunes while, presumptively, the rest of us,
for our own reasons, sit back and allow them to
fake it.

Fraud and fakery work their wonders in
science because of the big bucks to be had. The touted
mechanisms designed to prevent fraud -- peer review,
the referee system and replication of experimental
findings -- do not work because, according to Bell,
"powerful individuals" prevent their operation. For
example, the "old boy network" at NSF is in control and
the reviewers for the agency inevitably abuse the
system by giving money to themselves. Outsiders, if
they do apply, are assured of being kept outside. His
telling illustration of the abuse: the case of Jon
Kalb which is a disgraceful episode.

But it is not only individuals who suffer
"politicized science." Bell investigates Big Project
science using the Earthquake Engineering Research
Center as his case history. Again, Bell's tale is a
lengthy description of the process of gobbling big
bucks from bureaucrats. The creation of the Buffalo-
based SUNY Earthquake Center was a grab which has been
severely criticized, and justly so, since its
implementation. And, this is the way Big Science
works.

Gigabuck science is illustrated by such cases as
Star Wars, the SSC, the Hubble Telescope, and the Space
Station. The politics of Big Science are, again,
detailed and one can read of the Tellerian influence on
Ronald Reagan and Congress, the Pentagon's pets in
research opportunities, the politics of compromise in
politicized science. Influence and power peddling are
everywhere.

Three individual cases of "scientific fraud" are
presented: Stephen Bruening, John Darsee and David
Baltimore. Appropriately, Bell spends the most time on
the last of these cases and suggests that it is
beautifully illustrative of science's flawed structure.
As Margot O'Toole suggests: "I therefore sadly
conclude that the attitude that scientific careers are
much more important than science has become common
among scientists." (p. 143)

And it is easy to find disgraceful cases of
"Impure Science" when examining drug companies and
their "research activities." The three big
illustrations provided here: Zomax, the Bjork-Shiley
heart valve, and Versed.

Cantekin and Bluestone case is used to illustrate
the medical-university-industrial complex. Again, no
winners save in terms of bucks and the medical
establishment.

The Pentagon's "Science Game" is illustrative of
the disgraceful R&D done by the industrial fat cats.
The illustrations provided are quite good: cost
overruns, concurrent production and research, the
revolving doors of business and government. It all
adds up to a sorry tale indeed.

And having defined the problem of science in terms
of money, Bell offers three "solutions" to the
corruption he details. His solutions are: a la Ernest
Fitzgerald (the justly famous whistle-blower at the
Pentagon), the separation of control and funding with
the result of reducing the conflict of interest now
such a problem in science. Second, a la Congressman
Ted Weiss, legislation requiring publication of
conflicts of interest at the university level and
protection for whistle-blowers at that same level.
Third, a la Gene Dong of Stanford, the use of qui tam
provisions of the Federal False Claims act: in other
words, put some power into the hands of potential
whistle-blowers.

It is all too easy to find glaring examples of the
kinds of fraud and fakery detailed here and Bell has
done a good job: if one wants a clear statement of the
Baltimore case, for example, this is a good
recapitulation and it is up-to-date. On the other
hand, there are other cases which go unmentioned here:
Robert Gallo, for example, is briefly discussed
regarding the abuse of human subjects but his long
dispute with Luc Montagnier and its multiple
implications are ignored.

I find it difficult myself to view "industrialized
science" done to win a license from the FDA, or
research done for the Pentagon, or huckstering for drug
companies, to be "science" at all. I have tried to
avoid such cases on SCIFRAUD in that "everybody knows
that kind of 'research' is bought and paid for." One
must agree that the military-industrial-university
apparatus is flawed. It may, indeed, be impure but is
it "science"?

Is funding THE flaw contemporary science? I am
not that much of a Marxist. There is more to the games
of science than big bucks. But if one wishes to use
the economic perspective on fakery in science, this is
a very good place to start.

+++++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 18:20:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Supersalesmanship

Salesmanship in Science

Proponents of the SSC were unsuccessful in their bids to get
the House to support the program. A few weeks ago, the whole
program was in danger of losing its funding. On August 3rd, the
Senate voted to restore funding and it is predicted that the
House Senate Conference will probably go along with the Senate.
So, here is a success story in Big Science and I thought the
members of the SCIFRAUD community might appreciate some of the
arguments that proved persuasive in getting this funding.

++++++++++

\Krauss, Clifford. "Senate Endorses More Financing
For Supercollider Backed by Bush," New York Times, 4
August 1992, p. A12.\

The $8.2 billion supercollider was put in peril
six weeks ago when the House voted to stop its
financing. The Senate, however, overwhelmingly
endorsed the project. It is expected that the House
and Senate conference will restore the cut funding.
This success in the Senate resulted after weeks of
intense lobbying by President Bush.

"Most Senators agreed that it would be worthwhile
and exciting to investigate the fundamental essence of
nature, as the supercollider is intended to do by
smashing subatomic particles within a 54-mile tunnel to
simulate conditions that existed just after the
creation of the universe. But the debate over
financing the project centered on priorities, with
opponents contending that it would expand the budget
deficit and crowd out spending on research projects
with more practical applications."

"Ultimately, several wavering Senators were
persuaded by the argument that the supercollider would
provide several potential spinoff benefits for medical
diagnosis, computer technology and super-fast
magnetically levitated trains. The Senate action
underlined a developing consensus in Congress that the
way to control spending is not to cut expensive science
projects like the supercollider or the Freedom space
station, but to curb the escalating costs of
entitlement programs like Medicaid."

"There is no question that our economic future is
being harmed by a declining international
competitiveness due in part to insufficient investment
in basic scientific research," said Senator Lloyd
Benson, Democrat of Texas, who noted that his state had
pledged to contribute $1 billion to the project. 'In
the post-cold war era, we do not want to end up like
France in the post-World War I era: an economically
enfeebled country whose sole claim to great power
status rested on its military power."

"Mr. Benson was joined by his Republican
counterpart from Texas, Senator Phil Gramm, as well as
by Senator J. Bennet Johnson, the Louisiana Democrat
who is chairman of the Energy Committee, in leading the
forces favoring the supercollider. Many of the giant
magnets that propel the protons towards their high-
speed collisions are assembled in Hammond, La."

"The Government has spread out contracts and
research grants connected with the project to
universities and private companies in 45 states, in
large part to shore up political support; New York,
for instance, would receive $44 million in contracts.
The base for Congressional backing has come from the
dozen or so states that have received the most
lucrative contracts."
"Opponents noted that the Department of Energy had
pledged to attract $1.7 billion in foreign
contributions to the project, but had so far only
reached agreements for a $50 million contribution from
India and some surplus copper from Albania.

"Countering such arguments, Senator Johnston
asked: 'Are we going to just let this country sink
slowly like the sun in the west and say we can't
compete anymore, we have no scientific curiosity, we
have no scientific competitiveness? We're going to let
this budget deficit fueled by entitlements just
overwhelm us? I don't think so."

+++++++++++

\"Superconducting Super Collider As Panacea,"
Science 257, (3 July 1992), p. 27.\

"Anti-SSC scientists may not care for the kinds of
arguments its proponents in the high-energy research
community make for it--that it is important for the
United States to stay Number One in high-energy
physics, for instance, and that the benefits of
fertilizing the economy with $8.25 billion in tax
dollars won't be trivial--but wait 'til they hear what
distinguished members of the U.S. House of
Representatives said during debate over the SSC last
month.
"Bob Livingston (R-LA): 'High-energy research with
particle accelerators has resulted and will result in
plastics for medical use, solutions for DNA research
and...maybe even for AIDS..., nuclear waste
disposal..., pollutant removal..., location of oil
deposits, creation of integrated circuits..., studies
of watertables..., cryogenic engineering, tumor and
body chemistry detection..., ultra-fast computers...,
and lot, lots more...'
"Sam Johnson (R-TX): 'They have already, as a
result of this program, developed cancer technology,
developed treatment for tumors, developed advanced
plastics that can be used in hospitals to reduce
hazardous waste... The SSC is also driving
supercomputer technology, and supercomputers are what
has made the United States an advanced technology {sic}
in a lot of areas.'
"Bill Sarpalius (D-TX): 'What will happen once
this giant laboratory is finally completed? It deals
with compressed energy. Scientists say that they will
be able to build a battery about this size {holds up
thumb and forefinger} that will have enough energy to
run an automobile...in the medical profession, they
will have a machine that {can} find any tumors or
cancers in your body, never using a knife.'"

++++++++++

Ah, salesmanship in Big Science...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 22:03:54 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Supersalespersonship

I think I'm with Al on this one. If spending $8.1 billion on the
SSC could do all those wonders INDIRECTLY for maglev trains, think
what spending a third of that money--I use only a third so that
"medical diagnosis" and "computer technology" can have their own
shares--think what spending a third of that money DIRECTLY on maglev
trains might produce. Who knows? It might be like Conner Peripherals
actually spending all its R&D money on developing amazingly small,
cheap, fast hard disks, rather than spending most of their money on
DAT tapes for rap music in the hopes that supersmall hard disks would
be a valuable spinoff.
Cutting the irony and getting back to the SCIFRAUD theme for a moment,
I feel compelled to note the speciousness of Bentson's argument. According
to him, cutting the money to the SSC would constitute "insufficient
investment in basic scientific research." That's nonsense, of course.
There are lots of basic scientific research projects that are going
hungry to support this project. It's faulty logic (and, since Bentson
probably knows the logic is faulty, it's probably also fraudulent) to
claim that the denial of funding to ANY basic science project equates
to "insufficient investment in basic scientific research". Pity.
In general, I like Bentson. I even voted for him in 1988. Too bad
he has to prostitute himself like this because some of his constituents
have the money and the political clout to twist his arm.
Before any of you start sending in messages accusing me of being
a scientific ignoramus or being otherwise prejudiced about science for
science's sake, I hasten to add that: 1) I have a B.S. from Caltech;
and 2) I'm a BIG fan of the SSC, on general principles. Some of the
most transcendent moments I've had in my scientific thinking have come
from pondering the theories of Murray Gell-Mann and from having Kip
Thorne lecture about relativistic gravitation and black holes. I
VERY much want this work to continue, but not at the expense of
humane national priorities and most certainly not if it forces
decent people like Bentson to exaggerate. The motto of Caltech
is "The Truth Shall Make You Free". Doesn't any science lobbyist
believe in that any more? Funded at the level of half a billion
bucks a year when we're running a $400 billion deficit, the SSC
is an immoral boondoggle. Sure, sure, lots of other things are
much bigger, much more immoral boondoggles. So?
Okay, Al, I've taken your bait. Are you smiling?
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 01:49:49 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: mantel <mantel@adcalc.fnal.gov>
Subject: Re: Supersalespersonship

I agree with P.Thomas Carrol and I'm not anti-science. In fact I'm all for it
just look at my address.
For those of you who do not get the address headers send e-mail to a friend
and ask.
Jaime Mantel
Mantel@almond.fnal.gov
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:14:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: SSC mania.

I'd like to point out that the SSC is probably the least directly
applicable research project that is being considered for such a huge sum of
taxpayers' money. Yes, the conditions near the time of the Big Bang are
fascinating, but in order to attain the energies presumably necessary for
the Grand Unification Theory to apply (which is the eventual goal of
particle accelerators), we would need an accelerator with a ring at least
the diameter of the solar system (this is not an exaggeration). Texas
is indeed big, but it isn't quite big enough. Also, CERN is working on
a bigger accelerator themselves. Why are we insistent upon having our own,
when CERN is sharing its data with us? I think the answer is nationalism,
which, as is often the case, is attached to ignorance.

In the fall of 1990, I wrote a longish summation on this board of the
most viable, least expensive research projects around; I even disclaimed the
SSC, I believe. I don't have that essay around now (it's in here somewhere),
but one example really stood out in my mind: with a mere 8.5 *million*
investment (petty cash for our gov't), we could install enough 'superwindows'
(almost totally insulating windows-- already developed and tested) in
the U.S. to cut the amount of heating energy required here by the ENTIRE
amount of oil that comes down the Alaskan pipeline every year. This, to me,
is an absolutely staggering return-to-investment ratio. I covered many
more such examples of research and application (which I will find again
on request), and I believe every damn one of them could be funded by using
the amount that will be spent on the SSC.

I think this scientific goose chase is a primary example of how our
government works. Highly depressing.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 12:49:58 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2
from: russell perrin <u7584rt@doema.bitnet>
Subject: SSC mania.
In-Reply-To: note of 08/05/92 14:17

from: russell perrin
Regarding the point that the SSC is not very good applied R&D. The SSC is not
being advertised as applied science. Everything that I've seen on it touts its
benefits for basic science. So your arguement is seems to be just complaining
that it is not very good in an area where it is not supposed to be very good.
It is not reasonable to say that a given applied science project is *better*
than a given basic science project simply because it has more clear
applications, since that is what defined the project as applied in the first
place.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 17:19:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Science's Uses

Science's Uses

It was the end of August 1991 when Simon LeVay of the Salk
Institute published his article on the biology of homosexuality:
he "discovered" that the size of the hypothalamus in gay males
was smaller than the hypothalamuses of straights. This, to
LeVay, was evidence of the biological basis of homosexuality.

Saturday's Times reports another discovery: the anterior
commissure is larger in homosexual men than straight men. Here
is the annotation from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Angier, Natalie. "Scientists, Finding Second
Idiosyncrasy in Homosexuals' Brains, Suggest
Orientation is Physiological," New York Times, 1
August 1992, p. 7.\

This is a report of and a commentary on a paper in
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by
Laura S. Allen and Roger A. Gorski, published today.
It reports finding that the anterior commissure is
larger in homosexual men. The anterior commissure is
described as "A cord or nerve fibers that allows the
two halves of the brain to communicate with one
another..." This structure is not thought to influence
sexual behavior directly.

This report, coming less than a year after the
report by Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute, is thought
to provide support for the idea that homosexuality is
based on physiological differences: it has a physical
cause.

"The scientists examined brain sections from 34
men whose medical records indicated they were
homosexual, 75 men presumed to be heterosexual, and 84
women also thought to be heterosexual. They were not
able to obtain brain samples of known lesbians,
because lesbians rarely die of sexually transmitted
diseases like AIDS and thus their sexual orientation is
almost never noted on medical charts.
"They found statistically significant differences
among the three groups. The commissures of the
heterosexual women were 13 percent bigger than those of
heterosexual men. Those of the homosexual men were 18
percent larger than the samples from the women and 34
percent larger than those of heterosexual men."

Both critics and supporters of this work are
quoted. One supporter suggested "'I have no problems
believing, a priori, that there would be these
differences in the brain, and that if someone looks
carefully, they'll find them.'"

A detractor put his comment this way: "'I just
don't think sexual orientation is going to be
represented in any particular brain structure. It's
like looking in the brain for your political party
affiliation.'"


++++++++++

I did not post anything last year regarding the LeVay piece
or the hoopla which followed. However, some comments seem to be
in order at this point.

If you go back for a moment and examine the annotation,
you will notice that "homosexual" is defined in the first instance
"by the medical records." And heterosexual males are "presumed"
and heterosexual females "thought to be heterosexual." That is
a set of definitions I would rate as unacceptable from an
undergraduate in his first course in social science. I cannot, of
course, provide any defintion of "homosexual" as such but the
ones used here are clearly unacceptable.

There is a major "error" in the Allen and Gorski piece, and
others of this sort: it is the assumption that one can identify
"homosexuals." I can identify homosexual acts but I have no way
in the world of identifying human beings as "homosexuals." There
are only people with certain preferences at particular times and
in particular situations. Indeed, homosexual acts may be
situationally determined: I am now with this partner, now with
that. Each of us, as human beings, has choices. As Gore Vidal
puts it: "Actually, the percentage of the population that is
deeply enthusiastic about other-sex is probably not much larger
than those exclusively devoted to same-sex -- something like 10
percent in either case. The remaining 80 percent does this, does
that, does nothing, settles into an acceptable if dull social
role where the husband dreams of Barbara Bush while pounding the
old wife, who lies there, eyes shut, dreams of Barbara too. Yes,
the whole thing is a perfect mess, but I have just done something
more rare than people suspect -- stated the obvious."

The "fraud" here is the expectation that there is a material,
physical, cause of human social behavior. That is the Great
Biological Hope which was the promise of the Eugenics Movement of
the early years of this century and the same Hope of biological
determinists of our own age. The assumption has not changed a
bit. The catastrophic consequences of the biological assumption
led to the extermination camps, the holocaust, and so today's
biologists deny their history and write of Cold Springs Harbor
only in terms of its acceptable history. I have previously
commented on their commitment to "selected history."

The Great Biological Hope has had enormous success over the
years. It has been easy to raise research money on the basis of
the promise of quick fixes for tough social problems. The fraud
here is the perpetuation of the myth of the quick fix. The fact
is that there are no quick fixes for social problems!

If the frauds ended there, that would be enough but, of
course, they do not. Probably the greatest fraud of all is the
search for a "biological basis" for human behavior which frees us
from the awful responsibility of making human decisions. Life is
hard. We would like to make it simple and so we enthusiastically
endorse the Great Biological Hope with the expectation that it
will remove the burden of human responsibility. Human beings do
not wish to be responsible for their own acts. They love excuses
and biology has provided "excuses by assumption" for years. It
is an easy thing to do: promise the public that they are not
responsible for their actions and the public pays for the
"liberating ideology."

This is not science so much as political opportunism on the
part of some biologists. Science, as has been reported on this
net several times before, serves many masters. It can be a
willing, even eager prostitute.

References


\Angier, Natalie. "Zone of Brain Linked to Men's Sexual
Orientation," New York Times, 30 August 1991, pp. 1, D18.\

\Angier, Natalie. "The Biology of What It Means to be Gay,"
New York Times, 1 September 1991, pp. E1, E4.\

\New York Times, "Gay Men in Twin Study," New York Times, 17
December 1991, p. C5.\

\Vidal, Gore. "The Birds and The Bees," The Nation, 28
October 1991, pp. 509-510.\

\Wheeler, David L. "A Researcher's Claim of Finding a
Biological Basis for Homosexuality Rekindles Debate Over Link
Between Brain Morphology and Behavior," The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 4 September 1991, A9, A15.\


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 13:23:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: SSC etc.

To respond to Mr. Perrin's letter, I was actually attacking the
claim by supporters of the SSC that it would have valuable 'spinoffs'
for MagLev trains, etc. This sort of claim is rather ludicrous, and
hence I pointed out applied science alternatives. Also, I wanted to
make clear that 1) the SSC is not that necessary unless Europe suddenly
refuses to give us access to CERN's information, and 2) the SSC hasn't
a chance at all of producing the Grand Unification Energy, which is
what particle accelerators are, in theory, looking for.

I'd also like to say that, as someone with great interest and a
planned career in Astrophysics, I am very much for non-applied sciences
(and, when friends ask me to use my knowledge of physics to fix a speaker
or something, I often scoff 'I'm a theoretician, not an engineer').
However, I do firmly believe that the SSC is currently unnecessary and
nonviable in light of the current economic and environmental problems.
Of course one cannot predict breakthroughs, but the truth is, we already
know how to clean up the environment and save money at the same time, and
I think that should be our main focus at the moment. The particles that
may make up gluons and quarks are not going to change or go anywhere. Our
ecological system is changing at a frightening rate. This should lead most
people to agree that the SSC is something of a boondoggle at the moment, ne?



And to the next topic, on the theorized biological cause of homosexuality,
I would like to agree with Professor Higgins that their data seems highly
suspicious, and I'd add that their motives are a bit suspect as well. Why
are they looking for a cause for this 'disease'? Why, to CURE it. Either
by giving gay people lobotomies, or by performing abortions on fetae who
would turn out gay. 'Let's get these unholy twisted queers out of our
society' is probably their slogan. I would point out that Hitler had very
similar ideas, and science proved him right (in Nazi Germany and Cold Spring
Harbor, anyway). These people are using a veil of science to cover up a
probably murderous intolerance. Scares the hell out of me, even though I
certainly seem to be heterosexual. Just like in the late 30's of the Nazi
regime, who's next? I'm a male with long hair; is that genetic? Can I
be 'cured' by modern medecine? Or is the only treatment for my disease
death?

Also, as an aside, from what I have heard, studies place the vast
majority of humanity in the 'Bisexual' class. This would tend to imply
that either strictly homo- or heterosexuals are deviant. Lets see these
'researchers' fit that data into their ideology.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 09:51:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "ralph a. alpher" <alpherr@union.bitnet>
Subject: RE: Supersalespersonship

In general I agree with your thoughts on funding of the SSC, and I have
a great personal interest in the science which should come out of it.
However, I am acutely aware that money at this level could be useful in
meeting social needs such as feeding the hungry, medical care for the indigent,
etc. And yet, yet, what is the point of a society which never takes a flyer
on something just because it is interesting, exciting, stimulating, and which
does nothing but uplift the human spirit. Should we really cut out the
National Endowments for the Arts, for the Humanities - what gets funded there
does not increase U.S. industrial productivity. The attempts of proponents
of SSC, of the Space Station, etc., propagate this B.S. about technology
spinoffs. By and large that is what it all is, B.S. Let us be honest about
funding science because it satisfies human curiosity, and is, like art and musci
part of what living is all about.

Poorly stated, but I hope my point is made.

Ralph Alpher
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 08:55:24 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: "p. thomas carroll" <userce69@rpitsmts.bitnet>
Subject: Not SSC; rather, supersalespersonship

I'm preparing to leave the country for a couple of weeks, so please forgive
me for responding to you all in one blanket message. There's no time for
anything else. What's worse, starting about noon Sunday, I'll be out of
the loop until the very end of August. Consequently, this message comes
off as something of a cheap shot, a guerrilla salvo. Sorry 'bout that.
I hasten in my reply to recall that the subject of my message was
"Supersalespersonship", not "SSC". As I said, I'm a BIG fan of
science, even quite expensive fundamental science with no economic
payoff whatsoever. I very much WANT the peoples of this earth to
build an SSC that generates the necessary GeV to bust quarks, and
I know that costs big bucks. (Alas, Maurice, Asimov has now gone
on to his reward, so I guess we won't be able to opt for the $3.98
time-travel method.) I cheered in the 1970s when Bruce Murray of
JPL based most of his lobbying on precisely the kind of rationale
that Ralph Alpherr uses (and I think Roald Hoffmann uses this rationale
quite a bit too, bless his soul). Along with many others in those days,
Bruce Murray was ignored, of course, and consequently we're saddled with
the Space Shuttle. (You're not on THAT oversight board, are you, Maurice?
I cringe to think that one of you out there is. It'd be just my luck.)
My beef was with that NYT piece that Higgins posted, and with
the tactics attributed to Bentsen and company in that piece.
This is a forum about SCIFRAUD. As Ralph Alpherr says, that
maglev nonsense is B.S. or, more technically, rhetorical scientific
fraud. Those of us involved in science should all identify it as such,
loudly and publicly. Doing otherwise will lead people to be
mad at fundamental scientific work over the long term because
they'll slowly notice that, having spent trillions on such basic
science, the material conditions of their lives aren't appreciably
better for it. Bentsen and Bush and all the other maglev-style
lobbyists for the SSC are, as Glicksman points out, engaging in
pork. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Not doing so helps
feed the current Congressional frenzy for "special appropriations",
a most ominous new phenomenon (at least in the proportions it's
assumed of late) in the science and technology policy world.
All that being said (i.e., we want an SSC, plus spinoffs are
smoke and mirrors for pork), I do have to reiterate my additional
concern that, given the recession and the crippling deficit,
it may be necessary to pursue that SSC (and a good deal else)
in a barebones fashion for a few years. Glicksman is right
that we need to worry about what the money would be spent on
instead, and it's also important to provide enough funding to
prevent the physics infrastructure undergirding an SSC from
coming apart. Nonetheless, can't we put more effort into
doing this as an international project, on a more leisurely
timetable, all other things being equal? My grandchildren,
after all, will have to eat. Man ‚sic’ does not live on
wonderment alone.
P. Thomas Carroll
Department of Science and Technology Studies
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, NY 12180-3590
pthos@mts.rpi.edu
Remember: I won't read any email from noon Sunday, 9 August, until
the very end of the month, so save up your comments until then if
you want me to read them.
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 18:27:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Another Review

Another Review

There have been several books of criticism of the university:
Bloom's Closing of the American Mind and Dinesh D'Souza's
Illiberal Education to which this book by Martin Anderson is to be
compared. Anderson, like these others, is "right wing." He has
been an adviser to presidents and a longterm member of the Hoover
Institution of Stanford University.

To put it mildly, Anderson sees the university in the U.S.
as a disaster area. It is full of fakery and fraud.

It is an appropriate book for review on this board.

Here is the SCIFRAUD annotation.

++++++++++

\Anderson, Martin. Impostors in the Temple: American
Intellectuals Are Destroying Our Universities and
Cheating Our Students of Their Future. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1992.\

This is a book about fraud and phoniness in
academia. "The dirty little secret of the academic
intellectuals is that much of what they write and hold
up to themselves and to the rest of the world as the
highest expression of what they do is inconsequential
and trifling." (p. 85) And, "Taken as a whole,
academic research and writing is the greatest
intellectual fraud of the twentieth century." (p. 85)
And he suggests concerning academic intellectuals:
"...their professional lives are often a lie." (p. 123)
Indeed, to Professor Anderson, in the universities of
this country, "integrity is dead." (p. 9) Ah, this is
the stuff of SCIFRAUD.

He sees university teachers this way: "They are
the corrupt priests of America's colleges and
universities and, while small in number, their
influence is large and pervasive. They are the great
pretenders of academe. They pretend to teach, they
pretend to do original, important work. They do
neither. They are impostors in the temple. And from
these impostors most of the educational ills of America
flow. Only when we understand these renegade
intellectual priests, and take action against them, can
America's full intellectual integrity and power be
restored." (p. 10)

Corruption, fraud, pretense, lies, abuse,
harassment, paedophilia, plagiary, sham, and all the
rest of it characterize the professorate. This is a
mighty indictment. But it is colored throughout by
Anderson's expectations of what the professorate ought
to be. Note in the very title: "The Temple." He
thinks of universities that way! He feels strongly
that academics ought to be the priests of the
intellectual age and he is terribly disappointed and
discouraged that they are not. He is angry that they
have not lived up to his experiences with a few good
professors in the halcyon days when he was an
undergraduate at Dartmouth in the early 1950s. He
remembers how wonderful it was and what it should be
for students now. He compares the world of his mature
years with the world of his upbringing and lo, we are
found wanting.

One of the silliest plaints in the book: the
professorate is "left wing." The "L" word is use
liberally. But to cite polls concerning political
affiliation or rhetoric about its behavior is to miss
the point that the bulk of my colleagues, anyway, have
been loud-mouthed brayers of liberalism who, when the
time came for putting themselves on the line, have done
absolutely nothing! In my own experience, colleagues
have been gutless in the extreme. Yes, some of the
movements of the 1960s and 1970s did have roots in the
universities but those roots were NOT with the faculty
but with the students. I have bitter, very personal
experiences dating from the Freedom Riders in New
Orleans and the Racial Movement in Chapel Hill in the
early 1960s. The professorate is liberal in name only.
Anderson takes the rhetoric seriously and that is a
serious mistake.

On the other hand, Anderson is "right on"
regarding the irrelevance of the "studies" in learned
journals. As an adviser to Presidents Nixon and
Reagan, Professor Anderson is in a position to know
that what was written in the economic journals of those
eras was irrelevant to what was going on in the
economy. He puts it this way: "After reviewing the
twelve-year output of America's most scholarly
economics journal I understood more clearly a
phenomenon I had witnessed during four years of
government service, first on President Nixon's White
House staff and then as President Reagan's economic and
domestic policy adviser. Not once in all those years,
in countless meetings on national economic policy, did
anyone ever refer to any article from an academic
journal. Not once did anyone use a mathematical
formula more complicated and adding, subtracting,
multiplying, or dividing." (p. 95)

Professor Anderson details and interprets four
common kinds of academic corruption: professional,
political, personal and institutional. There are
extensive examples provided for each. It is not a very
nice portrait of the institution called the university.
But he does offer some hope, he has some suggestions
for improvement. After examining the
institutionalization of the TA, he suggests: Prohibit
Student Teaching. After looking at the nonsense in the
professional journals, he suggests: Stop Rewarding
Spurious Research and Writing. After looking at the
process of getting through graduate school, he offers:
Change the Ph.D. Degree Process. After examining
tenure, he opines: End Faculty Tenure. And the list
also includes: reorganize faculty titles and
responsibilities, return to the four-year bachelor's
degree, take sexual harassment seriously, ban political
discrimination, stop athletic corruption and crack down
on institutional corruption. He does not discuss the
problems associated with the changes he recommends.

There is a very unrealistic view of the university
in all of this: his argument is that the university is
not what it is supposed to be, along with the
assumption that he knows what the university is
supposed to be. His implication: I remember what it
was like in my undergraduate days, and it was not like
this. Well, Professor Anderson, I remember one hell of
a football weekend at Dartmouth back in the early
1950s. It was a weekend full of the usual joys of such
fall experiences: sex, football and alcohol. One of
the fraternities at Dartmouth was wonderful to us,
guests from Fordham. It was a great weekend but it had
absolutely nothing to do with the Temple of your title.
Dartmouth was just another fun place to be. You are
dreaming of a world that never was and never will be.

For those who BELIEVE that there should be more to
the university than what there is, this is a
disappointed lover's lament which they may enjoy and in
which they will certainly find many examples of what is
wrong with the universities.


++++++++++

I have taken certain liberties in this review. That
should suggest something about the book: the author has made it a
personal document and has a very personal view of the universities
he criticizes and the professors he finds so venal.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 10:20:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: ds7024@albnyvms.bitnet
Subject: Anderson's book.

Is it me, or does Professor Anderson seem to be foaming at the
mouth? Someone should maybe remind him that, yes, Universities can be
corrupt, hypocritical, partially useless, and all the rest; however,
any large institution you care to look at has much of the same qualities,
and examples like our government are much, much worse. Prof. Anderson
doesn't seem to be a realist, and singling out the universities is both
incorrect and dangerous. Firstly, the problem with our admittedly
miserable educational system lies with 'lower' education, which is all
that most people receive, and which is negligible compared with that of
other industrialized nations. Secondly, the trend in American popular
ideology is rather anti-intellectual, and to throw fuel on that fire
could be destructive.

As for the topic he touches upon that relates directly to this board,
the 'fraud' of irrelevant publications is not necessarily fraud. If all
sciences were restricted to certain paths, and no papers that strayed from
the 'relevant' were accepted, then I believe our progress would be slight,
if it existed at all. For an example, the relatively recent revolution
of Chaos theory would never have happened had we limited publications in
the manner that Anderson seems to be suggesting.

Dan X. Stackhouse
DS7024@rachel.albany.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 20:15:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: stmikes%munin@norwich.bitnet

SET SCIFRAUD MAIL
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:59:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Yet Another...

Yet Another Review

I do admit to being fascinated by computers and by
hackers. When it first came out, I sat up all night reading Cliff
Stoll's The Cuckoo's Egg. Here is another fascinating and
fetching book on hackers. This one tries to examine their motives.
It provides insight into the various types of hackers and their
rationalizations.

Two reporters have combined their skills and their
experiences with tales of the well-known hackers. It is an
engrossing triptych they provide.

The review is, as usual, from the SCIFRAUD database.

++++++++++

\Hafner, Katie and Markoff, John. Cyberpunk: Outlaws
and Hackers on the Computer Frontier. New York: A
Touchstone Book, 1992.\

These authors are reporters, specialists in
computer technology who here tell their version of "the
hacking subculture." They seek to provide an
understanding of hackers and what makes them tick.
They have chosen three notorious cases of computer
hackers to illustrate their "hackers' biographies":
Robert T. Morris, Kevin Mitnick and Hans Hubner (Pengo)
of The Chaos Club of Hamburg. All three are well known
and much of their fame due in part to the media which
"celebrated" their exploits. It was, after all, John
Markoff who broke the story of Robert T. Morris in
early November, 1988. That story, with all of its
human interests, with all of its debates, succeeded, as
nothing else since WarGames, in making "hacking" a
public and legal concern.

The book is a good read, a breezy exposition, of
the history of hacking: its growth in the 1960s at MIT
and its alternative heritage, phone phreaking as a way
of rebelling against the mindless bureaucracy of Ma
Bell. If the university heritage is the good side of
hacking, then the phone phreaks of the 1970s are its
dark side. And both can justly claim the designation
of "hackers" with equal right. This dual heritage in
part accounts for the ambiguity of the term "hacker"
meaning both a computer enthusiast-talent and a
computer abuser. This is a schizoid heritage and the
hacker is as attractive as he is because of his
duality: on the one hand, talent in arcane and
mysterious lore and, simultaneously, a decidedly
roguish and dangerous rebelliousness. Make no
mistake about it: there is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
in hacking. And the public is fascinated.

The two sides of hacking are represented by Robert
T. Morris on the one hand and Kevin Mitnick of Los
Angeles and the Hamburg Chaos Club on the other. While
the federal courts found Morris guilty and that
conviction was upheld upon appeal, the "confusion"
within the computer community has still not abated.
Indeed, at the very moment that Morris was writing what
was to be his destructive worm, his computer colleagues
were suggesting that, "It was a great hack," (p. 298)
"a brilliant project," (p. 299) and "You should do this
for your dissertation." (p. 297) These may have been
the sentiments of graduate students at Cornell rather
than the university mainframe's manager but the reader
must see the enthusiast's appreciation of what Morris
could do. No question: he was good at what he did and
he almost pulled off a great stunt. Unfortunately, his
stunt had several bugs in it and it produced a mess.
Criminal? Upon conviction, the judge in the case
sentenced Morris to probation, a $10,000 fine, and 400
hours of community service. Hardly a sentence for a
heinous crime and that is precisely the point: it was
not regarded by those who adjudicated the case as a
heinous crime.

In fact, one might consider Robert T. Morris, Jr.,
to be a media event rather than anything else. Here
was a bright kid, at the best schools, working in
computers, who "brought down" an entire "military"
network of mainframes and work stations. It was the
stuff of WarGames and of the front page: "...the media
had an insatiable appetite for the story of the young
computer whiz, son of a computer security expert, who
loosed a rogue program on a nationwide network and
brought it to its knees... The nation's press corps
fastened onto the story first as an incident that had
disrupted a network of military computers, then, as the
identity of the culprit emerged, as the story of a
remarkable family, and of intellectual pranksterism
gone awry. For several days in a row, it was front-
page news in the nation's newspapers and one of the top
stories in the television newscasts." (pp. 312-313)
But more, the Morris case spawned a breed of
"ethicists" who made their names by feeding the fear of
computer viruses and their dangerousness. With
ethicists and the media clamoring, the public was
confused and alarmed.

The outlaw-hacker, the dark side of hacking, is
deftly displayed in the tale of Hamburg and Berlin, of
Russian agents and immolation, of yo-yo wielding antics
of Cliff Stoll and his search for the intruders at his
Berkeley lab. And, even here, the schizoid character
of hacking is admitted: when Pengo was being paid by
the Russians for whatever he might steal of value to
them, his rationalization was: "He was doing what he
had always done: hacking. And now someone was
acknowledging his talent." (p. 195) He was, in fact,
upholding his commitment to "hacking as a thing in
itself." One of his heroes in hacking looked at it
this way: "...he believed government and other large
institutions shouldn't be meddling in people's personal
lives, but individuals should be able to get at
anything. The systems ... (he) hacked into were owned
and operated by authoritarian institutions, forces that
hardly championed an individual citizen's right to
privacy. Hackers like ... (him) thought of themselves
as modern Robin Hoods. Through hacking, they could
expose gaping holes in computer security and heighten
public awareness of security loopholes. Paradoxically
perhaps, the (Chaos) club was trying to appeal to both
the West German love of law and order and a concern for
civil liberties. If he broke into computers, (he) ...
argued, it was to make the point that West German
institutions were wrong if they thought their computers
were safe from outside meddling..." (p. 157)

And again, Cliff Stoll's success in locating the
Hamburg Club as his culprits lent itself to media
exploitation. "His unorthodox personality had made him
a perfect media icon." (p. 246) And he was on the talk
shows and he made a point which struck home to the
public: the computers which are now so important in
your lives are all at risk. It was a message that
easily got across and mystified.

Kevin Mitnick's hacking was hardly idealistic. He
and his erstwhile friends were admittedly "on a power
trip." (p. 59) They used their "technical wizardry to
befuddle the authorities." (p. 63) And they don't
sound like very interesting people: "(Kevin was)... an
obese, nearsighted twenty-five-year-old dropout from
L.A. whose diet...consisted of greasy cheeseburgers and
Big Gulp colas from the nearby 7-Eleven..." (p. 132-
133) They got their kicks through hacking: "The idea
of having control over many computers was incredibly
seductive. The challenge of figuring out where to go
to look for the information they wanted was more
stimulating than any college programming course." (p.
126)

When they abused computers, they felt reasonably
safe: "Even if they were caught, (they)... had read
enough about computer crime to know that Digital might
be reluctant to press charges against them. They were
aware that few of the computer crimes detected were
ever reported to the police and still fewer were made
public through criminal charges. (They) ... knew that
companies worried about having their vulnerabilities
publicized." (p. 125) So they abused and continue to
abuse with the authorities and the large computer
companies nearly powerless to stop them. But, as is
appropriate in such cases, the villains fell out and
betrayed one another and blew their trippings to the
wind. An appropriate denouement.

Quite clearly, the collars worn in these three
illustrative cases are of various shades of white.
These are not simply forms of white-collar crime. The
range of variation is too large. On the one hand, the
"delinquent" is illustrated in the Mitnick case; the
ideologue, in the Chaos Club; and the prankster, in the
Morris affair. As time goes on there will be others
and hacking will continue to be an opportunity for
self-expression for the most different sorts of people.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 361 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ e-mail: ach13@albnyvms; ach13@uscsc1.albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ scifraud@albnyvm1 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:59:00 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@albnyvm1.bitnet>
from: achiggins <ach13@albnyvms.bitnet>
Subject: Important Issues

31 July 1992

There are weeks in which Science reports nothing of interest
for the members of SCIFRAUD. Then there are other weeks when the
entire magazine seems to focus on issues of direct and immediate
concern to this board. The issue of 31 July is just such a one.
This is an issue which ethicists and others will find very
significant. Everyone on this board should have a copy of these
articles, should read and digest them. There is a lot here to
discuss.

I have appended the annotations which are now in the
SCIFRAUD database but they are, of course, merely annotations and
do not touch the subtleties of the issues involved. In a very
real sense, one must "read between the lines" of Koshland, et
al., to see the subtle issues being raised by Big Biology.

The major concern of this issue: conflict of interest, most
particularly, financial conflict of interest. This issue has
become a hot one as more and more "breakthroughs" in biology
translate into for-profit businesses, venture capital, and
hundreds of millions of dollars in the promises of biotechnology
at our major universities. Science does not limit its discussion
to financial conflicts as there are many other conflicts, including
personal commitment and personal zeal. Science is here talking
about some major issues, including advocacy as an alternative to
"scientific method."

Johns Hopkins and Harvard have set the pace for new policies
on conflicts of interest but this is all relatively new stuff,
these are unchartered waters. These are issues as in need of new
policies as was fraud in science in the early 1980s: Big Science
is now aware that it is in the limelight in ways it never was
before. The question: how are Big Scientists, who are becoming
venture capitalists, ethicizing about their behavior? There are,
as one might expect, wide disparities of opinion.

Please note: there are other matters raised in this issue
besides conflict of interest. They are also included in these
annotations. They, too, merit consideration.

++++++++++

\Marshall, Eliot. "An NSF Survey Rattles Some
Nerves," Science 257 (31 July 1992), p. 609.\

Senator John Glenn asked the GAO to conduct a
survey of peer review. Some of the 978 scientists who
participated in the peer review process for NSF are
anxious that the data generated by the GAO may be
misinterpreted. Questions can, after all, be
misinterpreted. Questions can be loaded, either
intentionally or unintentionally. People find what
they are looking for and, if one is searching for and
"old boy network," then one is likely to find it by
asking loaded questions.

Professor Eugene Davidson sent a letter of protest
to Senator Glenn suggesting that the GAO's questions
are loaded. One question, for example, suggests the
respondent answer the question of the Principal
Investigator: "Is he in the top five nationally?"
"The top ten?" And Davidson's comment, quoted here:
"Science is not football. We do not conduct a weekly
survey to identify the top 20 in our business."
Staff members to Senator Glenn concede that the
survey can not reflect every detail of the complex
structure of the NSF process. "These are hard
questions to ask."

The only instance of the failures of peer review
which are mentioned in this brief article is that of
Jon Kalb.

\Barinaga, Marcia. "Confusion on the Cutting Edge,"
Science 257 (31 July 1992), pp. 616-619.\

Conflicts of interest are of major concern to some
schools: Harvard and Johns Hopkins have new policies
out on the issue and here is Science examining the same
topic. Concern seems to have developed as a result of
the recently established hi-tech companies. Major
insiders in these lucrative companies are Big Name
scientists who not only have an investment in a company
but may be touting the products the company produces.
How does investment affect scientists. The long and
short of it is that there are differences of opinion
ranging from 'investments do not influence my judgment
as a scientist' through to "If I didn't make it clear
that I was not with a company, anything I said would be
suspect." (p. 617)

The problem is this: "ten years ago, it was
unusual for a basic researchers in biology to have
large holdings in a company directly related to his or
her field of research. Today, in some fields it's hard
to find a researcher who doesn't consult with or have
equity in a hot biotech startup. But because the
situation is new, there is as yet no consensus about
how to handle financial conflicts--or even about
whether they are serious enough to bother about." (p.
616)

"One company that burst on to the stock market
last year was Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which
specializes in the study of nerve growth factors as
potentially therapeutic agents. Regeneron had a wildly
successful initial offering; reported by The New York
Times to be the second largest in biotech history, it
netted the company more than $90 million. That stock
sale came just 10 days after Regeneron's 21 March 1991
report in Nature that the never growth factor BDNF may
boost the survival of neurons that degenerate in
Parkinson's disease. The article was accompanied by a
favorable commentary in Nature and was written up in
The New York Times.
"Was there any connection between the favorable
scientific and lay press and the high stock price? No
one in the business is willing to say how closely
coupled these factors are." (p. 617)

And what about journal editors: should they be
informed if reviewers and authors have financial
interests in the papers they write or review? The fact
is, "most major biomedical journals have no formal
policies, relying instead on the judgment of their
authors..." (p. 616)

There are arguments that policies should be
formulated but this is novel territory to all
concerned. There is opposition, too, to the formation
of policy. Some insist that scientists have always had
to deal with powerful conflicts of interest and have
been able to do so in the past. Money, they insist,
changes nothing. Indeed, if a commentator-evaluator is
tagged or identified as having a financial
identification with a company or product, does not the
tag immediately bring his/her integrity into question?
Wouldn't a label be a curse? Good heavens, it's hard
enough to get good people to review an article for a
journal and, if the editor insists on labeling the
reviewer, some may refuse.

Authorship of papers as well as reviews of papers
can be a ethical matter too. Indeed, the issue extends
to all communications from scientists. Should,
ethically, commercial connections make a difference for
an individual? And the answer presently seems to
devolve on the choice or preferences of the individual
scientist.

Many people consider financial matters
confidential. Here in the U.S. one's finances are
private. Shouldn't that privacy be extended to
scientists? And Barinaga puts it well as she ends the
piece, it will get worse as "...(T)his complex
situation that journals, universities, and, most of
all, individual researchers, are going to have to be
navigating their way through in the next few years--as
the thicket of connections between commerce and
academia grows ever more tangled." (p. 619)


\Marshall, Eliot. "When Does Intellectual Passion
Become Conflict of Interest?" Science 257 (31 July
1992), pp. 620-621.\

This is a lead-in to three accompanying articles
concerning "intellectual conflict of interest." That
awful phrase is better known to my academic circles in
terms of "values." And stated another way, the
question addressed concerns the researcher's values
influencing and affecting his scientific work. It is
very clear that one cannot work in any area in which
one has no "interests." When do interests and values
inhibit?

Interest has grown in the area of financial
factors influencing scientific work but, as reported
elsewhere, there is no rule book yet. The ethics are
being worked out. So, too, are the other and older
questions concerning "pet hypotheses" and "advocacy."

The three cases reported on here: "One involves a
neurobiologist (Simon LeVay) with a deep personal and
social stake in the outcome of his own work. Another
focuses on an archeologist (Richard MacNeish)
criticized by his peer for being too quick to announce
earth-shaking claims. A third involves an accomplished
space physicist (Louis Frank) whose defense of an
offbeat theory has put him at odds with most of his
field." (p. 621)

Science, no doubt about it, is a passionate
enterprise. How influential is the passion? Should it
be investigated as a source of possible error? But,
then, isn't the process of doing science supposed to be
self-correcting? People do have biases: they favor
their own ideas. Making them aware of that may be a
necessary function of science itself.

\Marshall, Eliot. "Sex on the Brain," Science 257
(31 July 1992), pp. 620-621.\

This is a brief statement of the personal
interests of Simon LeVay in his work on homosexuality.
He is himself a homosexual and he is convinced that
homosexuality is based on biology. As he puts it,
"...I feel I was born gay..." He believes that his
homosexuality is not a matter of choice but
biologically determined.

"Could it be that LeVay's convictions about
homosexuality, which predated his research, somehow
affected his results? It's a fair question for any
researcher and doubly so in this case, since the
analytical method required by the kind of work LeVay
does is unavoidably subjective. The technique involves
reading tissue slides to determine the size of the
INAH-3 nucleus, which is made of the same type of cells
as the surrounding tissue and therefore has no sharp
boundary. Hence, expert judgment must enter in." (p.
620) And LeVay was the only slide reader in his study!
However, he insists that "there was no way for his
personal views to intrude, since students encoded the
slides and data before he interpreted them." (620)

And others who do similar work, including Laura
Gorski (who has published similar results), find
Simon's work creditable. Besides, she opined, "the
results were not unexpected." (p. 621) Others are
quite critical and consider LeVay to be on a "political
crusade." John DeCecco, psychologist, "thinks LeVay is
'under the erroneous impression that if he can prove
this is biological...people will leave gay people alone
and respect them.'" (p. 621)

LeVay suggests "advocacy is not something that must
necessarily be avoided in science...(and)...every
scientist is a human being." (p. 621)

\Marshall, Eliot. "The Perils of a Deeply Held Point
of View," Science 257 (31 July 1992), pp. 621-622.\

Richard MacNeish, a 74-year-old anthropologist is
deeply committed to an alternative to the standard
belief of his professional peers that Clovis, New
Mexico is the site of the evidence of the first
residents of North and South America. In other words,
people of the New World are no older than 12,000 years.
The Clovis-first theory has prevailed for decades.

MacNeish has challenged the clovis paradigm for
several years but has failed to change the minds of his
professional peers and the editors who publish standard
texts in that field. His evidence has not been
accepted by his profession but he has not stopped
trying and again in 1992 he sought to provide
"incontrovertible proof" of a 30,000 year antiquity for
human habitations in North America.

The profession remains skeptical of MacNeish's
data. Indeed, it is MacNeish's hearty advocacy which
leads them to their skepticism. He is interpreted as a
man who "jumps to conclusions." Many admire him, some
agree that he may indeed be right. He is described as
having "enormous stature in archeology."

His critics contend that he has been
enthusiastically looking for evidence of pre-Clovis
people and that he found what he was looking for. Not
a man to admit anything, MacNeish insists that when he
found his latest evidence, he "'was as surprised as
anyone.'" (p. 622)

\Marshall, Eliot. "Small Comets/Big Flap," Science
257 (31 July 1992), p. 622.\

Louis Frank is a accomplished physicist. But
since 1986, he has been involved in a heated debate
about a "pet theory" which he advanced and has defended
ever since. Battle lines have been drawn and now no
one is willing to back down an inch. His theory
involved some anomalous images, dark spots, in
ultraviolet images of Earth's atmosphere pictured in
1981 by the satellite Dynamics Explorer. "After years
of analysis, Frank suggested in 1986 that they might be
produced by midget comets. The DE images showed,
according to his calculations, that every minutes,
about 20 truck-sized chunks of ice disintegrate above
Earth's atmosphere, each one dumping about 100 tons of
water on the planet. The dark spots in the pictures,
he claimed, were 50-kilometer-wide vapor clods blocking
Earth's ultraviolet glow."

No one has agreed although there's been some
support down through the years. And, since this
'theory' is controversial, it is not likely to bring in
the research funds to do studies. So the dark spots
are described by other scientists alternatively as just
noise.

The editor who originally published Frank's
controversial theory has been on a personal mission to
demolish the theory. He has debunked Frank's ideas.
The lines have become firm. The profession described
the events as "fruitless debate." The profession is
critical of him because "he should have known better"
than to let this whole thing get started. It has
become not science but "a theological debate." (p. 623)

Frank is a man of enormous stature but one who the
profession regards as having "gotten off the track."
He is credited as being of NAS material but someone who
has gone wrong. He is to be pitied rather than
pilloried.

This piece ends: "The story of Louis Frank
suggests that whether an investigator is wrong or
right, the investments that he--and his critics--
develops can make it very hard to weigh the evidence
coolly and calmly." (p. 623)

\Marshall, Eliot. "Intellectual Conflicts--Boon or
Bust?" Science 257 (31 July 1992), p. 624.\

Can science be advanced by advocacy? Can the
truth emerge from the conflict of perspectives? The
subjective element in science may be a boon rather than
just a bust.

Here is a brief telling of Harold Shapley's
"throwing out" some measurements he didn't like as he
advanced his theory of the size of the Milky Way. His
method was "wildly arbitrary" but his instinct was
correct. In retrospect, we know today he was correct
but his methods? "'At the cutting edge {of science} a
certain kind of intuition assists genius,' notes (Owen)
Gingerich, a faculty member at the Harvard Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics. If Shapley had done his
analysis using every scrap of data available, he might
have produced a balanced but inconclusive report.
Instead, says Gingerich, Shapley followed intuition and
was able to 'plow boldly ahead and make a dramatic
breakthrough.'"

On the other hand, intuition can mislead. Adriaan
van Maanen insisted he had detected a spin to the
Andromeda nebula. His colleague at Mt. Wilson, Edwin
Hubble, pointed out that this was impossible. The
nebula could not be spinning at the rate van Maanen
calculated for that would mean that parts of the galaxy
were moving faster than light. Hubble kept the
disagreement quiet for some time but later brought his
criticism forward. The profession then examined van
Maanen's data again and they found them faulty. The
judgment came to be that van Maanen was a victim of
'observer bias."

Score tied: one for intuition and one for method!

\Marshall, Eliot. "NSF Deals With Conflicts Every
Day," Science 257 (31 July 1992), p. 624.\

Here is another brief article concerning conflict
of interest. And this time the focus is on maintaining
the image of fairness Not only must peer review be
fair, but it must also appear fair.

The community of scientists working on the cutting
edge of any field tends to be a small number of people.
How to peer review applications without giving the
impression that this small community is not just giving
itself money? One method used by NSF is to ship
proposals from the review committee to outsiders, a
mail review.

But the potential for competition and conflict
remains. Scarce resources have to be doled out and the
competition can be fierce. Frequently there must be
"back room" processes. When one argues that bringing
the review process into the open--having reviewers sign
their names to their decisions--the process
deteriorates. Reviewers do not want to sign their
names. Relations between reviewers and reviewed are
"fragile."

Frequently staffers at NSF must "deal with"
potential conflict. But these staffers need not know
about "hidden conflicts." NSF conducts special seminar
each year in which it attempts to instill a sense of
fair play in the staffers. It is reported here that in
the 3-day seminar, NSF educates the "rules of science
funding." But, after the seminar, the program officers
are pretty much on their own. The existence of these
seminars "shows that the community has been dealing
with intellectual conflicts far longer and more
explicitly than it has been struggling with financial
conflicts..."

\Hamilton, David P. San Diego State Faces the Tenure
Police," Science 257 (31 July 1992), p. 603.\

Here in its entirety is this article: As a result
of a recent decision to lay off 193 tenured and tenure-
track faculty--including the entire anthropology
department and more than half of the chemistry
department ... San Diego State University can now
expect a visit from the "tenure police."
Last week, the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) announced that it will investigate
the layoffs to determine whether they were truly
necessary and whether the university acted fairly in
deciding which faculty members to fire. "Retrenchment
can provide an easy road to get rid of the unwanted,"
says an AAUP official.
If AAUP finds fault with the university, it could
issue a formal censure--a move that would lead some
academic societies to flag San Diego State in their job
listings. But the university has little to worry about
in the natural science: A spot-check by Science found
that neither the American Chemical Society, the
American Physical Society, nor the Federation of
American Societies for Experimental Biology check job
listings against the AAUP censure list.

\Koshland, Daniel E., Jr. "Conflict of Interest
Policy," Science 257 (31 July 1992), p. 595.\

Koshland is here stating a "new" policy for
Science: "We are adopting guidelines that have been
used by the National Science Foundation over a number
of years. Reviewing editors, editorial staff, and
authors will be asked to reveal to us any relationships
that they believe could be construed as causing a
conflict of interest, whether or not the individual
believes that is actually so. We will not
automatically disqualify either the advice or the
manuscript (although we may do so in some cases), but
we will, of course, take all the information into
account in our use of a review, or may ask the author
to add some clarifying comments to the manuscript if we
feel that they are needed. Further, to practice what I
preach, I will put all personal financial affairs that
have any relationship to scientific matters into a
blind trust. And to readers who may be concerned that
the presence of advertising in Science may inhibit
objective news reporting, we tell our reporters and
editors that neither praise nor criticism of
advertisers will have any influence on job evaluations.
Nor are advertisers able to influence editorial
content.
"One of the problems of conflict of interest is
the degree of sanctimoniousness attached to it. When
outsiders attempt to evaluate the ethics of some
insider group, the outsiders suggest that only
outsiders can be objective, and the insiders always
explain only an insider has the needed competence. For
outsiders and insiders, one can substitute the words
'scientists,' 'lawyers,' 'congressmen,' 'journalists,'
'businessmen,' or 'nuclear engineers,' in any set o