scilog96_page5

 Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:29:50 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Response to Daniel Luchtel II

On May 7, 1986, Margot O'Toole came upon data in Imanishi-Kari's notebooks
starkly contradicting assertions in the Cell paper. Ms. O'Toole brought
copies of 17 pages to superiors.

From the May 19, 1988 "Dear colleague" letter by David Baltimore:

"In a formal report of his review of the complaints of Dr. O'Toole, Dr.
Eisen said in part: 'My conclusion is that O'Toole is correct in claiming
that there is an error in the paper; but it is not a fragrant error.' ..."

One month later, O'Toole lost her job in MIT, was barred from assuming
position at Tufts, rumors had been spread about her "false complains", and
she was blacklisted. All was done, according to Baltimore, "exactly
accorded with the MIT guidelines for examining charges of improper
laboratory procedures."

The first of the "unsavory characters", Walter Stewart, came into this
picture two months later.

What did Margot O'Toole do to deserve this lynching at the hands of
MIT-Tufts mob led by David Baltimore, Imanishi-Kari and their colleagues?
Maybe Daniel Luchtel can explain that.

The conclusion of the May 19, 1988 "Dear colleague" letter by David Baltimore:

"...The preasure to deal with fraud directly is too great to resist, but I
worry that over-regulation might impede scientific progress or scare off
younger scientists, especially those with controversial or progressive ideas.

These are difficult times for those of us who pursue knowledge in the
biological sciences. I see this affair as symptomatic, warning us to be
vigilant to such threats, because our research community is fragile, easily
attacked, difficult to defend, easily undermined. What is now my problem
could become anyone else's if circumstances present themselves."

What a piece of hypocritical nonsense! It is powerful scientists like David
Baltimore who run their departments like petty medieval despots that scare
to death young scientists. David Baltimore was trying to drape himself into
the mantle of a descendant of Galileo while in reality he is a descendant of
Cardinals of Inquisition.

As for Baltimore's personal history - he is not the first son of humble
parents who grew up to become a powerful and arrogant bully.

Leon Mintz June 24, 1996
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:43:13 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Response to John Gardenier's 6/24/96 "statistical thinking" posting.

>Well, Dewey, first of all, I was talking about dishonesty in knowing that
>one's work was being done or reported with inadequate statistical knowledge
>or methodology. Ethically, such dishonesty may be either misconduct or
>fraud, regardless of what the law actually says.

Hi John:

Thanks for the clarification. We do agree that some activities that
are not now considered misconduct ought to be.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:52:33 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

At 09:14 24-06-1996 -0600, John Bailar wrote:-
Next time y0ou see a statistical analysis that you
>think is flawed, see whether it was prepared by a fully trained
>professional statistician or by someone (possibly with other expertise) who
>has learned some of the language and how to run some computer package. The
>latter are dangerous.
>
And just what is one supposed to do when one comes across
statistical analysis which one thinks is flawed?

Ted Gerrard.


E.C.Gerrard
Ornithology Section
Museu Municipal do Funchal (Historia Natural)
Rua da Mouraria, 31
9000 FUNCHAL, MADEIRA, PORTUGAL
Tel.: +351-91-792591 Fax.: +351-91-225180
e-mail egerrard@tethys.uma.pt
WWW page: http://www.mmf.uma.pt/~egerrard/
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:29:39 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jon marks <jmarks@yalevm.cis.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University
Subject: Whew! Incompetence is still okay!

The New York Times has an editorial and a story on the Imanishi-Kari
judgment today. Apparently the inconsistencies and misstatements in the
Cell paper were "just" incompetent, not dishonest. I-K "triumphantly"
called her family to tell them about the decision, and I guess she is now
clear to get federal funding again. Somehow I am not reassured by that.
I wonder what she said to her family -- "Great news! I've been found to be
a poor scientist, but not a fraudulent one! Yay!"???

--Jon Marks
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:43:39 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Response to Daniel Luchtel II

I have been reading the stuff here about O'Toole, Baltimore, et al., and
conclude that none of us on this bit of the net know what really happened.
We are simply shouting at each other, and quoting other people who have
looked at the matter in a lot more depth than any of us have. Worse, much
of what I read here on both sides seems to be motivated by prior beliefs
about the sanctity or culpability of science and scientists, the wisdom or
stupidity of how we deal with charges of misconduct, the positive or
negative value of governmental involvement in such things, etc., rather
than a deep understanding of what is on the record. when I can tell from
the name of the writer alone what the posting is likely to say, I generally
quit reading. The references to other work are fine, but let's not pretend
that we know more than we really do. I'm simply not learning anything
reliable about the Baltimore business, except that we can argue in tones of
great confidence from second-hand (or more remote) information. And I
already knew that.

I'm ready to get on to other things where I might learn something that I
can trust, or possibly even help someone else to learn something.

John

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:29:54 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted hermary <czth%mcgilla.bitnet@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Subject: Imanishi-Kari Hearing Report on Web
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:29:50 EDT

I appreciate what John Bailar said regarding the willingness
here to rely so much on second-hand information. As only
one indication of the complexity of the reasoning in the
Hearing, anyone with considerable free time of their hands
might want to check the DHHS's Research Integrity Adjudications
Panel (Departmental Appeals Board) Decision. As with other
DAB Decisions, it's available on the Web at:

http://www.os.dhhs.gov:80/progorg/dab/dab1582.txt

Be forewarned: this is a daunting, 152-page single-spaced tome, based
on a 6-week hearing which "amassed voliminous exhibits, including
including more than 70 original laboratory notebooks, and a 6500-
page hearing transcript." (p1) I've only begun to carve into the
text, so don't be surprised if I don't chip in my two cents worth


The report suggests Pts I-III (Legal Framework, Factual Background,
and General Findings) are presented as a kind of executive
summary, but other parts probe into the reasoning on particular
proferred evidence. I'd be interested to hear from scientific or
legal types here on the report and the kind of reasoning employed
here. After all, I'm "just" a sociologist!:-)




Martin (Ted) Hermary (A.B.D.)
Department of Sociology
McGill University
855 Shebrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3A 2T7
e-mail: czth@musica.mcgill.ca
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:59:02 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: An Editorial

Editorial

Here is today's editorial in the New York Times concerning the
recent successful appeal of Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari. The Times
calls for "cleanup of the whole investigative process..." used by HHS.

++++++++++


\Editor, "The Fraud Case That Evaporated," New York
Times, 25 June 1996, p. A20.\

The most celebrated fraud case in recent scientific
history has collapsed in embarrassment for the Federal
Government and belated vindication for the accused
scientist. For most of the past decade investigators at
the National Institutes of Health and in Congress have
pursued a Tufts University scientist, Dr. Thereza
Imanishi-Kari, on charges of falsifying laboratory data.
The Federal Office of Scientific Integrity concluded five
years ago that Dr. Imanishi-Kari had fabricated data
published in a 1986 journal article and, when challenged,
had fabricated yet more data to support her position.

Congressman John Dingell waded into the fray with
hostile hearings and Dr. David Baltimore, a Nobel
laureate who was a co-author, rose to the defense of his
colleague. By the end, the careers of all the key
scientists had been gravely damaged. Dr. Imanishi-Kari
was blocked from receiving government grants. Dr.
Baltimore, though never accused of fabricating data
himself, was forced to resign as president of Rockefeller
University. Dr. Margot O'Toole, the young scientist
whose suspicions of fraud ignited the whole controversy,
was driven from the career path she had been following.

Yet now, a decade from the start, an appeals panel
has found that the Government failed to prove any of the
19 charges leveled against Dr. Imanishi-Kari. This is a
stunning reversal for the renamed Office of Research
Integrity, which has also lost other high-profile cases.
This latest fiasco suggests that something has gone
terribly wrong with the investigative apparatus that is
designed to ferret out fraud or misconduct in science.

Suspicions about Dr. Imanishi-Kari were first raised
by Dr. O'Toole and a graduate student, both of whom
worked in her laboratory. The clinching evidence seemed
to be forensic evidence gathered by the Secret Service,
which used analyses of instrument counters, printouts,
ink colors, impressions left on laboratory notebook pages
and other such evidence to conclude that much data had
been prepared and recorded at times and in sequences
other than claimed.

But the appeals panel was unimpressed. It concluded
that the Secret Service analysis was based on erroneous
assumptions about how the experiments had been conducted
and recorded and that all the inconsistencies the Secret
Service found suspicious could equally well have innocent
explanations. The panel did not fine either Dr. O'Toole
or the former graduate student credible, and it could
find no sensible motive for some of the alleged
fabrications since they actually undercut the central
finding of the paper.

Some years ago, after the original finding of fraud,
this page complained vigorously that the scientific
community had failed to clean its own house, and it
called the forced resignation of Dr. Baltimore rough
justice. This now seems a rush to judgment. Whether one
believes that the Office of Research Integrity in effect
framed an innocent person, or simply failed to argue its
case effectively, there is no doubt that it turned in an
awful performance. A cleanup of the whole investigative
process should be a top priority for Health and Human
Services Secretary Donna Shalala.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:00:05 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Response to John Bailar's 6/24/96 "statistical thinking" posting.

Hi John:


>Dewey McLean wrote to question my view of the scientific method. We may be
>misunderstanding each other.

You may be right. Maybe we are operating on different frequencies.

I'm always looking for more effective methodology to pull
multidisciplinary data together in ways to illuminate principles or laws of
nature. When I find better ways, I adopt them. Thus, my questions to you
about your method.

Some years ago, some philosopher friends recommended that I study
Imre Lakatos. I found his "progressive" versus "degenerative" research
programs concept to be useful. The former creates new theories that expand
upon, and subsume, older theories with empirical verification coming along
later. The latter runs out of new theories and maintains itself via ad
hocism.

Larry Laudan (Science and Values) notes that via the Lakatos
approach it is possible to hang onto a theory--no matter what empirical
anomalies confront it--more or less indefinitely. Laudan also notes that
Harry Collins (who studied controversies in theoretical physics) found that
ingenious scientists can concoct a way to circumvent arguments and evidence
against their pet theories, and that experimental evidence is always so
ambiguous that virtually any theory can be maintained in the face of any
evidence.

I was curious if your method offered good ways to allow
progressivism in the sense of Lakatos, while also allowing forward movement
to resolution of complex thematic antitheses.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:57:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: Whew! Incompetence is still okay!

--Jon Marks wrote:

The New York Times has an editorial and a story on the Imanishi-Kari
judgment today. Apparently the inconsistencies and misstatements in the
Cell paper were "just" incompetent, not dishonest. I-K "triumphantly"
called her family to tell them about the decision, and I guess she is now
clear to get federal funding again. Somehow I am not reassured by that.
I wonder what she said to her family -- "Great news! I've been found to be
a poor scientist, but not a fraudulent one! Yay!"???
--

Right Jon, That vindicated her notorious "sloppiness" defense. (I didn't
fake the data; it only looks that way because I am so sloppy in my work.)

John Gardenier
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:52:26 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: Re: a decision

Bobbie Weinberg said:

"In contributing the NYTimers article Dr. Higgins did not deliver his
analysis or opinion concerning this case, the investigations and rulings..."

But Al Higgins said:

"Those accused of science fraud seek legal protection to which, of
course, they are entitled but scientists cannot continue to have it
both ways." which he has every right to say. I believe Al is summarizing here
his opinion that the appeals panel erred and found two guilty people
innocent. He has a right to that opinion also.

But I disagree strongly with Al's implication that it is unfortunate for
science that scientists are entitled to "seek legal protection." Without
that right, we would all be living in a different sort of "civilization." In
such a civilization, science might be done impeccably (though I doubt that),
but woe to the outsiders always, and woe to to insiders eventually.

Bob Barasch
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:55:46 -0800
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "douglas c. hintz" <dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Subject: US legislative alert

Dear Scifraud: While this posting is not about fraud committed by a
scientist, many on this list are rightly concerned about public education in
the United States. The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, S. 984, is
currently moving through the United States Senate. This bill, authored by
allies of the Christian Coalition, would give any parent veto power over
subjects they don't want taught in the classroom. Parents could challenge
topics like evolution by simply filing a lawsuit. The bill would encourage
litigation instead of discussion. If you have a web browser and would like
to read the complete text of the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.984:

Here are a couple of salient excerpts:

" The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child' includes,
but is not limited to a right of a parent regarding--

(i) directing or providing for the education of the child;"

...

"SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERING WITH OR USURPING
RIGHTS OF PARENTS.

No Federal, State, or local government, or any official of such a
government acting under
color of law, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to
direct the upbringing of the
child of the parent.

SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.

No exception to section 4 shall be permitted, unless the government or
official is able to
demonstrate, by appropriate evidence, that the interference or
usurpation is essential to
accomplish a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn or
applied in a manner
that is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling
interest."

Douglas C. Hintz 68 PLC Hall
Mathematics Instructor University of Oregon
Academic Learning Services Eugene, Oregon 97403
dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu phone:541-346-3226
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 11:10:41 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: mike miller <mbmiller@sirronald.wustl.edu>
Subject: An inquiry lacking due process

An inquiry lacking due process

Copyright ) 1996 Nando.net
Copyright ) 1996 N.Y. Times News Service

(Jun 25, 1996 00:53 a.m. EDT) As scientists absorb the decision by a
federal appeals panel late last week dismissing all the charges of
scientific misconduct against Dr. Theresa Imanishi-Kari, many are asking
how the process for handling allegations of fraud in science could have
got so badly off track.

The decadelong case has roused high passions among scientists, some of
whom saw it as a barometer of the public's apparent hostility toward
science, while others were alarmed at how the case had turned into a
political confrontation with Congress.

One reason for the drawn-out and divisive nature of the case was the
imperfect procedures of the new federal office to investigate biomedical
fraud. Another was the high-profile conflict between Rep. John D. Dingell,
a Michigan Democrat who was then a House committee chairman, and Dr. David
Baltimore, a Nobel laureate and former colleague who defended Dr.
Imanishi-Kari to the end. This tension politicized every stage of the long
inquiry process.

The unanimous decision by the three-member adjudications panel of the
Department of Health and Human Services is a complete exoneration for Dr.
Imanishi-Kari, an immigrant scientist from Brazil. It also vindicates the
long and eventually lonely campaign waged in her defense by Baltimore, a
struggle that forced him to relinquish the presidency of Rockefeller
University, one of leading posts in academic science. Despite the
painstakingly detailed decision, which consisted of more than 200
single-spaced pages, several of Dr. Imanishi-Kari's critics continue to
believe that the discrepancies in the disputed experiment arose from
concocted data.

The long dispute drove rifts in the scientific community, pitting Nobel
laureate against Nobel laureate in a very public spectacle. One scientist,
Dr. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University, commented that the appeals
board decision marked "the end of the sorriest chapter in American science
that I can think of."

The accusations against Dr. Imanishi-Kari arose at a time when Congress
had become impatient with the apparent inability of universities to handle
cases of scientific fraud. Dingell, who headed the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, took up the issue, treating scientists with the same
forcefulness and disdain he had used with overcharging military
contractors. He made the Imanishi-Kari affair a test case.

Although Baltimore, who is now at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, was never accused of fraud, he was drawn into the case because
he was a co-author of Dr. Imanishi-Kari's disputed paper.His standing up
to Dingell in several public confrontationswas a spectacle that both
exhilarated and terrified fellow scientists who supported him because of
Dingell's power over the scientific budget. The high profile campaign made
Baltimore vulnerable to any crack in his adamant defense, and eventually a
crack appeared.

After several reviews of the disputed paper had found nothing seriously
wrong with the disputed article, the National Institutes of Health ordered
Baltimore to publish a correction of a minor part of it, where the
information was not fully in accord with data in Dr. Imanishi-Kari's
notebook.

The question then arose whether these discrepancies were due to mere
sloppiness or something worse. At Dingell's request, the Secret Service
performed a forensic analysis of Dr. Imanishi-Kari's notebooks, concluding
that crucial data had been falsified because certain records indicated
they must have created later than Dr. Imanishi-Kari said. Baltimore's
campaign was dealt a considerable setback when this finding became known.
His supporters wavered and Baltimore, unable to step clear of festering
controversy, eventually resigned from Rockefeller University.

A second major reason for the tortuous nature of the affair lay in the
peculiar constitution of an office at the National Institutes of Health
that was set up, at Dingell's insistence, after the allegations against
Dr. Imanishi-Kari, to investigate her and other scientists accused of
misconduct. Although the office was to serve the role of prosecutor in
cases that could effectively banish scientists from their profession, it
was designed by scientists who wanted to keep lawyers and legal procedure
out of their affairs. Warnings of the hazard of excluding due process were
ignored.

"One thing we realized very quickly was that a panel of scientists doing
the investigating and adjudicating was a recipe for disaster," said Robert
Charrow, a lawyer who sat on the task force that helped establish the
office. "While scientists may be very good at doing science, they are not
very good at doing law."

Nonetheless, the office was set up in just the way he had feared, with
scientists serving dual roles as investigators and judges. But Charrow did
inadvertently give the office its title. Thinking of the ironically named
ministries in George Orwell's novel "1984," he jokingly suggested it be
called the "Office of Scientific Integrity." To his astonishment, the name
was accepted, being later changed to the Office of Research Integrity.

The first head of the Office of Scientific Integrity readily concedes that
he had no legal knowledge. "I had no idea what the legal issues were in
terms of fair play and all that. I just wasn't educated, " said Dr. Brian
Kimes, now an administrator at the National Cancer Institute, in a recent
interview.

When the office opened for business, those it investigated had no right to
see the evidence against them, to cross-examine witnesses, to bring their
own witnesses or even to get a list of the charges against them which
tended to change as the investigation wound on. There was also no right of
appeal. Kimes said he had no time to weigh the consequences of the
organization of the office because there was enormous pressure to get it
up and running.

In the Imanishi-Kari case and others, the office was also in competition
with Dingell, who was simultaneously conducting his own inquiries. "The
NIH was trying to be separate from Dingell," Kimes said. "Our leadership
wanted us to make our own independent decision. But that was almost an
impossibility. It was an atmosphere highly tinged with emotions and
politics and it was very stressful."

In March 1989, the Office of Scientific Integrity issued its draft report
on Dr. Imanishi-Kari. She was guilty, the office said, of faking data and
should be barred from receiving federal funds for 10 years.

In 1992, the Office of Scientific Integrity was reconstituted in the
Department of Health and Human Services and renamed the Office of Research
Integrity. As part of the reorganization of the office, it included an
appeals board, which would, for the first time, give the accused their day
in court. It was to this board that Dr. Imanishi-Kari appealed.

And when the board examined the forensic evidence against Dr.
Imanishi-Kari, it was not impressed. "At most these analyses identify some
possible anomalies, but provided no independent or convincing evidence
that the data or documents were not authentic or could not have been
produced during the time in question," the board said.

The tone of the board's decision is given in an aside in which it notes
that the Secret Service's own analysis contains the same sort of flaws
that the service found so suspicious in Dr. Imanishi-Kari's notebooks.
"For example," the board wrote, "although the Secret Service examiners
knew at the time of their work that they were preparing for litigation
(unlike Dr. Imanishi-Kari), their records contain alterations of the
results and omissions of important information."

The appeals board's verdict will not convince all of Baltimore's
opponents. One outspoken critic is Dr. Walter Gilbert, a Nobel laureate
and professor at Harvard University. Interviewed earlier this month,
Gilbert said he was persuaded by the Secret Service's evidence, no matter
what the appeals board might rule. "I wouldn't be convinced if they
exonerated Thereza Imanishi-Kari," he said.

Dr. Suzanne Hadley, the Office of Scientific Integrity's chief
investigator on the cases involving both Dr. Imanishi-Kari and Dr. Robert
Gallo, co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, said the office's evidence against
Dr. Imanishi-Kari and the others was damning. The ruling on the
Imanishi-Kari case, she said, was "absolutely extraordinary."

But for others, the Office of Scientific Integrity was a blight on the
face of both law and science. Dr. Bernadine Healy, a former director of
the National Institutes of Health who had insisted on formation of the
appeals board, said she was horrified by the workings of the office. "I
came full circle to thinking that an adversarial system was necessary,"
Healy said. "It had become obvious that this was a totally polluted system
where these scientists got behind closed doors and worked out their venom,
taking down their colleagues. It was a Star Chamber, a hideous travesty of
justice."

The appeals board seems to have arrived at a similar opinion, to judge by
the frequency with which it has reversed the office's findings and the
scalding language in which it has done so. Of the four cases so far
appealed, including the Imanishi-Kari case, the board has dismissed three
and upheld one. In addition, the office withdrew its case against Gallo
after the board in 1993 threw out the charges against Gallo's associate,
Dr. Mikulas Popovic.

Charrow, who is now in private practice defending scientists, said that
such a record is surprising. "Most federal agencies win most of their
cases before hearing offices in their own agencies," he said. "In most
cases, the batting average is over 70 or 80 percent," he added.

In its decision on Friday, the appeals board noted that the Office of
Research Integrity had made a "direct attack on Dr. Imanishi-Kari's
honesty" and yet "much of the evidence in the record, and in particular
some of the document examination evidence, corroborated her statements and
directly contradicted representations made by ORI."

The long case has had a heavy impact on both Dr. Imanishi-Kari and her
defender. "It was a nightmare," she said in an interview on Saturday. "It
sounds tacky, but I'm going to say it -- I felt like Joseph K," the main
character in "The Trial," a novel by Franz Kafka. Her scientific career
has been virtually on hold for the last 10 years while one committee after
another pored over her notes and the conflicting charges.

After the Office of Scientific Integrity accused her of concocting false
data in an article published in 1986, she was barred from receiving
federal research funds. Her employer, Tufts University, warned that she
would be dismissed if her appeal was not successful.

News of her vindication was of course exhilarating. She spent most of
Friday evening talking on the telephone to her family in Brazil and then
stayed up until 4 a.m. reading the appeals board's decision, triumphantly
noting that every charge against her had been thrown out. She was up again
at 7 a.m. on Saturday. "I'm so happy," she said.

The events have been grueling in a different way for her chief defender.
Baltimore, one of the leading biologists of his generation. Baltimore said
that the case had changed him. "I have never been able to forget it for 10
years, and probably for the rest of my life," he said. The victory is only
"bittersweet," since, he added, "after 10 years taken out of her life and
all the travail I've been through, I feel a sense of relief but no
accomplishment.

Kennedy noted that although Baltimore continued to do research but because
of the controversy surrounding him, he ceased to contribute to science
policy issues, like the direction of AIDS research, in which he had been a
leading figure. "We did lose his voice in a lot of influential policy
circles," Kennedy said, adding that it was "no small loss."

"A lot of people owe David an apology," he said.

For Healy, the issue now is to understand what went wrong and to make sure
that it will never happen again. With the Imanishi-Kari case added to
others that were dismissed on appeal, "A lot of professional careers were
ruined -- that's their whole life, destroyed," Healy said. And, she added,
"there was a lot of cruelty and abusive behavior tolerated in the name of
rooting out fraud."

"The ultimate truth does have a way of winning out," Healy said. But, she
said, "It took a sad long time." In fact, she said, "the fraud, the abuse,
the dishonesty was in the process." It was, she said, "the process that
was contaminated."
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 13:15:08 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Knowledge and Sources (fwd)
in-reply-to: william grey <w.grey@mailbox.uq.oz.au> "re: knowledge and sources
(fwd)" (Jun 25, 8:26am)

> There is an important difference. Fabrikant is seeking to publish material
> as a professional which is unrelated to his malfeasance. He's been found
> guilty of murder and is paying a penalty. Why should a further penalty be
> imposed?

Well, to take the other side, part of punishment includes loss of liberty, such
as being able to work your "normal" job. Thus one view is not that this is an
"further" penalty being imposed, but part of the origional penalty.




--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:18:37 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "jere h. lipps" <jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: More on Global Warming Controversy

>For what it's worth, I've just compiled a comprehensive bibliography on
>the greenhouse effect, specifically on various detractors of the theory.
>If you'd like an e-mail copy, please write to me at:
> mainper4@uga.cc.uga.edu
>
>Best,
>Richard Shedenhelm
>
>||> Richard Shedenhelm University of Georgia Libraries <||
>||> Library Technical Main Periodicals (706)-542-7460 <||
>||> Assistant Senior Periodicals Assistant <||
>||> Athens, Georgia 30602 USA <||
>||> BITNET: mainper4@uga Internet: mainper4@uga.cc.uga.edu <||
>*Editor/publisher of _Summa Philosophiae_, a monthly philosophical jn'l.*


I'd appreciate a copy. Thanks, Jere
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 13:08:21 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Depends on the situation and the opptions available:
ignore it
tell the jerk it's wrong (and maybe ask for a correction?)
tell the jerk's boss
letter to the editor, if it's published
write your own paper on the matter, with a correct analysis (after
getting your own statisitcal
consultation, if needed)
use it as a horrible example in your teaching
some combination of these and other remedies

Your question does raise a serious issue -- what should any of us do when
we see a statistical analysis that seems flawed? Authors may well not want
to provide their materials, especially for a "hostile" reanalysis, we may
not have the time or the subject matter expertise to do it right (it can be
easier to spot a problem than to fix it), publication of a reanalysis may
be difficult (expecially if the reanalysis leads to the same general
conclusion), etc. My personal inclination is to go first to the offender
with a request for a correction -- keeping it all on a collegial level. If
that doesn't work I may think about a letter to the editor if I have a
couple of days to do it properly (I find it takes me that long, but I'm not
as quick with the pen as some colleagues). But I do not want to fall into
a pattern of spending too much of my time otrying to fix other people's
problems, nor do I want to develop a reputation as a constant complainer.
So, I'm selective. This may not help, but you asked.

John


>At 09:14 24-06-1996 -0600, John Bailar wrote:-
>Next time y0ou see a statistical analysis that you
>>think is flawed, see whether it was prepared by a fully trained
>>professional statistician or by someone (possibly with other expertise) who
>>has learned some of the language and how to run some computer package. The
>>latter are dangerous.
>>
>And just what is one supposed to do when one comes across
>statistical analysis which one thinks is flawed?
>
>Ted Gerrard.
>
>


>E.C.Gerrard
>Ornithology Section
>Museu Municipal do Funchal (Historia Natural)
>Rua da Mouraria, 31
>9000 FUNCHAL, MADEIRA, PORTUGAL
>Tel.: +351-91-792591 Fax.: +351-91-225180
>e-mail egerrard@tethys.uma.pt
>WWW page: http://www.mmf.uma.pt/~egerrard/

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 05:47:25 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: william grey <w.grey@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking
in-reply-to: <199606241924.oaa21464@midway.uchicago.edu>

Some philosophers of science distinguish "context of justification" and
"context of discovery". The latter, the creative process of generating
hypotheses, is notoriously intractable and difficult to explain as a
methodical rational process -- like other products of human imagination.
Since it's too hard to say anything sensible about it, virtually all
reflection about "method" concentrates on hypothesis testing, i.e.
justification. Doing this properly certainly requires an understanding
of statistical inference and its perils.

Karl Popper is about the only contemporary philosopher to attract any
interest among scientists on the question of method (see, e.g. Peter
Medawar's 'Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought', reprinted in
_Pluto's Republic_), though I don't recall anything pertinent on
statistical inference. Perhaps that's not surprising: the problem of
getting it right here are probably more technical than philosophical.
(As an aside, for an entertaining assault on Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and
Feyerabend, the most notorious, and now all deceased, contemporary
philosophers of scientific method, see David Stove, _The Plato Cult_.)

William Grey


On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, John C. Bailar III wrote:

> Dewey McLean wrote to question my view of the scientific method. We may be
> misunderstanding each other.
>
> It is important to distinguish between the generation of hypotheses and
> their testing and evaluation. The former is critical to science, but it is
> a creative process that is in my view extra-scientific. (And of course it
> depends on knowledge of a what is already known; my point there was that
> one should not ordinarily use the same data to generate a hypothesis and to
> test it.) I think of science as focused on the second phase, of hypothesis
> testing, and indeed this seems to be in line with most of the definitions
> that I recall, which emphasize the role of the critical experiment,
> rigorous methods, unsparing self-criticism (and often the rejection of an
> appealing hypothesis), etc. I do not know of any "scientific method" that
> tells us how to be creative, though Polya and others have offered
> suggestions toward that end.
>
> Think about this in relation to Dewey's example. The theory of general
> relativity was an astonishing accomplishment, but was followed by any
> number of attempts to disprove it, or find exceptions, or otherwise modify
> it to accomodate any data that might not fit. Experts in the subject
> beileve that efforts kto show that it is wrong have been unsuccessful to
> date, but they continue, and they should. The whole apparatus of both
> experimental and observational science has been brought to bear on general
> relativity. I cannot imagine anyone putting e=m*c**2 to work in any big
> way without substantial scientific confirmation in the form of failed
> attempts to refute it.
>
> I don't want to lead us too far astray from misconduct, the theme of this
> list, but the view I expressed earlier seems critical to any redefinition
> of misconduct. I agree with John Gardenier and a lot of tohers that the
> present administrative definition is utterly inadequate, and I beileve that
> the view I proposed gets at the heart of that matter. Ask questions in
> ways that allow for some real advance in understanding, not in wayhs to
> support a predetermined conclusion. Draw up the protocols honestly, and do
> not depart from them unless you tell your readers. Be very attnetive to
> the quality of data, not just to get the best you can but to measure the
> irreducible residual uncertainty from either bias or random variation. Use
> the right "statistical" porcedures in the right way. Present results in
> ways and with explanations that will help readers to understand the real
> strengths and limitations of what you have done. Do not over-generalize
> results, whether or not there are other, conflicting reports oon the
> record. These and related matters are the core of traaining of the
> professional applied statistician, and form (oir should form) the basis of
> his or her contributions to the progress of science. Persons in other
> discipllines learn these things, too, of course, but not in the same depth
> or with the same wealth of knowledge from the whole range of sciences.
> It's a bit like mathematics, where the skills of integrating some function
> (say) are portable from chemistry to engineering to sociology to astronomy.
> similarly for the applied statisticians skills in protocol design, rooting
> out the sources and sizes of various kinds of bias, measuring and reducing
> random error, sampling, randomization, and the rest.
>
> > Do you believe that your "scientific method," which has its basis
> >in "statistical thinking," could lead to discovery of complex laws of
> >nature such as Einstein's general law of relativity?
> >
> > For complex multidisciplinary projects, how can one possibly know
> >how to choose and phrase questions in a way that can be answered by data
> >one can collect, specifying methods of analysis as well as principle
> >hypotheses BEFORE the first look at any data?
> >
> > How can one know, in advance, what data he/she CAN collect? And how
> >can one possibly know, in advance, what methods of analysis might emerge as
> >useful as the project progresses?
> >
> > Much of science is a search for laws of nature. Einstein told us
> >that "To these elementary laws there leads no logical path, but only
> >intuition, supported by being sympathetically in touch with experience."
> >Exerience would seem to imply rich knowledge of data.
> >
> > He also noted that theories into which facts were later seen to fit
> >were more likely to stand the test of time than theories constructed
> >entirely from experimental evidence.
> >
> > For your "unbiased procedures," we are all biased via guiding theory.
> >
> > For complex multidisciplinary projects, one cannot possibly ever
> >comprehend the quality of all the data. We must operate on the hope that
> >others have collected good data.
> >
> > John, if your scientific method has produced any major laws of
> >nature, could you please tell me what they were?
> >
> >Cordially,
> >Dewey
> >
>
>


> >Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
> >Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
> >Virginia Polytechnic Institute
> >Blacksburg, VA 24061
> >
> >Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
> > Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html
>
>


>
> John C. Bailar III
> Chair, Department of Health Studies
> University of Chicago MC-2007
> 5841 S. Maryland Ave.
> Chicago, IL 60637
>
> Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 14:31:37 -0700
Reply-To: satori@scn.org
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "ronald i. sato" <satori@scn.org>
Subject: Re: a decision

if they weren't subject to legal persecution than they would have
no reason to pursue legal protection. In that sense it would cer-
tainly be a better world if they didn't have to pursue legal pro-
tection.
ron
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:07:31 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: inherently statistical

When John Gardenier replied to my comment on statistical thinking he said that
"much of nature and our observation of it, is inherently statistical. Ignoring
that merely gives an illusion of certainty. For only a few examples, the follo
wing are inherently statistical: conduct of measurements at the limit of the re
solution power of a device/technique. Biomedical tests, etc. ..."
When confronted with such problems to avoid declaring verbal bankruptcy and go
ing statistics, all one need do is keep statements about one's ignorance of the
outcome and statements about the outcome separate. If I recall correctly, the
measurement problem also disoriented C. S. Peirce. But it need not; it is cle
ar where the problem is and what caused it. The problem is with the measurer b
ecause of the limits of the device; it is not with what is being measured. Mer
ely because the measurer has a problem, it does not make what is measured probl
ematic, "inherently statistical" or uncertain. Tossed coins would not disorien
t if mind statements and coin statements were kept separate. The coin can fall
either way as far as I know (mind statement). When the coin comes up tails it
could not have come up heads (coin statment). Consequently, no loser could ha
ve won and no winner could have lost. By choosing a word that, as LaPlace said
relates the known and the unknown, probabilists confound the two and conclude
not only that either player could win but that they have an equal chance of w
inning. However, that is just to say that probabilism had its origin as an att
empt to justify gambling behavior. It helps losers believe they could have won
that what was impossible was possible. Probabilism has been helpful to the ris
k business.
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:38:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: inherently statistical

Foster Lindley wrote, in part:

When confronted with such problems to avoid declaring verbal bankruptcy and
going statistics, all one need do is keep statements about one's ignorance
of
the outcome and statements about the outcome separate. If I recall
correctly,
the measurement problem also disoriented C. S. Peirce. But it need not; it
is
clear where the problem is and what caused it. The problem is with the
measurer
because of the limits of the device; it is not with what is being measured.
Merely because the measurer has a problem, it does not make what is measured
problematic, "inherently statistical" or uncertain.


I certainly agree that verbal bankruptcy is a very bad reason to use
statistics. Where measurement is uncertain, I agree that does not
necessarily mean that the object measured is uncertain. It means that the
process of measurement yields varying results for whatever reason.
Frequently, in such cases, the mean of several measurements is more
accurate and reliable than a single measurement.

In the case of clinical trials of medicine, only suitable statistical trials
can yield reliable results. Basically, one employs statistics not to
resolve the desirability of alternative statements, but to support accurate
and ethically sound decisions. If meteorologists did not need statistics,
we would have much more reliable forecasting than we do. If, needing
statistical methods, meteorologists failed to use them, we would have much
less reliable forecasting than we do.

John Gardenier
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:03:53 +0000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: neville goodman <nev.w.goodman@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: scientific honesty

--Part9606260953.B
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Sorry: I think I juse sent a blank posting. Here is what I intended:



--Part9606260953.B
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; name=sf

Before I went on holiday recently, SciFraud had gone a bit quiet, and I went away leaving the
somewhat naive comment that, though it wasn't easy to define fraud, it "sure as hell" was easy to
recognise it when I see it. I've now spent a couple of days ploughing through the amazing
upsurge of activity on this list in the last 10 days, including descriptions of fraud in AZT trials
run under the auspices of a large drug company and the US government, and the judicial
overturning of the Baltimore case.

It makes me sombre, and I repeat parts of two postings from the past few days. One is
pessimistic, Leon Mintz's <lmintz@tiac.net> quote from Barbara Ehrenreich (Time, 20 May
1991):

"If a Nobel laureate in science could sink to the moral level of a Milli Vanilli or a White House
spin doctor, then maybe the deconstructionists are right and there is no truth anywhere, only
self-interest masked as objective fact."

This is of course a generalization. There is truth; there are objective facts. But the underlying
sentiment is a deeply depressing one as I contemplate the many articles that I have read over the
years, especially on the Baltimore and the Gallo cases. (Incidentally, I note that no one asked for
an explanation about Milli Vanilli. Does that mean everyone knows about them? Or that no one
read Leon's posting? I can explain for those who remain puzzled...)

The other posting, more optimistic, was from John Bailar <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>,
who laid out a "scientist's creed" beautifully in just a few lines"

>>>>Ask questions in ways that allow for some real advance in understanding, not in ways to
support a predetermined conclusion. Draw up the protocols honestly, and do not depart from
them unless you tell your readers. Be very attentive to the quality of data, not just to get the best
you can but to measure the irreducible residual uncertainty from either bias or random variation.
Use the right "statistical" procedures in the right way. Present results in ways and with
explanations that will help readers to understand the real strengths and limitations of what you
have done. Do not over-generalize results, whether or not there are other, conflicting reports oon
the record.<<<< (John: can I make a slide of this to show in my stats lectures to trainee
anaesthetists??)

This is similar to what Richard Feynman wrote (Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman! London:
Unwin, 1985):

"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment,
you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is
right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of
that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other
fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

and

"In summary, the idea is to try to give _all_ of the information to help others to judge the value
of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction
or another."

In the last paragraph of the book he makes a wish, which sadly has not come true for too many
people, and for reasons clear within the wish:

"So I have just one wish for you - the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain
the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain
your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you
have that freedom."


Neville


Dr Neville W Goodman
Consultant Anaesthetist
Southmead Hospital
BS10 5NB UK
Nev.W.Goodman@bris.ac.uk

"There once was a brave academic
who was wont to deliver polemic
on the farce and the fraud
which most people ignored
that, alas, had become epidemic."
(AMSB of NWG, Xmas 95)



--Part9606260953.B--
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:03:28 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Anatomy of the K-T debate

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

Sociologists, philosophers, and historians of science often cannot
penetrate any more deeply into the inner social workings of science than
scientists allow them to. And often, that is not very far.

The attached letter shows aspects of the inner dynamics of the K-T
debate that most people seem unaware of. These inner workings were
fundamental to molding public perception, and "outcome," of K-T science.

Re my postings, it is not my intention to hurt or damage any
individual or organization. My postings are simply historical documents
reflecting my experience as originator of the K-T volcanic extinction
theory.

Dewey McLean

September 22, 1987


Dr. ---
Department of Earth Sciences
---
---

Dear ---:

I can only appreciate the frustration your letter to Malcolm Browne
of the New York Times expresses on the brutal intrustion of politics into
the K-T scenario. My career here at VPI, and even my personal health,
sufered terribly because of the politics. I have never told you of this
but, because of stress brought upon me by some debate opponents, all the
joints of my body became so inflamed that, for a year, I was, at times,
nearly an invalid. Perhaps, by dint of your initiative, other who have felt
the pain of intimidation will come forward, and help to again bring
integrity to scientific research.

At the Ottawa KTEC II, I was personally threatened that, if I
publicly opposed the asteroid, the same would happen to me that happened to
a physicist named Buford Price ("the scientific community had ceased paying
attention to Price"). Another admonished at the same meeting that if I
opposed them I would become the "most isolated scientist on this planet."
=46rom the many comments that have been passed back to me, they did their
best. The former is reported to have made similar threats to others--even
in the form of a letter to a prominent scientist. Threats made to shut up
scientific opposition must have been effective in some cases--some formerly
vocal opponents have fallen silent.

You note that "leadership in public matters for the
extraterrestrial community appears to have shifted to individuals such as
Dave Raup, Steve Gould, Gene Shoemaker, and Kevin Burke." Such leadership
must be held up for scrutiny, especially in the areas of "expertise," and
ethical behavior.

From their published record--the only record that can be taken as
indicative of "expertise" of a scientist in a subject--neither Raup nor
Gould is expert on the K-T geobiological record. Raup's papers completely
ignore geological and biological processes. To ignore natural earthly
processes that operated in the K-T transition is to ignore the science
necessary to understand the K-T.

I offer an example of the danger of Raup's work. Based on his
statistical manipulation of ranges of fossils, Raup (Science, 1979, vol.
206, pp. 217-218) proposed a late Permian near "complete extinction of
marine life." This egregiously preposterous conclusion shows the extreme
danger of simplistic use of statistical methods on fossil ranges done in
ignorance of the fossils themselves, or of geological processes.

Using the same statistical methods, and the same fossil ranges,
Raup now tells us that a "Death Star" is the driving force of bioevolution
on this planet!

Raup's forte, in spite of his lack of knowledge of the trans-K-T
physicochemical world, is to debase opponents in the popular press via
ridicule. Had Arthur Fischer (Mosaic, 1981, v. 12, pp. 2-10) been more
cautious, he might not have used the National Science Foundation's
publication to ridicule opponents of the asteroid via Raup's "Just So"
attack. Fisher even attacked my Pleistocene-Holocene mammalian extinction
model before the paper was published! The same applies to John Noble
Wilford (Riddle of the Dinosaurs, 1985), who also seems to have served as
Raup's foil.

On less wholesome matters, Raup nearly destroyed my career at VPI.
Working in conjunction with one of my colleagues here, Raup had convinced
the department that "McLean's research was not going anywhere." It was only
by threatening lawsuit that I got the department head to get
recommendations from other than paleobiologists. I will forever hold
gratitude to those unknown scientists who stated that my work was original,
and even opening up new areas. Except for them, I would probably not be
here now--and my work on the K-T terminated. I will provide the details on
this matter privately; it could also happen to you.

For Gould, I have not seen a single K-T paper in a refereed journal
under his name. His Discover atricle titled "Sex, drugs, and the dinosaurs"
reflected ignorance of the trans-K-T data base, as my published letter to
the editor indicated. I do not know of a single knowledgeable scientist who
considers Gould an expert on the K-T.

Gould's ethics also are worrisome. A paleobiologist, he has a
history of ridiculing classical paleontologists (living in their own little
square mile, "rescue paleontology...from the peculiar lethargy imposed by
overly cautions empiricists," etc.). He attacks the very scientists who
collect the taxonomic data that paleobiologists use in statistically
manipulating geological ranges of fossils! This seems akin to the comment
by Darlington about Darwin "he damned Lamarck and also his grandfather for
being ill-dressed fellows at the very moment that he was engaged in
stealing their clothes." Now, we find Gould damning opponents of the
asteroid.

In spite of Gould's lack of publication record on the K-T, one sees
him on a NOVA television program testifying before Congress about how an
impact plunged earth into darkness and cold--for which their is no
evidence. Is the new "leadership" not above hustling our nation's highest
law makers?

Gene Shoemaker, a friend recited to me, damaged his career so
severely that my friend could hardly find work in this country.

When the history of the K-T debate is written, some of new
leadership will bear terrible responsibility for turning the K-T debate
into a "polywater"-like pathogenic scenario.

For your comment on the "old boy routine" at Science, Raup is now
on the Editorial Board, and Gould on the Board of Reviewing Editors. Even
Pangloss might wonder if--in this best of all possible worlds--the K-T deck
is stacked somewhere.

For the objectivity of Richard Kerr, I offer this test. Make a list
of his titles over the past few years. Then ask opponents of the asteroid,
who spoke at meetings he reported on, if his reports were accurate. I told
Kerr via telephone conversation this past summer that I believed that he,
more than any other journalist, had biased public opinion toward the impact
scenario. His primary response was to giggle throughout the conversation.

Much of my work on past extinctions has been to show that climatic
warming via CO2-induced "greenhouse" conditions can be lethal on a global
scale. At NASA Langley, I recently presented the physiological mechanism
that makes any future "greenhouse" potentially the most dangerous natural
phenomenon that humanity has ever faced. To date, I have never asked a
granting agency for a single penny for my theoretical studies; I have done
it all on a small departmental budget, and out of my own pocket. To have my
work vetoed, and ridiculed, by individuals who are squandering away
millions of public dollars to feather their own nests, disgusts me.

Now, I learn from your letter that Raup--under the auspices of the
National Academy of Sciences--will sponsor a "Snowbird" II conference, but
without inviting opponents! Your comment on "manipulating science policy in
their own directions" seems all too accurate. Again, the taxpayers will
bear the burden of financing that self-promoting charade.

In closing, I share your frustration with the politics of the K-T.
They have brought me much anguish--and only because my research stands in
the way of some of the above-mentioned characters.

With your initiative, perhaps other scientists who have been
brutalized into silence will come forward. Perhaps Congress would be
willing to conduct an investigation on how millions of dollars of public
tax monies are being spent on K-T research--now emerging as one of the more
shameful episodes of science.

Is there anyone out there--anywhere--who gives a damn about ethics
and integrity anymore?

With best regards, I am

Truly yours,



Dewey McLean
Professor of Geology
=A9 1996 Dewey M. McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:29:36 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: scientific honesty

Neville -- I'd be pleased and honored if you and/or others used the quote
below. It's gravely incomplete, of course, but it might give students the
right kind of start in a scientific world that is, I fear, becoming
increasingly corrupted, not from the outside but from the inside.

John

>The other posting, more optimistic, was from John Bailar
><jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>, who laid out a "scientist's creed" beautifully
>in just a few lines"
>
>>>>>Ask questions in ways that allow for some real advance in understanding,
>>>>>not in ways to support a predetermined conclusion. Draw up the protocols
>>>>>honestly, and do not depart from them unless you tell your readers. Be
>>>>>very attentive to the quality of data, not just to get the best you can
>>>>>but to measure the irreducible residual uncertainty from either bias or
>>>>>random variation. Use the right "statistical" procedures in the right
>>>>>way. Present results in ways and with explanations that will help readers
>>>>>to understand the real strengths and limitations of what you have done.
>>>>>Do not over-generalize results, whether or not there are other,
>>>>>conflicting reports oon the record.<<<< (John: can I make a slide of
>>>>>this to show in my stats lectures to trainee anaesthetists??)

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:29:00 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Milli Vanilli

Milli Vanilli - response to Neville Goodman.

I did not remember Milli Vanilli. Barbara Ehrenreich would not mention them
today but, few years ago, they had their 15 minutes of fame (or infamy).

They were two "singers" popular in some circles. They produced few records
and gave concert performances. Then, it turned out that they could not
sing. They used other singers who did not have a name recognition to sell
their own records. Milli Vanilli were lip-syncing these records during
concerts.

After being expelled from the music world, Milli Vanilli had been hired to
fill vacant department chairs in Montreal's Concordia University.

Leon Mintz June 26, 1996.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:50:33 -0800
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "douglas c. hintz" <dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Milli Vanilli

More on Milli Vanilli: The fact that Milli Vanilli were lip-synching their
music during concerts was not what caused their fifteen minutes of fame.
Pilatus and Fabrice Morvan made up the musical duo Milli Vanilli. They were
stripped of their ''best new artist'' Grammy Award in 1990 following
revelations that they hadn't sung a note on the best-selling ''Girl, You
Know It's True'' album. The Grammy Awards are popular music's highest
honors, sort of a Nobel Prize for disco.


> Milli Vanilli - response to Neville Goodman.
>
>I did not remember Milli Vanilli. Barbara Ehrenreich would not mention them
>today but, few years ago, they had their 15 minutes of fame (or infamy).
>
>They were two "singers" popular in some circles. They produced few records
>and gave concert performances. Then, it turned out that they could not
>sing. They used other singers who did not have a name recognition to sell
>their own records. Milli Vanilli were lip-syncing these records during
>concerts.
>
>After being expelled from the music world, Milli Vanilli had been hired to
>fill vacant department chairs in Montreal's Concordia University.
>
>Leon Mintz June 26, 1996.
>
Douglas C. Hintz 68 PLC Hall
Mathematics Instructor University of Oregon
Academic Learning Services Eugene, Oregon 97403
dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu phone:541-346-3226
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:15:19 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: Milli Vanilli
in-reply-to: <01i6czvdilgi8zfq16@oregon.uoregon.edu>

On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Douglas C. Hintz wrote:

> More on Milli Vanilli: The fact that Milli Vanilli were lip-synching their
> music during concerts was not what caused their fifteen minutes of fame.
> Pilatus and Fabrice Morvan made up the musical duo Milli Vanilli. They were
> stripped of their ''best new artist'' Grammy Award in 1990 following
> revelations that they hadn't sung a note on the best-selling ''Girl, You
> Know It's True'' album. The Grammy Awards are popular music's highest
> honors, sort of a Nobel Prize for disco.
>

Many scientists earn a substantial living and a good deal of fame, while
never touching a test tube. Their techs, postdocs, and graduate students
do all the work and, I strongly suspect, a majority of the thinking. The
senior guy's contribution appears to be getting the money, but I've seen
cases where the post docs even write the grants.

Is this scientific lip-synching, and if it is, should we conclude the
recording industry more ethical than science?

Ray Gibbons Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics
Univ. of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu (802) 656-8910
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:35:39 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: Statistical thinking

John Gardenier stated that, "If meteorologists did not need statistics, we woul
d have much more reliable forecasting than we do. If, needing statistical meth
ods, meteorologists failed to use them, we would have much less reliable foreca
sting than we do."
In one sense, a sense I am sure John Gardenier did not intend, meteorologists
needed statistical methods for reliable forecasting. Since probability predic
tions are compatible with all weather states, they are always right, and no one
can improve on that. However, if in addition to talking probabilistically, me
teorologists think probabilistically, all is lost. If for career reasons they
never want to admit to ignorance or error, that is one thing. However, if they
actually believe that the weather is "inherently statistical," they have no mi
stakes from which to learn. If, at this late date, meteorologists outlined the
ir problems without claiming that the weather was problematic, I do not know if
the public could adjust to their candor.
Of course, they could have been forthcoming all along. They could have dist
inguished between what they did and did not know, foregoing all talk of chances
and probabilities. We could have seen their knowledge grow as their questions
narrowed.

Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
The University of Connecticut
32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268
860 429-2484
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:42:15 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Updates From Nature

Updates From Nature

Here are two reports of interest to members of this board.
Both derive from a single page in the latest issue of Nature
received here, that of 20 June. The first concerns the hostile
reception given the Ryan report and the second, the IPCC flap,
the charges of Frederick Seitz originally made in The Wall
Street Journal.

The two articles are reproduced in their entirety.

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

\Wadman, Meredith. "Hostile Reception to US
Misconduct Report," Nature 381 (20 June 1996), p.
639.\

Washington. An internal panel this week advised Donna
Shalala, the Secretary of the US Department of Health
and Human Services (DHSS), to adopt most of the
recommendations of a controversial report on
scientific misconduct, over the protestations of dozens
of scientific groups, including, most recently,
members of the advisory t board to the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) director, Harold Varmus.

The DHHS panel was charged with recommending to
Shalala how to implement the report of the Commission
on Research Integrity (CRI). The report was mandated by
a 1993 law and released last November by the CRI, a 12-
member panel of nongovernment scientists, ethicists and
lawyers. If adopted, the recommendations would apply to
thousands of scientists receiving funds from NIH and
other government agencies.

In presenting his panel's 35-page assessment of
the CRI report Varmus's advisory board last Monday, 17
June, William Raub, the head of the panel, said the
report "has much to commend it". Many of its
recommendations, he said, "would have a positive
effect" on research integrity.

The panel's recommendations have been sent to
Shalala, who has final authority over whether and how
to adopt them. It is not known when she will announce a
decision.

The chairman of CRI, Kenneth Ryan, an emeritus
professor of obstetrics, gynaecology and reproductive
biology at Harvard Medical School, called the panel's
product "a fair hearing" and "an appropriate way to
go".

The Raub panel deferred judgement on three of the
CRl's 33 recommendations -- two of them the most
controversial. Of the latter, the first concerns
definitions. The current law governing NIH and many
other government grant recipients defines scientific
misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism"
or other practices that "seriously deviate" from
scientific community norms. The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) uses a similar definition. The CRI
replaces these words with "misappropriation,
interference and misrepresentation", a definition that
critics have called vague and too broad.

The Raub panel said that, because of the
"decidedly negative tenor" of reaction to the proposed
definition, Shalala should make an official request for
comment on the definition before making a decision.
This request, however, should be delayed to coordinate
with the timetable of a working group of the National
Science and Technology Council, which is developing a
government-wide definition of scientific misconduct.

The other controversial recommendation is a
'whistle-blower's bill of rights'. The Raub panel says
that the CRI report, while it evidently "envisioned a
judicious balance", creates "a strong initial
impression that the Commission was more attentive to
rights of whistle-blowers and the responsibilities of
other parties" than vice versa.

Nonetheless, it says, regulations protecting
whistle-blowers must, under the 1993 law, be
established by Shalala, and the CRI's report should be
taken into consideration by the NIH office now charged
with developing them, the Office of Research Integrity.

At last Monday's meeting, several members of
Varmus's advisory board protested. 'This {CRI} report
is a disaster" and would create an "extremely
destructive" atmosphere, said Marc Kirschner, chair of
the department of cell biology at Harvard Medical
School, who also complained that the CRI contained no
"distinguished" scientists.

Paul Marks, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center, insisted that watchfulness over
integrity "has to be at the institutional level" and
cannot be imposed by government. The president of NAS,
Bruce Alberts, who also spoke to the NIH group, said
the CRI report would be "very disruptive" if adopted,
in part because of the intrusive federal bureaucracy
involved.

Ryan, CRI chairman, retorted later that he has
heard these arguments before, and that the fact that
little has changed since a 1992 NAS report on
scientific misconduct justifies his committee's
suggestions.

The Raub panel rejected four of the CRI
recommendations: a requirement that the investigation
of misconduct complaints and their adjudication be
carried out by separate bodies; a mechanism to review
the department's enforcement of misconduct laws; a
requirement that the results of misconduct cases be
widely disclosed, including the names of accused
scientists who have been exonerated; and a requirement
that intramural NIH programmes deliver the same
assurances and annual reports on misconduct as
extramural institutions now have to.

It accepted, however, another controversial
proposal requiring institutions to run an educational
programme on responsible research conduct and to ensure
that all grant recipients attend it.

+++++++++

\Masood, Ehsan. "Sparks Fly Over Climate Report,"
Nature 381 (20 June 1996), p. 639.\

London. Controversy about the rewriting of a key
chapter in a United Nations climate change report
erupted into open hostility last week when a former
president of the US National Academy of Sciences
suggested that the rewrite amounted to a disturbing
corruption of the peer review process".

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Frederick K.
Seitz, a physicist who is a past chairman of the
advisory board of the Strategic Defense Initiative and
now president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a
conservative science policy organization, attacked the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Seitz repeated claims made last week by the Global
Climate Coalition (GCC), an industry lobby group, in a
letter circulated to congressmen and the White House,
that the authors had no right to modify the text, which
had been agreed after two rounds of government and
expert peer review (see Nature 381, 546;1996).

But he went further by suggesting that the
authors' actions, =FEwhatever the intent", effectively
deceived both policy-makers and public into believing
that science blamed human activities for global
warming. Seitz added that the best course of action
would now be to "abandon the entire IPCC process".

The IPCC immediately fired off a reply to the
newspaper. Its officials say that Seitz did not once
contact the IPCC to get =FEboth sides of the story", but
simply rehashed arguments put forward by the GCC.
Meanwhile, 40 authors and contributors to the IPCC
report have written separately to the Wall Street
Journal defending the IPCC and Ben Santer, an
atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California who acted as the
'lead author' of chapter eight, from charges of acting
improperly.

Santer and his co-authors continue to argue that
the changes improve the =FEscientific clarity=FE of the
chapter and that the conclusion -- suggesting evidence
for a =FEdiscernible human influence on global climate=FE
-- remains unchanged from both the draft and the
final, published text.

But the GCC remains unconvinced. John Shlaes,
executive director of the GCC, says the authors altered
the science of the report and removed an entire
summary, resulting in undue emphasis on a human role in
global warming.

Santer says the IPCC rules of procedure state that
full reports -- as opposed to summaries -- do not need
to be approved in detail", implying that late
modifications by lead authors are allowed. He argues
that this view was endorsed by the State Department,
which, in a letter to the IPCC dated 15 November 1995,
said: =FEIn keeping with past practice in working group
I, it is essential that the chapters not be finalized
prior to completion of discussions at the IPCC working
group I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors...
modify the text in an appropriate manner following
discussion in Madrid.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:37:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: Statistical thinking

Foster Lindley wrote in part:

In one sense, a sense I am sure John Gardenier did not intend,
meteorologists needed statistical methods for reliable forecasting. Since
probability
predictions are compatible with all weather states, they are always right,
and no
one can improve on that.
----
Here is where our disagreement becomes quite serious. Specific probability
predictions are NOT compatible with all weather states. For example, when
instruments show no clouds or thermal gradients in a vicinity in the
morning, that is not compatible with forecasting a 60 percent chance of
local afternoon showers. The fact is that there are ample records of the
states and dynamics of weather systems as observed by instruments while they
approach a local area. Associated with them are varying frequencies of
local weather a few hours (or days) later. Expressing the distribution of
chances of rain based on statistical analysis of historically similar
situations is more accurate than alternative available forecasting methods.
Of course, the better our understanding of determining factors affecting
local weather, the better our record-keeping and the lower the statistical
error bounds we are forced to live with.

It is all very well to argue that any specific pattern of weather, once
completed, can be explained by deterministic dynamics. Personally, I doubt
that is true, but it is arguable. One can argue that statistical
interpretation of weather situations is only appropriate to the extent that
the state of our meteorological knowledge is deficient. Ok. What would not
be tenable would be a claim that statistical methods are irrelevant to the
accuracy of weather forecasts. I wonder if Foster Lindley wants to try to
push it that far.

John Gardenier
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:18:50 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical thinking

The note below troubles me because it shows a too-common misconception
about statistics. In the present context, a probablity statement is much
more, and much more valuable, than an expression of ignorance. Consider
all the days the meteorologist says the chance of rain is 10%. On those
days,see how many had rain. If the number is not close to 10% the
meteorologist has gone seriously wrong. Repeat for 20%, 30%, etc.

Next, note that the goal of the meteorologist (with extensions to any othe
forecasting effort) should be to subdivide and regroup the data so as to
obtain maximum resolution, in that the "20% group" is composed of only
those days where 20% is the best the meteorologist can do. It's no good
taking (for example) equal numbers of 10% days and 30% days and mixing them
to get the 20% -- those days should be classified as 10% and 30%. (There
are technical definitions of this in terms of minimizing least squares.)

And such information can be extremely useful. For a trivial example, think
of the hot dog vendor at the baseball park. He wants to sell a lot of hot
dogs, but if the game is cancelled he is stuck with a total loss of his raw
materials. It might make a lot of difference for him to know whether the
chance of rain is 10% (buy the dogs and buns and hope for the best, knowing
that there is a 10% chance of loss and 90% of earning a day's profits) vs.
a 90% chance of rain (stay home, put the feet up, and watch somebody else's
game on TV, knowing that he is sitting out on a 90% chance of a total loss
and a 10% chance of missing a day's profits). Somewhere, then, between 10%
and 90% is a crossover point,where the vendor thinks the risk begins to
outweigh the potential benefit. the vendor can pick and interpret that
point for himself if he has the best available information on the
probability of rain.

Note that in an unhappy extreme of ignorance, the meteorologist may know
only that there is rain on about 73 days per year. Then the best estimate
for any day, whatever the observed conditions, is 73/365 = 20%, and the
meteorologist will find a 20% chance of rain every day, day after day.
Where does that leave our vendor? Depends on his cutoff point -- he will
either take his chances every day, and lose out on 20% of them, or he will
never take the chance and will go into some other line of work. Much
better for him to base his business decisions on the 10%, 20%, etc.

John

>John Gardenier stated that, "If meteorologists did not need statistics, we woul
>d have much more reliable forecasting than we do. If, needing statistical meth
>ods, meteorologists failed to use them, we would have much less reliable foreca
>sting than we do."
> In one sense, a sense I am sure John Gardenier did not intend, meteorologists
> needed statistical methods for reliable forecasting. Since probability predic
>tions are compatible with all weather states, they are always right, and no one
> can improve on that. However, if in addition to talking probabilistically, me
>teorologists think probabilistically, all is lost. If for career reasons they
>never want to admit to ignorance or error, that is one thing. However, if they
> actually believe that the weather is "inherently statistical," they have no mi
>stakes from which to learn. If, at this late date, meteorologists outlined the
>ir problems without claiming that the weather was problematic, I do not know if
> the public could adjust to their candor.
> Of course, they could have been forthcoming all along. They could have dist
>inguished between what they did and did not know, foregoing all talk of chances
> and probabilities. We could have seen their knowledge grow as their questions
>narrowed.

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:21:34 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: william grey <w.grey@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Knowledge and Sources (fwd)
in-reply-to: <9606251315.zm5741@libra.usno.navy.mil>

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Gregory Hennessy wrote:

> > There is an important difference. Fabrikant is seeking to publish material
> > as a professional which is unrelated to his malfeasance. He's been found
> > guilty of murder and is paying a penalty. Why should a further penalty be
> > imposed?
>
> Well, to take the other side, part of punishment includes loss of liberty, such
> as being able to work your "normal" job. Thus one view is not that this is an
> "further" penalty being imposed, but part of the origional penalty.

Where you stand on this will depend on your view about the point of
punishment. Punishment I take to be the infliction of some pain or
privation for a misdeed. Incarceration deprives transgressors of freedom
of movement and freedom of association. This typically entails loss of
"normal" means of livelihood. I take that to be an accidental or
contingent feature of its primary purpose. Some people may take a more
severe (even salivating) view of punishment -- the point is to make the
bastards suffer. Why not lock them up and prevent all forms of
communication? Put them in solitary? Drug them up and stop them from
thinking at all? This of course wasn't part of the suggestion, but where
do you draw the line about which activities are essential ingredients of
one's "normal" job which one is no longer entitled to pursue? Loss of
liberty cannot plausibly be construed as the loss of the right to
exercise every capacity used in one's "normal" job.

Suppose someone was a professional writer. Would you want punishment to
involve deprivation of the opportunity to write? I would not -- with the
exception of preventing them from writing for profit about their
malfeasance. Restrictions which go beyond incarceration seem to me just
too draconian -- cruel, degrading, unnatural. I say let Fabrikant think,
write, communicate, and publish. Those who find the existence of his
papers offensive don't have to read them.

William Grey
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 18:57:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: FW: scientific honesty

Accidently sent to owner-scifraud; reported to the actual list.


from: gardenier, john s.
To: owner-scifraud
Subject: RE: scientific honesty
Date: Wednesday, June 26, 1996 6:33PM

Neville Goodman praised John Bailar's concise statement about honest
admission of possible problems with a scientific conclusion and noted
similar remarks by Richard Feynman. Agreeing, that post reminded me that W.
Edwards Deming had always emphasized the same concept. Checking my files,
I found his "Principles of Professional Statistical Practice" from The
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 36, No. 6, December, 1965, p. 1893.

The following excerpts appear In a description of the contents required in a
statistical report or testimony. The same type of thinking (but not all the
same detail) applies to any scientific report.

"d. evaluation of the margin of uncertainty, for a specified probability
level, attributable to random errors of various kinds, including the
uncertainty introduced by sampling, and by small independent random
variations in judgment, instruments, coding, transcription, and other
processing;
e. evaluation of the possible effects of other relevant sources of
variation, examples being differences between investigators, between
instruments, between days, between areas;
f. effect of persistent drift and conditioning of instruments and of
investigators; changes in technique;
g. nonresponse and illegible or missing entries;
h. failure to select sampling units according to the procedure described;
i. failure to reach and to cover sampling units that were designated in the
sampling table;
j. inclusion of sampling units not designated for the sample but
nevertheless covered and included in the results;
k. any other important slips and departures from the procedure prescribed;
l. comparisons with other studies, if any are relevant."

{The report } "should present any information that might help the reader to
form his own opinion concerning the validity of conclusions likely to be
drawn from the results.

" The aim of a statistical report is to protect the client from seeing
merely what he would like to see; to protect him from losses that could come
from misuse of the results. A further aim is to forestall unwarranted
claims of accuracy that the client's public might otherwise accept."

As desirable as absolute honesty is in science, it can only be achieved with
uncompromising integrity and intense effort.

John Gardenier
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:18:48 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Anatomy of the K-T debate

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

My 6/26/96 "Anatomy of the K-T debate" posting stated that
"Sociologists, philosophers, and historians of science often cannot
penetrate any more deeply into the inner social workings of science than
scientists allow them to. And often, that is not very far."

Sometimes, historians, themselves, influence how deeply other
historians see into the inner workings of science.

William Glen is the so-called "official historian" of the K-T. He
spent years interviewing scientists from many fields. He has published one
book on the topic and, apparently, has a larger book in the works.

Will Glen's book be an objective history of the K-T debate?

Attached please find my 6/19/91 letter to Glen on a meeting he
organized for the 1991 Biannual Meeting of the International Society for
the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology. Glen notes that
this meeting will be the "first that brings together the debating
scientists with historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science...."

I imagine that historians, philosophers, and sociologists who
attended that meeting left with the feeling that the Alvarez asteroid was
the story of the K-T extinctions. How could it be otherwise?

Glen's meeting included top impactors such as Raup, but completely
excluded the volcanists who had carried the volcano side of the debate.

Cordially,
Dewey McLean


June 19, 1991


Dr. William Glen
U. S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road, MS 930
Menlo Park, CA 94025

Dear Dr. Glen:

I learned in EOS (June 11, 1991) about the "Mass Extinction
Debates" session that you have organized for the Biannual Meeting of the
International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of
Biology (Northwestern University, July 12). One might argue that you have
stacked the deck to favor the Alvarez asteroid impact theory against
volcanic influence in the K-T extinctions. The K-T debate has seen a sordid
intrusion of politics into science in which the Alvarez group, and
supporters, have: (1) have attempted to shut down the K-T extinction
debate prematurely (see my 6/1/88 letters to Luis Alvarez); (2) attempted
to bully opponents into silence; (3) threatened, and damaged, careers of
opponents; (4) publicly and personally attacked the credibility of
opponents of the Alvarez asteroid (Raup, Mosaic, 1981, v. 12, pp. 2-10,
etc.; Alvarez, New York Times, 1/19/88); (5) promoted the Alvarez asteroid,
and demoted volcanism, in Science magazine (see my 11/15/89 letter to
Science editor, Koshland); and (6) seemingly set up conferences stacking
the deck to favor the asteroid impact theory (Snowbird II, in the words of
some participants). Now, you seem to continue point (6). I had hoped that
the book you are writing on the K-T debate would present a fair and
balanced portrayal of the K-T debate but, frankly, I now doubt it.

You note that the K-T impact theory has all but displaced earlier
theories of extinction, except that of massive volcanism, and that your
session will be the "first that brings together the debating scientists
with historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science..." Your
speakers presented in EOS include asteroid-impact principals such as
McLaren, Hsu, and Raup. However, you have completely excluded principals
who have carried the volcano side of the K-T debate over the past decade.
This stacking the deck will misinform the historians of science in ways to
perpetuate the incorrect public perception of the status of K-T research,
much as Richard Kerr, staff writer at Science, seems to have done for the
past decade (my 11/15/89 letter to Science editor, Koshland). Now, one
might argue that you are following suit.

It is not so important whether an asteroid did, or did not, strike
earth 66 million years ago, causing the K-T extinctions. Given the fair
opportunity, we scientists would sort that out over the years. In fact, in
my 1/16/90 letter to Tom Ahrens (enclosed), I suggest that we consider a
combination asteroid-volcano extinction model. However, the political
climate that we volcano theorists have had to work in has been terrible,
and debilitating, and has been created in some large measure by
journalistic types seemingly out to influence the outcome of scientific
debate.

Surely, you will question my credibility for challenging your
methodology in presenting the K-T debate to historians, etc., and I offer
these points. I have been one of the top principals in the K-T extinction
debate since the 1970s--before the Alvarez asteroid theory was proposed. I
originated the concept of a K-T "greenhouse," the first paper ever written
indicating that greenhouse conditions can trigger global extinctions
(Science, 1978); did the first works linking the Deccan Traps volcanism to
a K-T CO2 degassing-induced pertur bation of earth's carbon cycle, and
extinctions; have studied climate-embryogenesis dysfunction couplings of
the Pleistocene-Holocene mammalian extinctions of 11,000 years ago; and
have isolated out a greenhouse physiological killing mechanism (on which I
was requested to testify at a recent Senate Hearing in Washington, DC). For
several years, before Officer and Drake entered the K-T, I carried the
volcano side alone (KTEC II, Snowbird I, AAAS 1982 K-T extinctions
symposium, etc.), taking some political heat that nearly wrecked my
career. Details are spelled out in my 6/21/89 letter to Officer, an excerpt
of which I have provided to the House Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, which I hope might inquire into K-T debate politics that, I
believe, have misled the public and scientific communities on the true
status of K-T research. So that you can more accurately allow the
historians to "observe the workings of science that may be hidden from
view," I offer some comments on the politics we volcanists have had to
contend with.

Early in the debate, one of your speakers, David Raup, used the
National Science Foundation's Mosaic, (1981, v. 12, pp. 2-10) to attack
asteroid opponents as "Just So." We found ourselves isolated in a special
blue-outlined box titled "Just So" which noted that our theories rely on
"unlikely phenomena...and that we abide in lofty isolation." That
irresponsible attack via the influential National Science Foundation's
Mosaic occurred before the first Snowbird meeting where I presented the
sole volcanic opposition to the Alvarez asteroid. As noted by comments I
received at Snowbird ("Just So," and "bad scientist," even before I gave my
talk) those politics hurt my K-T greenhouse credibility. Even worse, my
greenhouse physiological killing mechanism was damaged even before the
paper was published! Imagine, I have isolated out a greenhouse
physiological killing mechanism that, I believe, has operated in global
extinctions during ancient greenhouses, and one that can only operate to
make a modern greenhouse more dangerous to mammals than has been realized,
and our National Science Foundation, via Raup, tells the world that my work
is "Just So." My work has been meant to be helpful to a civilization facing
a potential greenhouse. That I could be the brunt of such political action
was most demoralizing. Raup's arrogant, and irresponsible, "Just So" attack
appeared again in John Noble Wilford's book The Riddle of the Dinosaurs
(1985). What transpired behind the scenes was even more damaging.
Incidentally, a major K-T carbon cycle perturbation has been confirmed, as
have evidences of K-T transition climatic warming, just as I had theorized
a decade ago.

In creating a demoralizing climate for those of us trying to
understand the role of volcanism on the chemistry of earth's atmosphere and
oceans, and bioevolution and extinctions, I believe, based on his published
record, that Richard Kerr, Science staff writer has been the primary
journalistic influence. For a decade, Kerr has promoted the Alvarez
asteroid, and demoted volcanism in the K-T extinctions (my 11/15/89 letter
to Science editor, Koshland). Kerr wrongly reduces volcanists to the
insignificance of a "tiny minority" (Science, 1988, v. 242, pp. 865-867),
and has misled the public by publishing that "Scientists have at last
concluded a 10-year debate"... and "the evidence is solidly on the side of
an asteroid" (Washington Post, 5/7/89). One might think that the Science
editorship would scrupulously ensure that the 132,000 members of the AAAS,
who pay about 11 million dollars per year membership dues, receive a fair,
balanced, and accurate portrayal of one of the great debates in science in
Science magazine.

Political and personal attacks by Nobel laureate Luis Alvarez on
his opponents for a decade (finally exposed in the New York Times, 1/19/88)
were devastating. At the KTEC II meeting, where I debated Luis Alvarez and
his team for two days, Alvarez threatened my career if I opposed the
asteroid, citing the example of a Buford Price who had opposed him (I was
not alone; Alvarez threatened the careers of, and intimidated, others).
Alvarez was after several hundred million dollars to set up a "Spacewatch"
project (Washington Post, 2/12/ 81). My K-T Deccan Traps
volcanism/"greenhouse" was in the way of his asteroid/"impact winter."
After damaging me, Alvarez later used me as an example to intimidate
others. His 1/4/84 letter to a prominent scientist notes that "Dewey McLean
is a forgotten scientist in the field, or when he is remembered, it is only
for a few good laughs, at the cocktail party at the end of the Deweyless
meeting." Also, "I'm sorry to see you going down the Dewey McLean lane."
and "unless you really want to emulate Dewey." Luis Alvarez, and some of
his paleobiological supporters, nearly wrecked my career here at Va Tech
(see my 6/1/88 letters to Alvarez). After 1984-1985, I had been so
traumatized by K-T politics that I found it emotionally difficult to work
on the K-T, a field in which I had pioneered considerable original science
that, incidentally, has been taken up by other scientists. That was one
reason that I did not attend Snowbird II.

A famous scientist once noted that science is self correcting.
However, the K-T debate has been so politicized, and its public status so
influenced by some members of the National Academy of Sciences and their
supporters that it will likely take an event on the scale of a
congressional inquiry to clarify its actual status. Arrogant and powerful
scientists "on the make" will no more police themselves than will Mafiosi.
The K-T could emerge as a prime example that science requires oversight by
higher authority. Efraim Racker (Nature, 1989, v. 3, pp. 91-93) noted that
"there is little to gain and a great deal to lose by involving Congress in
scientific fraud." As the K-T demonstrates, scientists require a higher
authority to appeal to when wrong needs correcting. We don't have that
ability now.

On the other hand, the courage, integrity, and determination of
Congressman John Dingell in the Imanishi-Kari scientific misconduct affair
is encouraging. Possible misconduct in the K-T debate could dwarf that
incident.

Sincerely yours,





Dewey M. McLean
Professor, and Director of Earth Systems and Biosphere Evolution Studies



Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 08:26:27 -0800
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "douglas c. hintz" <dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Subject: name inflation

Dear Scifraud: There are have been postings in the past about grade
inflation (giving unearned grades to students, not failing students, etc.)
On a related note, here in Oregon, there is a proposal to rename several
satellite institutions in the state system of higher educaton. For example,
Eastern Oregon State College wants to be called Eastern Oregon University.
These colleges (which do a great job in undergraduate education) offer a few
master's programs, do not offer doctoral programs, do little research, and
are more narrowly focused than the state's public universities. The
rationale for the change is that "other states are doing it" and enrollment
is down because students want a diploma from a University rather than a
College.
Douglas C. Hintz 68 PLC Hall
Mathematics Instructor University of Oregon
Academic Learning Services Eugene, Oregon 97403
dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu phone:541-346-3226
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:18:47 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Sure, and the "janitor" has become the "sanitary engineer'.
The "secretary" has become the"executive assistant".
The "kid at the gas pump" has beconme "service technician".
Princess Di wants to remain a princess despite a change in marital status.

And so on. Everyone wants a grand title. But isn't grandeur the point of
titles? I believe that it was Winston Churchill who noted that a title
such as "Your Squalidity" might be accurate but would simply not fill the
bill. The pressure is often irresistable, so those who feel that they are
even grander than the rest have to upgrade their own titles. And we have
the title inflation that Douglas Hintz mentioned. So the universities will
have to move up, too. What's next? Maybe the Galaxity? The Cosmosity?
Technically not as universal as the University, but new, and perhaps
unfamiliar enough to fool the ignorant or unwary.

John

>Dear Scifraud: There are have been postings in the past about grade
>inflation (giving unearned grades to students, not failing students, etc.)
>On a related note, here in Oregon, there is a proposal to rename several
>satellite institutions in the state system of higher educaton. For example,
>Eastern Oregon State College wants to be called Eastern Oregon University.
>These colleges (which do a great job in undergraduate education) offer a few
>master's programs, do not offer doctoral programs, do little research, and
>are more narrowly focused than the state's public universities. The
>rationale for the change is that "other states are doing it" and enrollment
>is down because students want a diploma from a University rather than a
>College.
>Douglas C. Hintz 68 PLC Hall
>Mathematics Instructor University of Oregon
>Academic Learning Services Eugene, Oregon 97403
>dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu phone:541-346-3226
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:43:36 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <01i6eb8hduwy8zh4n5@oregon.uoregon.edu>

Douglas:

Please forgive me for being obtuse, but "What's your point, or question?"

Jim Shea
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:37:22 -0800
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "douglas c. hintz" <dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

>Douglas:
>
> Please forgive me for being obtuse, but "What's your point, or
question?"
>
>Jim Shea
>

Dear James: There have been postings on this list recently about grade
inflation, curriculum vita inflation, etc. I read an article in my local
paper today that I thought was in a similar vein and simply posted it for
information purposes. That was my only point and purpose.
Douglas C. Hintz 68 PLC Hall
Mathematics Instructor University of Oregon
Academic Learning Services Eugene, Oregon 97403
dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu phone:541-346-3226
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:25:56 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <01i6edpenttu8zgq1d@oregon.uoregon.edu>

Colleagues:

The phenomenon that Douglas Hintz described as happening now in
Oregon, happened many years ago in Wisconsin. All the old "Normal"
schools, that is, teacher-training schools, became "Wisconsin State
Colleges", then later they became "Wisconsin State Universities", then
they became "University of Wisconsin - X". However, I don't believe it
was because of student pressures. It happened because of pressure from
faculties and administrators who wanted to be employed at a "university".

As Forest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does!"

Jim Shea
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:14:35 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

To Douglas Hintz:

A decade or so ago, Paul Fussell published a wildly funny book
entitled CLASS. In it there is a fitting send-up of educational
Name Inflation, including his profound explanation of why former
teacher-academies (also known, in the Dark Ages, as "Normal
Schools") have now been renamed Universities. It is that
University has more syllables than College. There are other,
excellent examples of the phenomenon in the book, including, if I
recall rightly, a discussion of the speech habits of General
Haig, then a top man in the Reagan administration.

PRG
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:08:27 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: Statistical methods

Regarding John C Bailar III posting: I was not recommending that statements adm
itting complete ignorance be substituted for a probability statement. i recomm
ended that expressions stating what is known and not known be substituted for a
probability statement. No probem with the meteorologist saying: "I do not kno
w if it will rain today. On similar days it rains about 10% of the time." Unq
uestionably meteorologists have a lot of helpful information about the weather,
provided they state both what they do and do not know. They need only separat
e mind statements from weather statements.
Regarding John Gardenier's posting: 'The probability of rain today is n/m' i
s compatible with rain and no rain, regardless of the values given to the ratio
. Probabilists do not make errors. If they said the probability was 10% and f
or the next 100, similar days it would rain 40% of the time they would still no
t be in error. It may not be approved by right-thinking statisticians, but it
is not an error. To be in error they would have to say that for the next 100,
similar days it would not rain 40% of the time. Errors require unqualified cla
uses.
John Gardenier states: "It is all very well to argue that any specific patter
n of weather, once completed, can be explained by deterministic dynamics. Pers
onally, I doubt that is true, but it is arguable." I would not be surprised but
what this is where John and I disagree. The doubt is consistent with the clai
m that meteorology is "inherently statistical."
I realize that both John Bailar and John Gardenier believe that I simply mis
understand what probability is all about. John Bailar says that my misundersta
nding is common. Yet why is it so common? Why are there so many things that
the layman must guard against, including bad statistics and bad statisticians?
Why do statisticians, nanny-like, feel they must "protect the client from
seeing merely what {the client} would like to see, to protect {the client} fro
m losses that could come from misuse of the results?" Why are probabilists so
fearful they will be misunderstood unless they are frequently misunderstood? I
f probabilists are so frequently misunderstood is it not time to consider wheth
er they are being forthcoming and candid?
Back of the probabilistic expressions there is a mind somewhere, a mind
convinced of some things, but ignorant of others. Yet that mind is so difficul
t to find.

Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
The University of Connecticut
32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268
860 429-2484
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 19:17:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

This is my last posting for about two weeks, which will lower the
statistical frequency of debates with Foster Lindley on "probabilism" -
probably. Today, he wrote, in part:

> Why do statisticians, nanny-like, feel they must "protect the client from
seeing merely what {the client} would like to see, to protect {the client}
from losses that could come from misuse of the results?" Why are
probabilists so
fearful they will be misunderstood unless they are frequently misunderstood?

If probabilists are so frequently misunderstood is it not time to consider
whether they are being forthcoming and candid?

Back of the probabilistic expressions there is a mind somewhere, a mind
convinced of some things, but ignorant of others. Yet that mind is so
difficult to find.<

I see nothing particular to statisticians here. The comments are applicable
to all forms of science. The answer to why clients, statisticians, or
scientists in general need protection from seeing what we would like to see
is, simply: because we always want something from the research. For
industrialists, it is some evidence that they can make a lot of money; for
scientists, it is often evidence that they have made a breakthrough in their
field - perhaps of Nobel prize stature. Human beings are terribly prone to
self-delusion. Sound scientists, Feynman for example, urge extreme
skepticism about theories and experimental results. Philosopher Karl Popper
urged a complex philosophy of "critical rationalism" in which all knowledge
must constantly be open to question and criticism.

Scientists in general (and certainly philosophers) are frequently
misunderstood. Is it not time to consider whether they are being
forthcoming and candid? The problem with Prof. Lindley's tempting
suggestion is that we do not firmly know where the boundaries of our
knowledge are; we are unable to define them precisely. Furthermore, since
scientific knowledge is an interaction between reality and the observer, the
knowledge boundary is individualistic. In contrast, science is a search for
truths that transcend observer differences.

Our lack of ability to make certain distinctions is mitigated by being able
to make (and confirm) probabilistic statements about them. If Prof. Lindley
finds this mitigation distasteful, so be it. It is widely useful in a
practical sense. I believe most scientists are more pragmatists than
adherents of what may be claimed to be "more sophisticated" philosophies.

John Gardenier
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:30:09 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <01i6eb8hduwy8zh4n5@oregon.uoregon.edu>

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Douglas C. Hintz wrote:

> Dear Scifraud: There are have been postings in the past about grade
> inflation (giving unearned grades to students, not failing students, etc.)
> On a related note, here in Oregon, there is a proposal to rename several
> satellite institutions in the state system of higher educaton. For example,
> Eastern Oregon State College wants to be called Eastern Oregon University.
> These colleges (which do a great job in undergraduate education) offer a few
> master's programs, do not offer doctoral programs, do little research, and
> are more narrowly focused than the state's public universities. The
> rationale for the change is that "other states are doing it" and enrollment
> is down because students want a diploma from a University rather than a
> College.

My, my! It *does* take these things a while to work their way across the
country. New York State did this years ago, creating a state-wide system.
Pennsylvania did it, oh, about 15 years ago, with its 15 state controlled
institutions, only two of which were called universities then (Indiana and
Bloomsburg). At the time I cynically predicted the expected
consequences, in an informal publication I edited at the time (The
Vector, Vol 7, #1, May, 1983:

On July 1, by act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, this college and all
the other Pennsylvania state colleges, will immediately ascent to
university status. All will be a part of a statewide university system.
"This will be a momentous event (it will happen in a brief moment). Some
have wondered how to properly commemorate this. Our head librarian
suggests we observe a moment of silent meditation. But, never fear, this
change of status and change of name won't be that traumatic. Why, we'll
bet you'll not notice the slightest difference in any important aspect of
the school."

It was comments like that, in print, yet, which served to endear me to
the administration of this institution.

And so it came to pass. Enrollments did not drop or rise significantly,
since budgets didn't allow a dramatic increase, and a drop in enrollment
would cause financial problems. So admission standards were lowered to
keep enrollments relatively stable. We now have an unwritten policy of
open admissions, no student is denied admission because of being
intellectually handicapped. Any warm body with tuition in hand is granted
admission. And the curriculum is carefully structured so that it doesn't
interefere with students' social life, or with the sports programs.

An administrator once said to me, when I complained about unprepared and
unmotivated students: "Take 'em where they're at, and pass them through.
That's your job."

Only in the last few years have we seen enrollment drop at our small
school of less than 3000 students, and that, coupled with a legisclature
which wants to cut costs, are causing serious problems.

Students want a diploma without doing any serious work for it, whatever
the name of the institution.

For those interested in this problem, I have several documents on my home
page under "education". Also, here's an interesting web site:

http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~crumble/sfrtas.html
Society for A Return to Academic Standards

See especially the article "Tenured Weasels".

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Sciosophy and Sciolism, Department of Intellectual Pollution
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:59:31 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: name inflation

>To Douglas Hintz:
>
>A decade or so ago, Paul Fussell published a wildly funny book
>entitled CLASS. In it there is a fitting send-up of educational
>Name Inflation, including his profound explanation of why former
>teacher-academies (also known, in the Dark Ages, as "Normal
>Schools") have now been renamed Universities. It is that
>University has more syllables than College. There are other,
>excellent examples of the phenomenon in the book, including, if I
>recall rightly, a discussion of the speech habits of General
>Haig, then a top man in the Reagan administration.
>
>PRG

This is indeed a wonderful book, with some very acute sociological
observation mixed in.

We used to have an unpretentious technical college here in Canberra,
Australia, which taught useful vocational and interest courses. Recently
it changed its name to the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT). Believe
me, MIT it ain't!

Julian
jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 07:20:44 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods
in-reply-to: <31d2a6c3@smtpout.em.cdc.gov>

Colleagues:

I like John's definition that "Science is a search for truths that
transcend observer differences."

Jim Shea
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 07:41:38 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <pine.a32.3.91.960627231009.25146a-100000@eagle.lhup.edu>

Colleagues:

Donald's comment that faculty are expected to "take their students
where they're at and move them along" is symptomatic of what's wrong with
education today. (And I do, incidentally understand that this is not
Donald's approach.) Universities simply have no standards. Faculty are
under enormous implicit pressure not to be too hard on students and most
"universities", particularly those that would generally be ranked below
the top, will do almost anything to avoid losing state appropriations
because of low enrollments. Few university administrators would come
right out and tell faculty that they have to give good grades for poor
performance, but every professor knows that "money follows students". If
your department gets lots of students, by WHATEVER means, then the
department will get money, faculty positions, approbation, etc. If your
enrollments are low and/or falling, watch out.

As a test of this view ask yourself, "When was the last time a dean
or chancellor at your school called in a department head to
seriously discuss the problem of high grades given by the department?"
Frankly, I can't imagine such a thing. By way of contrast, how many of us
have been called in to discuss low enrollments? And how many faculty have
received urgent pleas from administrators to do whatever is necessary to
get and keep students? The message may not be explicit but it is clear
nonetheless.

And these pressures are absolutely destroying standards!

Jim Shea
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:35:27 -0600
Reply-To: acchaves@cariari.ucr.ac.cr
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: anny chaves <acchaves@cariari.ucr.ac.cr>
Organization: Programa Tortugas Marinas
Subject: Re: Response to Jere Lipps

Jere H. Lipps wrote:
>
> I thank Leon (Leon Mintz <lmintz@TIAC.NET>) for his comment, as others may
> be confused about this issue too, and I may be able to straighten the
> matter out.
>

> This is not an issue of real science. We are not endangered. Far from it.
> MOM is a disservice to the public and to our kids who might not be able to
> discern what it is all about.


Last night the Costa Rican Government Sponsored TV chanel 4 hosted a
debate on the Origins of Man as it pertains to the Catholic faith.

The priest representing the Catholic point of view essentially used the
same words as Dr. Lipps


publications of Scientists were undermining the TRUE teachings of the
Bible!


Leslie du Toit
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:55:13 -0600
Reply-To: acchaves@cariari.ucr.ac.cr
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: anny chaves <acchaves@cariari.ucr.ac.cr>
Organization: Programa Tortugas Marinas
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Foster Lindley wrote:

> Was this grand conclusion about the nature of science re
> ached by statistical thinking?



Well said!

When I percieve that my students are not using all their faculties when
they say "I think.....", I tell them:

"You are not thinking, you are associating ideas!"


Leslie du Toit
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:08:01 -0600
Reply-To: acchaves@cariari.ucr.ac.cr
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: anny chaves <acchaves@cariari.ucr.ac.cr>
Organization: Programa Tortugas Marinas
Subject: Re: Knowledge and Sources (fwd)

I do not know any of the personal details of Mr. Fabrikant. However, if
he was (is ??) such a hot-shot scientist then we will all lose by his
papers not being published!

If he is supposed to be "paying his debt to society" then he should be
either forced to publish or any consideration for parole should depend
on his publications. Just as our future funding has come to depend on
publication!

Leslie du Toit
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:06:44 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
comments: to: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
in-reply-to: <pine.pcw.3.91.960628072309.2231b-100000@grnq-105.uwp.edu>

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, James Shea wrote:

> And these pressures are absolutely destroying standards!
>
> Jim Shea

"Doubting Shea" has the grumps again! What do you mean standards are
being destroyed -- there are more students on the honor rolls than ever
before!!

;-)

Jim Whitehead.
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:21:00 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
comments: to: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
in-reply-to: <pine.pcw.3.91.960628072309.2231b-100000@grnq-105.uwp.edu>

Recent conversation with a graduate student:

Student: "How come I only got a B in your class?"

Me: "Because your work was excellent."

Student: "Well if it was excellent, how come I didn't get an A?"

Me: "Because the Graduate Handbook defines excellent work as meriting a
B, and _superior_ work as meriting an A. Your work was excellent."

Student: "Well, I would have LIKED an A.......!"


I'm sure that many others have similar stories.

Jim Whitehead.
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:32:46 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Shea, Whitehead, et al. seem not to understand that DIVERSITY is
now a well-recognized educational STANDARD. What are you guys,
asleep?

PRG
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:46:11 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

Response to John Gardenier's 6/27/96 "Statistical methods" posting.

Have fun, John. I'll miss your spirited contributions.


>Sound scientists, Feynman for example, urge extreme
>skepticism about theories and experimental results. Philosopher Karl Popper
>urged a complex philosophy of "critical rationalism" in which all knowledge
>must constantly be open to question and criticism.


Popper also noted that even the best-established scientific theory
always remains a hypothesis, a conjecture. Einstein was never satisfied
with any of his theories, and always tried to find the weak spots; and he
did so, and made corrections. Popper noted that this attitude, which he
termed the "critical attitude," characterizes the best scientific
endeavors.


>science is a search for truths that transcend observer differences.

Popper also noted that, since Einstein, scientists do not seriously
hold that their theories can be true or "verified." They can claim that one
theory might explain more facts than another, but that's about all.

Re verification of predictions, and the experimental verification
of theories, experiments must be interpreted in the light of theories which
can never be verified, and are always conjectural.

Nathan Rosen noted that the "correctness" of a theory is judged by
the degree of agreement between the conclusions of the theory and human
experience.

It would seem that the search for "truth," although admirable, is a
futile endeavor.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:49:49 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "james a. mulick" <jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

>Colleagues:
>
> Donald's comment that faculty are expected to "take their students
>where they're at and move them along" is symptomatic of what's wrong with
>education today. (And I do, incidentally understand that this is not
>Donald's approach.) Universities simply have no standards. Faculty are
>under enormous implicit pressure not to be too hard on students
<snip>
>
Come, come, Jim, you can't be serious in suggesting that college admissions
should discriminate on the basis of intelligence. How elitist!


James A. Mulick, Ph.D. voice: 614-722-4700
Professor, Department of Pediatrics fax: 614-722-4718
The Ohio State University compuserve: 72345,1721
700 Children's Drive, CHPB-4
Columbus OH 43205-2696
jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:52:51 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
comments: to: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
in-reply-to: <199606281432.kaa81674@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> Shea, Whitehead, et al. seem not to understand that DIVERSITY is
> now a well-recognized educational STANDARD. What are you guys,
> asleep?
>
> PRG
>

Paul, given the recent dialog I'm a bit confused. Is DIVERSITY a new
royal-sponsored college in the UK?

Jim W.
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:56:18 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
comments: to: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
in-reply-to: <pine.sol.3.91.960628090347.363b-100000@plains>

Colleagues:

Here's some more grist for the mill - a local student recently
achieved a "perfect" score on the SAT. Naturally the papers and broadcast
media were full of self-congratulatory statements. Then this student had
to compose a statement of appreciation for her accomplishment and I am
told that the statement was full of spelling and grammatical errors,
and was, in general, almost illiterate.

Jim Shea
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:59:11 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: mike miller <mbmiller@sirronald.wustl.edu>
Subject: Sokal on web
comments: to: psnews@taxa.wustl.edu, peter arnett <arnett@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu>,
Michael Robert Dohm <mikedohm@leland.Stanford.EDU>

PLEASE FORWARD/POST AS APPROPRIATE
The mini-Annals of Improbable Research ("mini-AIR")
Issue Number 1996-06
June, 1996
ISSN 1076-500X
Key words: improbable research, science humor, Ig Nobel, AIR, the
A free newsletter of tidbits too tiny to fit in
The Annals of Improbable Research (AIR),
the journal of inflated research and personalities
1996-06-03 Hoax Materials for All to See

In case you have not seen the text of Alan Sokal's hoax science
article that a group of so-so sociologists insisted was non-
nonsense, it is now available on the Web at:
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/physics/faculty/sokal/index.html
Several commentaries are also at that site.
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:05:30 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

I strongly recommend, to Prof. McLean and others of like
persuasion (Popperian insights; the futility of trying to get at
the truth) Susan Haack's EVIDENCE AND INQUIRY (Blackwell, 1993,
1995) -- a serious, contemporary work on epistemology; and for a
few historic laughs on falsificationism, D. Stove's FOUR MODERN
IRRATIONALISTS.

PRG
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:07:00 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
comments: to: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>

No, Jim. It's TWO universities combined ("DI-" and "VERSITY");
one for students and the other for cultures.

PRG
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:14:27 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

>I strongly recommend, to Prof. McLean and others of like
>persuasion (Popperian insights; the futility of trying to get at
>the truth) Susan Haack's EVIDENCE AND INQUIRY (Blackwell, 1993,
>1995) -- a serious, contemporary work on epistemology; and for a
>few historic laughs on falsificationism, D. Stove's FOUR MODERN
>IRRATIONALISTS.
>
>PRG

Paul, thanks for the Haack reference. I will study it.

Some of Popper's ideas had their inspiration in Einstein. In
Popper's words, "The Einstein revolution has influenced my own views
deeply: I feel that I would never have arrived at them without him." I
believe it safe to say that Popper's "falsification" emerged from his study
of Einstein's approach to science.

Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:39:04 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Comment

Comment

It's Friday and a full week after the appeals board of the
Department of Health and Human Services overturned the conviction
of Thereza Imanishi-Kari. That ruling, though not unexpected given
the track record of ORI and its appeals board, is, after the
decade-long case, a startling event. Yet, there has been
relatively little comment made concerning it. True, there have
been other threads in which several have an investment, indeed a
heavy commitment, but the Baltimore affair is one of the major
events in the study of fraud in science. Indeed, one might say of
this case that it is a bellwether for scientists.

Of course the case is not now closed. There is still a great
deal to say, a great deal that should be explained. There are many
questions to be answered about the continued operation of the
Office of Research Integrity. In a very real sense, where do we go
from here?

Consider: NSF and NIH were created in the early 1950s while
the initial efforts at systematic tracking of fraud and fakery date
from nearly 40 years later. Consider too that the yearly federal
investment in R&D (depending on what gets counted) amounts to
nearly $100 billion and half that goes to a mere dozen major
schools. Indeed, such a structure is ripe for the swindler and the
scamp and swindlers and scamps in science are being notified that
the crafty can get away with abusing the system: the law is
apparently on the side of the elite who do big science. Lord help
the poor holdup man who pulls a Saturday night special on the
liquor store owner, but the law seems on the side of those paragons
who diddle with data and play the games of science.

In the New York Times report of Tuesday, 25 March, on the
Imanishi-Kari case, comments are elicited from Donald Kennedy, the
fallen president of Stanford ousted from office by major scandal
involving the "Absorption of Federal Funds," as Daniel S. Greenberg
described the gentle art in his masterful Grant Swinger Papers. I
guess Ms. Kolata, who wrote the Times article, asked Kennedy to
comment to get the views of a victim of government regulations of
a victor over that same government. There is symbolism in that.

Of course, the appeals board's decision was released on Friday
evening, late in the day, and there has been, literally, very
little time to get responses into print. But this medium -- the
Internet -- has been relatively quiet on the affair as well. Not
only Scifraud but other boards and discussion groups as well. It
can't be that no one is interested. It can't be that anyone thinks
the board's ruling really terminates discussion in this case any
more than the O. J. Simpson acquittal ended that case.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 10:41:13 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Comment

Al,

I glean from your comment that you believe that Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari
are guilty of fraud (fraud=fabrication="diddling with data"). Am I correct?

My question leads me to another question that I'd like to address to
colleagues on the net. That is: Does it seem that within the ranks of science
-- perhaps particularly within the social sciences -- there is an
overrepresentation of people who are unconcerned about or ignorant of the
gigantic necessity of protecting due process and the constitutional
guarantees designed to protect the innocent? I doubt that there is an
overrepresentation relative to the general population, but it seems to me
that there is an overrepresentation relative to the rest of the highly
educated portion of the population.

If the foregoing sounds elitist, I will accept attacks on that basis, but
also would appreciate comments about the substance of my question.

Bob Barasch
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 09:53:33 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: john lauritsen <jlaurits@capecod.net>
Subject: The FDA and Fraud in Drug Testing

{It is nothing new that the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) is lenient in its treatment of clinical investigators who
are caught falsifying data in the testing of new drugs. When one
makes allowances for inflation, it is clear that the financial
incentives for cheating are indeed "lucrative". The following
1973 news item is from _Science_ (180: 1973. p. 1038).

* * *

Physicians Who Falsify Drug Data

Among the many technical problems that entrammel the testing
of new drugs, there is a simpler failing that enters in perhaps
more often than might be expected -- duplicity. Doctors in charge
of investigating new drugs turn in fictitious data to the
sponsoring drug companies and pocket the fees for studies they
never conducted.
How often this happens is hard to say, except that probably
only the outstandingly careless get caught. The problem is
sufficiently serious that in 1967 the Food and Drug Administration
set up a six man Scientific Investigations Group headed by Frances
O. Kelsey, the medical officer who prevented thalidomide from
being marketed in the United States. Of the 50 or so physicians
investigated by the Kelsey unit and its predecessor, 16 have been
found to have supplied false data on drugs to the sponsoring
companies and the government.
The erring physicians are usually no more than blacklisted
by the FDA from testing further new drugs. Occasionally criminal
proceedings are brought. Last month, a Louisiana grand jury
indicted an associate professor of medicine at Tulane University,
Wallace Rubin, for having submitted false reports on two drugs to
two drug companies. FDA officials allege that the two drugs were
apparently given to the same patient, on the same days, in such a
manner as to suggest that either one or both of the reports were
fabricated.
Drug testing is a lucrative business. A sophisticated study
of two dozen patients for 2 weeks may net an investigator $6500.
In the investigator should elect to submit the same data to
another sponsor, he will receive $13,000 for his 2 week's work.
Several clinical investigators are known to gross more than $1
million a year from their testing programs.
Incentives of this order lead some physicians to take
shortcuts. Sometimes data are fabricated from start to finish.
"When our pharmacologists read reports concerning the negative
findings in rat gall bladders and the testes of female animals, we
are tempted to believe the investigator is cutting some corners,"
says Alan B. Lisook, the medical officer with the Scientific
Investigations Group.
On one occasion the group's pharmacologist requested an
investigator's slides for review and found he was able to assemble
them in such a way as to represent serial sections of the liver of
a single animal. Similar economy was obtained by an investigator
who applied to the FDA for permission to conduct clinical trials
and was found to have performed all his preclinical work in a
single animal -- a rabbit, which, according to Lisook, went under
the name of Ebenezer.
The Kelsey group has sometimes found paroled inmates and
discharged mental patients reported as being treated in situ for
weeks after their release. Concerned with the ethics as well as
the validity of drug data, the group has uncovered consent forms
of senile patients signed "X (her mark)" and even some forms
executed posthumously. On one occasion, the group questioned a
set of women patients on the understanding of the consent forms
they had signed and found the patients were not fully aware that
they were even participating in an experiment.
Instances of outright fraud are less common than failure to
keep proper records, excessive delegation of authority, and other
administrative failings. The group's general criteria for
investigating investigators are if a physician's data are of
unique importance in the status of a new drug or if he has
conducted an unusually large number of investigations on a wide
variety of drugs. When an investigator is delisted, all drug
companies who have ever used him are required to provide
independent corroboration of his data, if the data are crucial to
the standing of a drug.
In most cases of outright fraud, the investigator is
deceiving both the sponsoring drug company and the government. Do
investigators and drug companies aver collude to deceive the
government? "There are companies who are not above hiring
investigators who will give them the results they desire," Lisook
believes. "This happens, but it is something you cannot prove
beyond a reasonable doubt," says FDA attorney Eugene Pfeifer.
The Scientific Investigations Group has recently started a
new program in which, instead of checking on individual
investigators, they study the records supporting the introduction
of new drugs onto the market. At the last count, 25 such studies
had been completed, of which no fewer than five, or 20 percent,
have uncovered matters sufficiently wrong to require official
action, whether a reprimand or the cutting of the physician from
further investigations. Most of the cases involved failure to keep
or provide complete records, rather than demonstrable wrongdoing.
The FDA is not unkind to those it catches fudging data.
Last month's indictment is only the second that has ever been
brought. And four of the 16 investigators barred from testing new
drugs have been allowed back on the list. -- N.W. (From _Science_,
180: 1973. p. 1038)

# # #

John Lauritsen, author:
Poison By Prescription: The AZT Story (1990)
The AIDS War (1993)
jlaurits@capecod.net
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:24:06 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: bobby weinberg <73444.522@compuserve.com>
Subject: How to appeal ORI ?

Does anyone here know the procedure, who to contact,
who might know, how to appeal an ORI ruling?

bobby weinberg
integrity in science,
who needs it, who cares
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 19:24:04 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: bobby weinberg <73444.522@compuserve.com>
Subject: pattern recognition: 'innocent' protection

To Robert Barasch's question:

>Does it seem that within the ranks of science
-- perhaps particularly within the social sciences -- there is an
overrepresentation of people who are unconcerned about or ignorant of the
gigantic necessity of protecting due process and the constitutional
guarantees designed to protect the innocent? <

what are the foundation and data for the >overrepresentation< - in what arena?
without such the >overrepresentation< suggests merely a wild guess
- in disrespect of scientific methods of reasoning and discussion.

As a piece of pattern recognition:
who are the innocent who need (and don't have) protection?
Those accused of misconduct until proven guilty -
and/or those who report possible misconduct - having legitimate concerns?

based on experience and observation:
Reality is that the accused are immediately and forcefully protected by
colleagues
and by the legal teams on the payroll of the institutions and oversight
agencies,
- often the efforts are gigantic in the attacks against the accuser and are
questionable with respect to due process.

The protection of the accusers is not at all a concern of the
science community and authorities charged with oversight
in the dealing with a misconduct allegation;
colleagues, supervisors, the institution, and the oversight
agencies are not responsible, do not care, and take advantage
that the accusers usually don't know their rights and the formal
procedure for the protection of their reputation, their careers,
their constitutional rights, against retaliation.
As part of the (long and often intentionally delayed) tactical
investigation which focusses on and discredits the accusers'
character, motives, credibilty and professional competence the
accusers are first intimidated, then isolated and finally eliminated.
Only those exceptional accusers who are not crushed in the first
response and who find and can afford legal representation induce
the element of their protection into the process - after the irreversible
damage has been done.

Those who report possible misconduct are not only innocent,
they are merely concerned citizens of the science community
discharging their duty in the execution of self-policing of science;
however, being systematically elimated these citicens are not
(even under-) represented in the community.

- and the piece of the pattern here is
that this science community doesn't even notice
this fundamental irresponsibility and gigantic waste.

Scientists killing their students:
> First, Margot O'Toole found errors. As Baltimore himself
wrote, "Dr. O'Toole never charged fraud and has avoided that
characterization." At that time David Baltimore thwarted Margot O'Toole
attempts to publish a correction. Dr. Baltimore also belittled Dr. O'Toole
as a "discontented" postdoctoral fellow, he attacked her character and
motives. O'Toole was threatened with legal action. O'Toole lost her job
at MIT and was blacklisted by Baltimore. O'Toole wrote: "At least two
scientists who openly expressed an interest in allowing me to work with
them were pressured not to do so. They were told that giving me a job
would cause tensions within the community."<
{Leon Mintz, scifraud forum, 06/24/96}


bobby weinberg
integrity in science,
who needs it, who cares
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:21:23 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Comment

It appears from Prof. Higgins's last that he wants discussion, or
perhaps expressions of outrage, on the decision of the Appeals
Board in the Imanishi/Baltimore case. Well indeed, I and I hope
others will be watching. It is indeed surprising, as Higgins
says, that so little has appeared in this wonderful free-for-all
of ours, the Internet. The comparison with the O. J. Simpson
trial seems to me, however, inappropriate. Most everyone saw or
heard most of the evidence in that case. Damned few people saw,
heard, or understood the evidence in the Imanishi affair, except
as it was filtered through the Dingell committee and/or the
press. Let us hope for some serious sociology in the commentary
Prof. Higgins goads listmembers to provide: facts and evidence
from the SOURCES, many or all of which are reprinted or otherwise
displayed in the several thousand pages of the Appeals Board's
decision. THAT would be useful, even perhaps interesting.
Re-statements of opinions or newslines from the public media will
add nothing much.

PRG
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 11:22:23 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: scientific honesty

At 09:03 26-06-1996 +0000, Neville Goodman wrote:-

>The other posting, more optimistic, was from John Bailar
<jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>, who laid out a "scientist's creed"
beautifully in just a few lines"
>
>>>>>Ask questions in ways that allow for some real advance in
understanding, not in ways to support a predetermined conclusion. Draw up
the protocols honestly, and do not depart from them unless you tell your
readers. Be very attentive to the quality of data, not just to get the best
you can but to measure the irreducible residual uncertainty from either bias
or random variation. Use the right "statistical" procedures in the right
way. Present results in ways and with explanations that will help readers
to understand the real strengths and limitations of what you have done. Do
not over-generalize results, whether or not there are other, conflicting
reports oon the record.<<<< (John: can I make a slide of this to show in
my stats lectures to trainee anaesthetists??)


A complete branch of "science" has been constructed over the past 4 decades
by ignoring these principals - animal orientation/navigation/homing. Worse
still
not one avian or sea turtle orientation or navigation experimental claim has
EVER
been replicated by independent workers. 2 classic cases of statistical
"bending"
can be accessed on my WWW home page. The 2 papers are simply reproduced
with no comments from me. Perhaps I am mistaken and the stat methods used
in these experiments are acceptable?

Ted Gerrard.


E.C.Gerrard
Ornithology Section
Museu Municipal do Funchal (Historia Natural)
Rua da Mouraria, 31
9000 FUNCHAL, MADEIRA, PORTUGAL
Tel.: +351-91-792591 Fax.: +351-91-225180
e-mail egerrard@tethys.uma.pt
WWW page: http://www.mmf.uma.pt/~egerrard/
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:07:27 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

Dewey:

Your quite right, of course: Popper's entire course in phil. of
sci. was set by the horror of what was understood then (and still
is, in some places) as the "downfall" of Newtonian mechanics. It
was driven also, to a lesser extent, by the imperatives of the
Jazz Age (for which, see the Stove book). But despite Popper's
entirely just rejection of the excesses of logical positivism,
and his wonderfully good sense about politics and policy, he was
AM ENDE re-stating, and overstating, Hume. The latter, however,
came to terms with the necessity of induction; Popper never did.
Like the log. positivists, he was a pure deductivist; hence Hume
writ large and no chance of ever proving anything RIGHT from
evidence alone. Well, it's nicer and quicker to prove an
hypothesis false -- if you can; but we'd have gotten exactly
nowhere if scientists really believed that you can't ever prove
anything to be true. (Sorry about that "your"; it's "you're.")

Paul
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 17:36:59 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Fabrikant (censorship)


Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:00:38 -0400
from: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca (donald phillipson)
Subject: Fabrikant (censorship)
To: SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU
Cc: AAASEST@GWUVM.GWU.EDU
Reply-to: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca
Here after a short delay is a posting to Scifraud which appears to
have "been around." I regret the delay.

Al Higgins

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


William Grey (wgrey@LINGUA.CLTR.UQ.EDU.AU) reposted June 24 from
SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU to AAASEST@GWUVM.GWU.EDU

>>> Here is a brief item from Nature which describes a
>>>controversy of interest to Scifraud: V. Fabrikant, formerly of
>>>Concordia University, and convicted of killing four colleagues
>>>there in 1992, continues to work in his area of expertise. He
>>>published one paper earlier this year but the editor of the
>>>journal has been pressured not to accept articles from such a
>>>source.
>>
>>I cannot figure out what the controversy is. If the information
>>(procedures, data, analysis, etc) is valid, why shouldn't it be allowed?
>>
>>Along the same lines, I haven't been able to figure out why the information
>>on experiments on drowning Allied pilots by Nazi Germany is not allowed to
>>be used, again, as long as the data is valid.
>
>There is an important difference. Fabrikant is seeking to publish
>material as a professional which is unrelated to his malfeasance.
>He's been found guilty of murder and is paying a penalty. Why should
>a further penalty be imposed? . . .

Fabrikant's case is different from that of "unethical research" like
the Nazi hypothermia experiments, but may be an insoluble dilemma.
His crimes of murder were closely linked to his personality, which
seems to include paranoid persecution mania. He shot four people, a
faculty association representative who had been acting on his behalf
and three departmental colleagues (and wounded a secretary.) His
general line of defence at trial was that violence was the only
possible response anyone could make to persecution by the university's
administration (unwilling to give him the resources his career
required, or investigate the research corruption he had reported) so
the university should have predicted his violence and is culpable for
failing to prevent it.

Now in prison, facing 25 years before be may apply for release on
parole, Fabrikant has nothing to do with his time except incubate
grievances. One is that the trial judge refused (after several tens
of hours) to let him testify at unlimited length on any subject he
chose, about administrative persecution and corruption etc. Another
is his dismissal from the university for inflating his Russian
academic credentials and concealing his career history in Russia,
fired from a succession of jobs for intolerable conduct. Fabrikant
makes this another charge against the administration, at fault for
failing to check those credentials accurately 15 years earlier, and
then persecuting him.

(There is no doubt the university mishandled the whole affair. E.g.
when Fabrikant threatened individual deans and VPs, notifying the
university he owned pistols by asking the administration to support
his application to the police for a carry permit, the university hired
bodyguards for senior administrators -- but did not tell the local
police. This was 6 to 12 months before Fabrikant actually took his
weapons to the campus and started shooting people.)

The other relevant aspect is the status not of Fabrikant but of his
field of "expertise." It appears his domain in engineering is not
defined by any disciplinary consensus about what is most urgent or
currently practical, as is normal in specialities in science (e.g.
quarks, mapping the genome, etc.) "Contributions to knowledge" just
sort of accumulate, as their discoverers publish them in the normal
furtherance of their academic careers.

Thus Fabrikant, as a publishing researcher, can truly claim that his
contributions to knowledge are no less valuable as anyone else's: and
the opposite is no less true, that suppressing his publications would
probably not impede the advance of knowledge in his field.

Like at least some specialities in engineering research, Fabrikant's
"area of expertise" may be genuinely trivial, a sort of cargo cult of
the academic career. One indicator is that, in order to maintain his
expertise, Fabrikant does not need a laboratory or professional
colleagues or even a library -- just a pencil and stamps.

No one feels any career or personal incentive to review the whole
domain, to judge what is important and what is not, as is normal in
scientific fields university engineers seek to replicate. Any cogent
statement about what is important and what is trivial would bring the
reviewer no professional credit and would make him scores of personal
enemies.

Academic politeness presents problems here. Leading fields can be
fiercely competitive, and we seem to have reason to believe
competition builds authentic knowledge and erases bogus claims: but
no such process governs competition between different fields, whose
researchers claim equal status for themselves and their knowledge.

This problem is perennial, or at least has happened before. Another
Canadian case is that of Howard Barnes, holder about 1920-50 of one of
McGill's two research chairs in physics, whose personal speciality was
the physics of ice. His experiments included the use of heat and
leverage (by dynamite) on marine icebergs, ice jams in rivers, etc. A
famous archive is his applications to the Canadian NRC for research
grants c. 1930, scornfully rejected by the atomic and cosmological
physicists of the day. By the Second World War Barnes gave up his
attempts to make a disciplinary speciality of his interest in ice
physics. (The only major war project involving ice was Churchill's
commission to design an iceberg aircraft carrier, evaluated by the
Canadians and rejected as economically as well as physically
misconceived.)

But Barnes had spotted a genuine need for knowledge. When in 1948 the
same institution, the NRCC, founded a Building Research laboratory, it
had to re-invent "ice physics" for such assigned tasks as roof
standards for domestic housing, how to build on permafrost etc.
Another aspect is springtime flood control (averting or breaking ice
jams on rivers), where Barnes had considerable practical experience in
the 1930s.

This problem recurs regularly in some places, e.g. the Canadian
capital and the subarctic village of Moose Factory. In Ottawa, "keys"
are dynamited in the river ice before the spring runoff, to reduce the
chance of flooding. They do not do this in Moose Factory, probably
because the river is too large: but one year in three there is an
emergency airlift, organized from Toronto 800 miles south, to move the
whole population to higher ground for a month. (I still hope to
collect enough information to test the hypothesis that Barnes's
ice-jam methods were successful where applied in the 1930s, and have
since been forgotten or are simply unknown to the Toronto bureaucrats
responsible in the 1990s for flood control at Moose Factory -- and am
glad this task is not made more difficult by ethical considerations.)

No connection is apparent between any agreement to boycott Fabrikant
and the non-use about 1945-70 of good data from evil Nazi hypothermia
experiments. The senior Canadian government biologist in 1945, who
visited Dachau to review Nazi science, points out that before the
1970s the only research speciality involving physiological hypothermia
was heart surgery (documented in W.G. Bigelow, Cold Hearts (1984))
which had convenient access to the Nazi data (stored at the same NRCC
where Bigelow's experimental apparatus was built) but did not need it.

This is a different reason for non-use than ethical and emotional
responses to Nazi research. Another reason is that not much Nazi
research ever reached publication in conventional form, i.e. suitable
for citation in the research literature. If these three reasons
constitute a hierarchy, current utility may have been the most
important.

Demand for knowledge about the physiology of hypothermia increased
suddenly in the 1970s, probably because of the offshore oil drilling
industry (and perhaps the increase in recreational water sports as
well.) Canadian pioneers in this field (e.g. at the University of
Victoria) appear to have used Dachau data when it advanced their
knowledge -- possibly not much, because other aspects of physiology
and instrumentation had so advanced in 30 years. There is probably an
MA thesis in scientometrics in finding out whether some research
specialities cite Dachau data while others do not.


--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 11:24:15 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: Re: pattern recognition.........

Bobby Weinberg asks:

"... what are the foundation and data for the >overrepresentation< - in what
arena?
without such the >overrepresentation< suggests merely a wild guess
- in disrespect of scientific methods of reasoning and discussion."

You are correct: it is merely a guess -- but not in disrespect of scientific
methods; the question was asked as part of my attempt at "reasoning and
discussion."

"...who are the innocent?"

I was talking of an abstract principle. To restate the principle in the form
of a question: Are we as vigilant (WE -- not the lawyers hired by the
accused, but WE) in protecting the rights of the accused as we are in
protecting the integrity of the scientific enterprise?

Bob Barasch
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 17:45:19 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Reply to Barasch

Reply to Barasch

Do I think that Imanishi-Kari and Baltimore are guilty? I did
not say they were. What I see in the Baltimore affair is a clear
case of science not being able to police itself. Recall, for
example, that when Walter Stewart asked for Baltimore's data,
Baltimore refused on the grounds that Stewart was an outsider! He
was not competent to judge, according to Baltimore. No one outside
of molecular biology could evaluate the data. Well, we've seen
examples now of plenty of outsiders brought into this case.
Clearly Imanishi-Kari came to rely on due process to void her
conviction. Big science ought to stop claiming the right to police
itself -- touting itself as the only one capable of judging
scientists.

As far as not believing in due process: anyone accused of a
crime in this country is guaranteed due process. Everyone,
including accused scientists, has that right. My argument is:
scientists can't have it both ways. The accused have the right to
defend themselves as effectively as they can and this means seeking
dream teams of attorneys seeking to raise doubts in a criminal
courts. And the accused would be stupid to give up their rights to
the best defense. So that is what happens: it goes to the courts.

Far from being unaware or unconcerned about due process,
social scientists are aware that people accused of crimes can and
will seek due process -- in science or outside of science.



Al Higgins
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 21:44:28 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Barasch

Al,

Thanks for your response. I agree with you on the point that science can't
have it both ways. And I don't think it's so bad that science can't police
itself; no group can do so. The professions (and I include professional
scientists) might try to avoid ordinary legal constraints, but they ought not
be allowed to do so. By the same token, when a professional has his/her day
in court, he/she will either win or lose, depending (we hope) on a clear
understanding of the charges and evidence. I have found the postings of ORI
findings on this net by Phil Miller refreshing because they seem to be the
end results of evidentiary hearings. If the ORI has findings overturned upon
appeal, that ought not signal the end of ORI; all judicial bodies have their
findings overturned from time to time. If justice prevails, the overturning
of findings is a good thing.

Bob Barasch
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:56:50 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re: Comment from Bob Barasch

Here is a message posted earlier to Scifraud. I regret the delay.

Al

+++++++++



Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 13:17:22 -0500 (CDT)
from: sy fisher <sfisher@marlin.utmb.edu>
Subject: Re: Comment from Bob Barasch
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>

At 10:41 AM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Al,
>
>I glean from your comment that you believe that Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari
>are guilty of fraud (fraud=fabrication="diddling with data"). Am I correct?
>
>My question leads me to another question that I'd like to address to
>colleagues on the net. That is: Does it seem that within the ranks of science
>-- perhaps particularly within the social sciences -- there is an
>overrepresentation of people who are unconcerned about or ignorant of the
>gigantic necessity of protecting due process and the constitutional
>guarantees designed to protect the innocent? I doubt that there is an
>overrepresentation relative to the general population, but it seems to me
>that there is an overrepresentation relative to the rest of the highly
>educated portion of the population.
>
>If the foregoing sounds elitist, I will accept attacks on that basis, but
>also would appreciate comments about the substance of my question.
>
>Bob Barasch
>robertb280@aol.com
>

-Bob

Yes, there are probably many within the ranks of science who don't fully
appreciate the need to protect the innocent against false accusations. But
sometimes there's a huge difference between judgments based on "due process"
and those based upon good "common sense" -- particularly when obvious
extra-substantive pressures are influencing the due process.

Simple question: In your heart of hearts, do you believe OJ is guilty?

-Sy
- - -
Sy Fisher (sfisher@marlin.utmb.edu) | "The difference between intelligence
Center for Medication Monitoring | and wisdom: Intelligence is knowing
Univ of Texas Medical Branch | that 50% of all you read and hear
Galveston TX 77555-0441 | is pure garbage; wisdom is knowing
409-772-3215 FAX:409-772-3218 | which 50%." -- anon


A.C.Higgins


Al Higgins

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 08:12:05 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Comment from Bo...

Sy:

In answer to your:

"Simple question: In your heart of hearts, do you believe OJ is guilty?"

Your thoughtful reply, with the quoted question, helps me clarify my
position: In sum, what I believe in my heart of hearts is not, mercifully,
what determines the fate of another person -- particularly one about whom I
know only what I've seen on TV or read in various places.

Bob Barasch
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:48:55 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: probabilistic thinking

I am sorry John Gardenier cannot answer this, but would anyone argue that the f
ollowing is moral?
A doctor,after studying company records, concludes that 20% of the employees
will have a heart attack during their tenure. however, he is not merely a desc
riptive statistician; is is also a probabilistic thinker, so in the newsletter
he states that the probability of an employee suffering a heart attack is 1/5.
Is it moral to tell the 80%, whome be believes will not have a heart attack t
hat they could and the 20%, whom he believes will have a heart attack that they
might not? Is he not lying to each and every employee?



Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
The University of Connecticut
32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268
860-429-2484
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:27:30 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: probabilistic thinking
comments: to: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
in-reply-to: <960701.105708.edt.vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>

On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Foster Lindley wrote:

> I am sorry John Gardenier cannot answer this, but would anyone argue that the f
> ollowing is moral?
> A doctor,after studying company records, concludes that 20% of the employees
> will have a heart attack during their tenure. however, he is not merely a desc
> riptive statistician; is is also a probabilistic thinker, so in the newsletter
> he states that the probability of an employee suffering a heart attack is 1/5.
> Is it moral to tell the 80%, whome be believes will not have a heart attack t
> hat they could and the 20%, whom he believes will have a heart attack that they
> might not? Is he not lying to each and every employee?
>
>
> Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus

Was that ALL he stated in the newsletter? The American Heart Association
have a worksheet that people can use to calculate their risk. Many
physicians have a large pad of them for patient use. To me, a common
sense approach would be to inform the "clientele" about CHD risk, and
invite them to check their own risk factors -- and seek medical advice
where appropriate.

I'd need more information before judging the ethics of this one.

Jim Whitehead.
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:39:22 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: internet address

On July 8 Uconn discontinues bitnet. Do you have an internet address?
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:52:46 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: christine matthews <cmatthews@crs.loc.gov>
Subject: internet address -Reply

cmatthews@crs.loc.gov

>>> Foster Lindley <VPACAD20@UConnVM.UConn.Edu> 07/01/96 01:39pm
>>>
On July 8 Uconn discontinues bitnet. Do you have an internet address?
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:07:02 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

Response to Paul Gross's 6/29/96 "Statistical methods" posting.

Hi Paul:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

In looking back through postings for genesis of this particular
thread, it seems to have started with John Gardenier's (6/27/96) comment
that "Philosopher Karl Popper urged a complex philosophy of 'critical
rationalism' in which all knowledge must constantly be open to question and
criticism." To which I responded (6/28/96) via Popper's ideas on theory
verification/correctness, to which you responded (6/28/96)....I will try to
stick with this specific lineage as much as possible.


>Your quite right, of course: Popper's entire course in phil. of
>sci. was set by the horror of what was understood then (and still
>is, in some places) as the "downfall" of Newtonian mechanics. It
>was driven also, to a lesser extent, by the imperatives of the
>Jazz Age (for which, see the Stove book). But despite Popper's
>entirely just rejection of the excesses of logical positivism,
>and his wonderfully good sense about politics and policy, he was
>AM ENDE re-stating, and overstating, Hume. The latter, however,
>came to terms with the necessity of induction; Popper never did.

I'm not sure how comparison of Hume versus Popper takes us closer
to the heart of theory verification/correctness, but will offer these
comments.

Re Hume, Laudan notes (in "Science and Values") that "until the
early nineteenth century most scientists subscribed to variants of the
rules of inductive inference associated with Bacon, Hume, and Newton."
According to Einstein, the philosophers who helped him most to develop his
critical powers were Hume and Mach.

So, Hume influenced Einstein, and Einstein influenced Popper.
Popper stated "I might even say that what I have done is mainly to make
explicit certain points which are implicit in the work of Einstein."

In his early years, Einstein embraced positivism, but later turned
away from it. Is it safe to state that Einstein's rejection of positivism
influenced Popper?


>Well, it's nicer and quicker to prove an
>hypothesis false -- if you can; but we'd have gotten exactly
>nowhere if scientists really believed that you can't ever prove
>anything to be true.

This involves two components: falsification and verification.

Re "falsification", most scientists I know use Popper's
falsification in determining if a topic is "scientific," or not (via if
something cannot be falsified, it is not good science).

Here, Popper stated that Einstein "found it most important to
specify the conditions which would make him look at his own theories as
refuted or as falsified. This attitude became the basis of my own thesis of
the logical asymmetry between verification and falsification or refutation:
of the thesis that theories cannot be verified, but that they can be
falsified."

So, Popper's "falsification" has its genesis in Einstein's
methodology. Popper also noted that it is always possible to evade a
refutation, but that the willingness to avoid evasions and to accept
falsification was one of the basic characteristics of the "critical" or
"scientific attitude."

Re proving a "hypothesis false," most K-T impactors will not even
acknowledge evidences contrary to impact. Because they have the most
popular media largely on their side, they don't have to worry about being
falsified. The method used by some of them is to "falsify" opposition via
politics.

Re "gotten nowhere if scientists really believed that you can't
ever prove anything to be true," here we must distinguish between science
done on a local descriptive level--say, a short-term experiment in a
research lab--versus a search for laws governing the deep structure of the
physical world. What works for one may, or may not, be useful for the
other.

There's been much discussion on Scifraud about statistics being the
very basis of science. Einstein suggested that use of statistical methods
in theoretical physics was only a mathematical device for dealing with
phenomena involving large numbers of elementary processes, but that the
basic laws for the latter were purely causal (source, D. H. Furth in
"Einstein the Man and His Achievement").

Einstein's belief that all physical theories are tentative guesses
which might be superseded by better ones, and which can never be verified,
seems a good one until someone smarter than Einstein comes along with new
methodology that works better.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:09:59 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: apology
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
sorry folks. The request for an internet address was intended for the director
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:24:20 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Science's Update on IPCC

Science on the IPCC

Here is Science's treatment of the flap concerning the IPCC
report. Again, the charges initially put forward in The Wall
Street Journal on 12 June are denied by the authors of the final
report.

The article from Science is reproduced in its entirety.

++++++++++


\Weiss, Peter. "Industry Group Assails Climate
Chapter," Science 272 (21 June 1996), p. 1734.\

The scientific debate about whether human activity
is warming global climate subsided late last year when
the world's leading climate researchers agreed that the
answer is probably yes. But this month the political
debate heated up by several degrees when an industry
group charged that revisions to a crucial chapter in a
United Nations (UN) report on climate change violated
peer review and amount to "scientific cleansing" of
doubts about human influence on climate. The charges,
made 2 weeks ago, have sparked a flurry of editorials
and articles repeating the charges in publications
including The Wall Street Journal and a spirited
defense by climate researchers.

The focus of the controversy, chapter 8 in the
latest report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1, lays out
research advances since 1990 that have bolstered
confidence that human activity is at least partly to
blame for the gradual warming of the globe. They
include better models of climate variability and a
better understanding of the effects of sulfate aerosols
and ozone loss, all of which tend to obscure the signal
of greenhouse warming (Science, 8 December 1995, p.
1565). When these effects are accounted for, the
warming signal seems to emerge, said the chapter. But
the Washington, D.C.-based Global Climate Coalition
(GCC) -- a group supported by oil and coal producers
and utilities -- argued in a nine-page analysis and in
letters to members of Congress that changes made after
the draft report was issued last fall downplayed
uncertainties about this conclusion.

"When the final report came out, there were
sections that were not there," said John Shlaes,
executive director of the coalition. "Why were they
taken out when those were important elements to educate
policy-makers "The answer is simple, says Ben Santer, a
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher who
was the lead author on the chapter and says that he
made the changes himself: Reviewers requested them. He
says that the coalition and other critics can't impugn
the science underlying the report, so "they attack the
process, the IPCC itself and the scientists."

The business coalition was particularly upset by
the disappearance of the chapter's concluding summary.
That section had noted that even the most telling
indicator to date of human influence -- so-called
pattem-based computer simulations that marry the
effects of aerosols and greenhouse gases to show a
pattern of warming similar to the observed one --
doesn't conclusively tie any change to human influence.
The coalition also raised an outcry over the deletion
of a phrase saying "we do not know" when scientists
will be able to identify a human contribution to
climate change unambiguously.

The changes were a "disturbing corruption of the
peer-review process," wrote Frederick Seitz,
expresident of Rockefeller University and chair of the
George C. Marshall Institute, which has also raised
doubts about a human influence on climate, in a 12 June
op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal. Declared the
GCC n its statement: "The changes quite clearly gave
the obvious political purpose of cleansing the
underlying scientific report."

To Santer and other climatologists, it's these
accusations that are politically motivated. "This is
terrible what's going on, just terrible," says Santer.
"I now perceive my own scientific reputation and
credibility to be under attack, and that's a very hard
position to be in." Backed by his three co-authors --
Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR), Tim Bamett of the Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, and Ebby Lnyamba of the NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center -- Santer has argued that the
govemments, organizations, and scientists who reviewed
the draft report last October knew it would be changed
to take reviewers' comments into account. He adds that
the changes simply removed redundancies and fine-tuned
the wording to bring the repor into line with the
scientific consensus.

In the case of the concluding summary, for
example, Santer says he "folded {it} into other parts
of the chapter" because reviewers had pointed out that,
unlike any other chapter, it had summaries at both the
beginning and end. A.s for the phrase he removed,
Santer says it overstated doubts that a human effect on
climate is already apparent. "The revision is now wore
accurate and a better reflection of prevailing
scientific opinion," he says.

Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis
section at NCAR and lead author for Chapter 1, agrees.
"I think some of that redundency was removed, but the
uncertainty is clearly reflected in the chapter," he
says.

Nor did the changes violate IPCC procedures, said
Bert Bolin of the University of Stockholm, the IPCC
chair, in a letter faxed the GCC this week. "Your
allegations are completely unfounded," he wrote. But he
acknowledged that the IPCC had left an opening for such
attacks by not presenting the final wording to the
delegates -- including the climate Coalition -- before
it went to press.

+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:32:13 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: probabilistic thinking

It's clear that there is serious misunderstanding about the foundations of
both statistics and probability. The most sophisticated view is that
probability is a measure of strength of belief. On the basis of whatever
evidence is used, what is one's expectation and how strongly is that held?
I have no problem in saying that Patient A standing before me will or will
not have a heart attack; one or the other will occur, but I do not know
which one. However, the measure of the strength of my belief that he will
have a heart attack is 20% (and conversely for not having one), and I can
pass that on with a clear conscience. I know that this view, that
probabliity is subjective, is not understood in many other fields, but it
seems to me to be the best way to describe our ignorance about an event or
outcome not yet observed. It also allows for the continual updating of a
probability as our information is assembled, and it allows for different
evaluations by different people (who may have different levels of
information, or evaluatiee the informantoion in hand in different ways).
And it deals with the problem that troubles Foster Lindley.

Other bases used to support the notion of probability, and hence of
statistics to the exxtent that it relies on probability, include the
axiomatic (start with about four axioms and develop the consequences
mathematically, in the exxpectation that they will have relevance to the
real world -- much as geometry is developed) and the relative frequency
(repeat the observation in an infinite series of trials just like the
present one so far as we can tell, and find the limiting proportion of
"successes"). Each of these has major problems.

John


>I am sorry John Gardenier cannot answer this, but would anyone argue that the f
>ollowing is moral?
> A doctor,after studying company records, concludes that 20% of the employees
>will have a heart attack during their tenure. however, he is not merely a desc
>riptive statistician; is is also a probabilistic thinker, so in the newsletter
>he states that the probability of an employee suffering a heart attack is 1/5.
> Is it moral to tell the 80%, whome be believes will not have a heart attack t
>hat they could and the 20%, whom he believes will have a heart attack that they
>might not? Is he not lying to each and every employee?
>
>
>
>Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
>The University of Connecticut
>32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268
>860-429-2484

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 14:04:25 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: david resnik <resnik@uwyo.edu>
Subject: Re: internet address -Reply

resnik@uwyo.edu
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:14:38 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Chronicle's Review

Chronicle's Review

The Chronical of Higher Education here reviews the decision
pf the appeals board of the HHS concerning its Imanishi-Kari
decision.

The article is reproduced in its entirety.

++++++++++


\Walker, Paulette V. "A Dramatic End to a Misconduct
Case," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 July 1996,
p. A22-A23.\

Washington. A federal appeals panel has cleared a
Tufts University scientist of charges that she faked
data in a paper of which David Baltimore, a prominent
Nobel laureate, was a co-author.

The Public Health Service's Office of Research
Integrity concluded in 1994 that Thereza Imanishi-Kari,
then an assistant professor of biology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. had committed 19
counts of fraud and then lied to cover up her offense.

Now, however, the Research Integrity Adjudications
Panel at the Department of Health and Human Services
has concluded that the information upon which the
research-integrity office based its decision "was
irrelevant, had limited probative value, was internally
inconsistent, lacked reliability or foundation, was not
credible or not corroborated, or was based on
unwarranted assumptions."

The panel's decision closed the longest-running
and one of the most-celebrated investigations of
alleged scientific misconduct ever.

Some scientists applauded the decision, while
others viewed it as a travesty of justice. But both
sides agreed that the 10-year-old dispute illustrated
that neither the government nor scientists do a good
job of policing misconduct.

"These kinds of cases can do nothing but harm to
the institution of science," said A. C. Higgins, a
sociologist at the State University of New York at
Albany. "It raises a lot of questions about science and
the government, and it won't be long before the public
demands an accounting of all that money that's given to
science."

The "David Baltimore case," as it has come to be
known, dates to 1986, when Ms. Imanishi-Kari, Mr.
Baltimore, who then directed M.I.T.'S Whitehead
Institute for Biomedical Research, and four others
published a paper in the journal Cell that offered
dramatic evidence that a mouse's immune response could
be enhanced by inserting foreign genes into its cells.

Margot O'Toole, then Ms. Imanishi-Kari's
postdoctoral assistant, could not replicate her
supervisor's results as they had been reported in the
paper. In addition, Ms. O'Toole found a laboratory
notebook that included 17 pages of data that she said
were inconsistent with the claims made in Cell.

From 1986 to 1989, three separate panels at
M.I.T., Tufts and the National Institutes of Health
found errors in the Cell paper, and the authors
published corrections. However. each panel concluded
that the dispute between Ms. O'Toole and Ms Imanishi-
Kari was not about misconduct, but about differences in
judgment, interpretations of research results, and
wording in the Cell paper.

But at the behest of Rep. John D. Dingell, a
Michigan Democrat who then headed the House of
Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, the N.I.H. reopened the
case in May 1989 under its newly formed Office of
Scientific Integrity. (The office was reorganized in
1992 and renamed the Office of Research Integrity.)

Mr. Dingell held multiple hearings on the case
from 1988 to 1990 and directed the U. S. Secret Service
to conduct forensic ink analyses of several of Ms.
Imanishi-Kari's laboratory notebooks. The service
concluded that she had fabricated details for
experiments that had not been conducted.

Statistics experts also provided a computerized
analysis that O.R.I. officials said showed that the
false data were not chance factors, but conscious ones
aimed at achieving a particular result. Based on that
finding and the Secret Service report, the research-
integrity office found Ms. Imanishi-Kari guilty of
fraud. In one of the harshest penalties ever levied
against a scientist, the office recommended that she be
barred from federally supported research projects for
10 years.

Mr. Baltimore was never accused of fraud. But many
peers criticized him for what they saw as his stubborn
defense of Ms. Imanishi-Kari. He was forced to quit as
president of Rockefeller University because of his role
in the case, and is now a biologist at M.l.T.

Now the appeals panel's decision suggests that the
scientists suffered needlessly.

The panel concluded that the Secret Service's
"analyses identified some possible anomalies, but
provided no independent or convincing evidence that the
data or documents were not authentic or could not have
been produced during the time in question."

In fact, after reviewing more than 70 original
laboratory notebooks and a 6,500-page hearing
transcript, and listening to six weeks of testimony,
the panel disregarded much of O.R.I.'s evidence against
Ms. Imanishi-Kari.

The Cell paper was "rife with errors" and Ms.
Imanishi-Kari's record-keeping was "sloppy," the panel
said. But none of the O.R.I.'s findings were meaningful
standing alone. and even collectively they were not
direct evidence of any act of fabrication." it found.

Ms. Imanishi-Kari said she was relieved. "It's a
wonderful feeling of vindication," she said. But she
said her satisfaction was muted by a decade's worth of
frustration and anger. This ruling "demonstrates that
things along the way were quite wrong," she said. "It's
not fair that you have to go through this process and
be slandered."

Ms. Imanishi-Kari said that major changes were
needed in the O.R.I.'s process. Throughout the office's
investigation. she could not get a list of the charges
against her. She wasn't allowed to see the evidence
supporting the charges, to confront and question her
accusers, or to bring in her own witnesses. It wasn't
until the appeals hearing that she was able to cross-
examine the witnesses against her and to test the
expert opinions on which the O.R.I. had relied.

"It's a shame that it took this long -- until the
appeals process -- for due process be to given to the
accused," said Julius S. Youngner, a professor emeritus
of molecular genetics and biochemistry at the
University of Pittsburgh school of medicine and a
member of the appeals panel. "And it took due process
to find out what the truth in this case was. Scientists
accused of misconduct haven't gotten their just deserts
in this regard."

When the research-integrity office first was formed
at N.l.H., no appeals process existed. When it was
reorganized and placed in the Health and Human Services
agency, an appeals panel, made up primarily of lawyers,
was created.

Ms. O'Toole said she believed that the case proves
that lawyers are not qualified to adjudicate scientific
misconduct. She lost her research position at M.l.T. in
1987 and was out of scientific work until a
pharmaceutical company, Genetics Inc., hired her in 1990.

"A lot of scientists, over many years, put a lot of
time into analyzing and evaluating the evidence and, with
great reluctance and a lot of care, came to the
conclusion that there was fraud," she said. "The
administrable-law panel thumbed their noses at the
scientists, tossed out all of that evidence and declared
that there was no fraud."

Eventually scientists must decide whether they
themselves want police science or whether they want
lawyers to do it, she said.

Walter W Stewart, an N.I.H. scientist who brought
the case to the attention of Mr. Dingell, said scientists
had not proved that they can do any better than lawyers
or the government in policing misconduct.

"I've never placed much faith in a government board
of any sort, whether it be O.R.I. or the appeals board,"
he said. "But scientists themselves don't take the
process or the problem seriously enough."

The O.R.I. was created amid charges that
universities did not deal aggressively with misconduct
charges. But the office has been criticized, since its
inception, for being incompetent. Three of the five
O.R.I. cases brought before the appeals board were
dismissed because the panel members said the office had
not proved its case.

"We created a monster and now it's time to bury it,"
said Robert F. Charrow, a Washington lawyers who sat on
the panel that established the research-integrity office.
He has represented many clients charged with misconduct.

"I didn't think then that an office with the
authority to investigate, judge and prosecute would be
fair, and now we've seen, with this case, and with
others, that it simply doesn't work," Mr. Charrow said.

But Kenneth J. Ryan, a professor of obstetrics,
gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard
University, said this case should not be the "death
knell" for the O.R.I. He led a commission that evaluated
the office, and last fall it gave the Health and Human
Services Department 33 recommendations for improving the
process.

"I'm encouraged, because the Department of Health
and Human Services is working on this very issue and
planning to make changes," Dr. Ryan said. For example,
the agency has endorsed the commission's recommendations
to involve legal, law-enforcement, and scientific experts
in all O.R.I. investigations and include scientists in
hearings and appeals procedures. Donna E. Shalala, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, is reviewing the
proposal and others from the committee.

Some scientists and ethicists believe that the
office will remain ineffective until research misconduct
is redefined.

The Public Health Service defines misconduct in
science as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or
other practices that seriously deviate" from scientific
norms. It does not include honest error or honest
differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

"This case showed that there is room for honest
differences of opinion about what is a scientist's
interpretation judgement of data and judgment on how to
use it, and what is outright dishonesty and fraudulent
behavior," said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center
for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

In recent years, the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Science Foundation, and Dr. Ryan's
commission have all proposed new definitions of
scientific misconduct, but the science community has been
unable to reach a consensus on how broad or specific it
should be. A White House panel plans to release this
month yet another definition of scientific misconduct for
all federal agencies that sponsor biomedical research.

The lesson of the "Baltimore case," said Mr. Caplan,
"is that we need to stop looking for ways to improve the
police and instead find a way to instill a commitment to
research ethics in the scientific community."

"It's tough for a community that is finding it
harder to get money and is nervous about its level of
public support to take research ethics seriously," Mr.
Caplan said. "Take it seriously and you risk making the
public think there is a problem; ignore it and you run
the risk that the next case could be the Titanic of
research ethics.

"But we have to stop reacting to the crisis of the
moment, and find a way to make sure there will be fewer
problems to police."


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:52:22 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "stephen j. kramer" <kramer@seas.ucla.edu>
Subject: Kirlian Photography

SciFrauders,

I was wondering if anyone on this list has investigated Kirlian (sp?)
photography? Has there been a plausible explanation for the
energy fields/waves/aura that this photography yields? Some of its
purported uses appear rather suspect. They appear to include such
diverse applications as determining the effects of diet on body energy and
reconstruction of entire sets of lost data from mere fragments of
original storage media.

Stephen Kramer
Graduate Researcher
UCLA Materials Science
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:56:57 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "james j. lippard" <lippard@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Kirlian Photography
in-reply-to: <pine.a32.3.91.960702153431.37896a-100000@tornado.seas.ucla.edu>

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Stephen J. Kramer wrote:

> SciFrauders,
>
> I was wondering if anyone on this list has investigated Kirlian (sp?)
> photography? Has there been a plausible explanation for the
> energy fields/waves/aura that this photography yields? Some of its
> purported uses appear rather suspect. They appear to include such
> diverse applications as determining the effects of diet on body energy and
> reconstruction of entire sets of lost data from mere fragments of
> original storage media.

Yes, see the two articles by Arlene Watkins and William S. Bickel (Dept.
of Physics, Univ. of Arizona) published in the _Skeptical Inquirer_ in the
late eighties/early nineties. Contact me in email if you'd like me to dig
up exact references for you.

Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:28:29 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Leon's Review

Review of the Research Integrity Adjudications Panel report.

The most important aspect of this review is the emphasis on importance to
protect due process, to protect the rights of the accused. Panel discussed
a proper legal framework for the process of debarment from receiving federal
grants. Panel emphasized that debarment proceedings must be "consistent
with principles of fundamental fairness".

So, what should we say about the de-facto debarment of Margot O'Toole
without any process? It should be called lynching - mob action without
lawful trial.

Next, the Panel report addressed data preparation and the Cell article:

"A degree of sloppiness in recording and maintaining data certainly may
warrant criticism of Dr. Imanishi-Kari's care in recordkeeping".

"The Cell paper as a whole is rife with errors of all sorts".

After that, the Panel report described that Dr. O'Toole found errors in Cell
paper and reported them. Then the report skipped lynching and went on to
criticize Dingell inspired investigations. The Panel dismissed expert
analysis of data. The Panel dismissed Margot O'Toole: "Dr. O'Toole's
testimony on this issues is not credible".

On other hand the Panel concluded: "Finding intentional and deliberate
falsification and fabrication as alleged by ORI would require a conspiracy
of authors and an intentional coverup by those to whom Dr. O'Toole turned at
MIT and Tufts. ... While Dr. Imanishi-Kari's colleagues might judge her more
generously based on friendship, there is no basis in the record to suggest
that all of these scientists would jeopardize their own careers by lying to
save hers."

Sure! There was also no basis to suggest that All President's Men would
jeopardize their own careers to coverup Watergate burglary.

These scientists never imagined that squashing O'Toole could jeopardize
their careers! At the same time, writing correction to Cell was very
embarrassing.

One part of report is straight from Orwell or Solzhenitsyn:

"The Cell paper as a whole is rife with errors of all sorts. Many of them
are obvious to a careful reader and in no way strengthen the authors'
arguments. The authors addressed a number of these errors in published
corrections (including an overstatement of the degree of specificity of
BET-1 in relation to Figure 1 and clerical errors in Table 3). Exs. H2 and
H3. There are additional errors evident on the face of the paper, some of
which, despite all these years and layers of review, have never previously
been pointed out or corrected. Responsibility for the pattern of
carelessness in writing and editing of this paper must be shared by all the
participants, including the main drafter (Dr. Weaver), the leading
collaborators who shaped the communications and drafting process (Dr.
Baltimore and Dr. Imanishi-Kari), the contributing authors who failed to
catch errors in their areas of expertise, those who read the paper in draft
form (including Dr. O'Toole and Dr. Wortis), and the reviewers and editors
who failed to pick up errors in the original submitted text of the paper.
While a high rate of careless errors is no defense to intentional
falsification and fabrication, the presence of so many pointless mistakes at
least raises a question whether the mistakes singled out as intentional
(because they arguably favor the authors) really represent conscious efforts
to deceive."

So, Margot O'Toole shares responsibility for this trashy paper! She was
there only a few months and was not competent and confident enough to
criticize this draft. When she finally gained experience and reported
errors, she was lynched. The distinguished members of the Panel did not see
any irony in their report.

In another place of the report: "We share others' concern that a
"whistleblower" be protected from adverse consequences". What a cant!


There were some interesting opinions about this report.

"This case showed that there is room for honest
differences of opinion about what is a scientist's
interpretation judgment of data and judgment on how to
use it, and what is outright dishonesty and fraudulent
behavior," said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center
for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Wrong! This case showed that there is no room for young scientists to
criticize errors in works of their superiors. Any young scientist who can
not understand this is not bright enough to deserve a university career.

On July 2, 1996, The Wall Street Journal editorial wrote:

"But for years scientific error was thought to be self-correcting.
If findings matter, other scientists will attempt to replicate them. A
fraud of any scientific importance will almost certainly be exposed by the
normal scientific method."

Science eventually corrects itself, but before it happens, millions of girls
are told that smoking cigarettes makes them healthy and beautiful, billions
of taxpayers dollars are stolen or wasted by charlatans, Space Shuttle
blows up, thalidomide tragedy strikes, nuclear reactor has a meltdown.


What can be reasonably done?

1) Secret ORI and other investigations should be scrapped. If people
publish articles and submit grant applications, they must be prepared for
public challenge. Claims that results are irreproducible should be made
publicly (there is nothing wrong to contact authors first to avoid
misunderstanding). If authors care to respond, they should do it publicly
to have any credibility. Science can not be satisfied by a verdict of guilt
or innocence made by a secret committee conducting investigations behind
closed doors.

2) There should not be a presumption of eligibility to receive government
grants. There is a lot of competition to receive grants. According to
reports, rejection rate is 80%-90% even for "good" grant application. If
some scientists have a habit of keeping their records on pieces of toilet
paper (as David Baltimore testified) and cannot backup their claims with
records, then grants should go to some better organized scientists without
wasting ten years on fraud investigation.

Leon Mintz July 3, 1996
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 09:38:47 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted hermary <czth%mcgilla.bitnet@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Subject: Re: Chronicle's Review
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Tue, 02 Jul 1996 16:14:38 EDT

From Paulette Walker's article:

> The O.R.I. .... has been criticized, since its
> inception, for being incompetent. Three of the five
> O.R.I. cases brought before the appeals board were
> dismissed because the panel members said the office had
> not proved its case.
>

I've heard this argument before, and still wonder about it.
Isn't there an issue of "choosing denominators" here? What
of all the other ORI findings that weren't even appealed?
are they successes? luck? unknowns? Is the implicit
comparison to an ideal 100% success rate a reasonable one.

I suspect some sociologists trying to judge the "success" of
a given agency might try comparing it to similar organizations
or activities though I'm not sure I'd know where to begin, if
only because what "type of organization" the ORI is. Should we,
say, compare it to the success rate of law firms' "conviction
rate" (assuming that represents "legal success")? the success
rate of a lab in publishing papers that convince reviewers?
The success scientists would have (by themselves) in court?
Something else entirely?

As I say, I'm not sure I have any answers. It's just that the
reasoning behind that argument strikes me as rather simplistic.

Thoughts?


Martin (Ted) Hermary (A.B.D.)
Department of Sociology
McGill University
855 Shebrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3A 2T7
e-mail: czth@musica.mcgill.ca
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:45:30 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Three From Nature

Three From Nature

Nature's latest issue contains several items which are of
interest to members of this board. The first is an editorial which,
among other things, describes the editor's reactions in the now
"resolved," Baltimore affair. The editor sees a need for restoring
confidence in the process of ferreting out fraud in science. The second
piece deals with the news of Imanishi-Kari's victory in her appeal.
The third, with Kenneth Ryan's responses to criticisms of his panel's
recommendations.

The three articles are reproduced in their entirety.

++++++++++

\Editor, "A Judgment Fit For Prime Time," Nature 381
(27 June 1996, p. 717.\

Among those who worry about the public
understanding of science are a few naive souls who
believe that things would get hotter if researchers
featured in soap operas. But when science itself
becomes high drama, with intellectual cut-and-thrust
tinged with soapily charged emotions, the sang-froid of
television executives has been known to turn, well,
lukewarm. Now, as a worthy successor to 'Life Story' (a
superb dramatization of the Watson-Crick discovery),
comes a story-line from the US Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS): 'Research integrity
adjudications panel, subject: Thereza Imanishi-Kari'.

Equivalent in length to three-quarters of an issue
of Nature, the document (see page 719) represents the
climax of a ten-year saga in which the perceived roles
of individuals and organizations have shifted from the
villainous to the heroic, and vice versa. Those
involved are gifts to script-writers: a congressman
apparently determined to show that scientists cannot
police themselves; a Secret Service forensic department
instructed by him to spend on laboratory notebooks more
time, as it turns out, than they have ever spent on a
threat to a president or on an illicit nuclear arms
transfer; an accuser whose past motivation and
character as a scientific colleague are open to
question; an investigative body -- the Office of
Research Integrity (ORI) of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) -- whose capacity for objective and
intelligent judgement now stands implicitly condemned;
a Nobel prizewinner who felt forced to resign from a
university presidency over the affair, withdrew the
disputed paper of which he and the accused were co-
authors, and then retracted his withdrawal; and the
immunologist whose reputation now stands triumphantly
restored: Dr Imanishi-Kari.

The new judgement follows others reached less
legalistically by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Tufts University, the NIH and the US
Attorney's Office of the District of Maryland, all of
which backed the accused against allegations by Margot
O'Toole that Imanishi-Kari had falsified data to
support the conclusions of a paper published in Cell.
And it appears to vindicate those who warn against
outsiders becoming involved in the policing of
scientific conduct: witness Secret Service conclusions
reached "without an appreciation of the bigger
picture".

That conclusion would be premature. There are
fierce debates in progress in the United States about
how academic institutions might in the future be
required to change their approach to scientific
misconduct (see the latest counter-attack launched by
Kenneth Ryan, chairman of a congressionally mandated
panel set up to look at the issue, reported on page
719). The secretive way in which universities as
distinguished as Harvard handle misconduct
investigations (see Nature 377, 569; 1995) does not
inspire confidence that publicly funded academics are
subject to sufficient sanctions to deter wrongdoing.

But the biggest question now hangs over the ORI.
Scandalously, it was the DHHS Research Integrity
Adjudications Panel, the final point of appeal in such
cases, that provided the first opportunity for
Imanishi-Kari to confront the evidence and witnesses on
which ORI based its 1994 judgement that she had
committed misconduct, barring her from receiving
federal funds for 10 years. That evidence, and the way
in which it was deployed by the ORI, is repeatedly
dismissed in the adjudication. But this was not
explicitly a trial of the ORI, and the roles of
individuals in the ORI are not discussed. That is a
major gap in the script that needs to be filled by the
NIH and the DHHS, and conclusions about the ORI's
future reached, before some confidence in the integrity
of public judgements of misconduct can be restored.

+++++++++++

\Steele, Fintan. "Clearing of Researcher in
'Baltimore Affair,' Boosts Demand for Reform," Nature
381 (27 June 1996), pp. 719-720.\

Washington. Ten years after charges of scientific
misconduct were first levelled against her, Thereza
Imanishi-Kari, an immunologist at Tufts University
Medical School in Boston, has been cleared of
wrongdoing by the appeals board of the US Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS).

The board's decision, released in Washington last
Friday, overturns a highly publicized ruling in 1994 by
the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), which found Imanishi-Kari
guilty of scientific misconduct and fraud (see Nature
372, 391, 1994).

This followed allegations that data in a
laboratory notebook concerning experiments on gene
expression in transgenic mice, carried out between 1984
and 1986 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) in collaboration with David Baltimore, then head
of the MIT's Whitehead Institute, appeared to
contradict data published in a paper in the journal
Cell at the end of this period.

The Imanishi-Kari affair has become more than a
solitary case of alleged scientific misbehaviour; for
many, it now represents the worst aspects of government
handling of scientific misconduct allegations. By
overruling the ORI verdict, the appeals board has
opened the door to calls for reform of the current
system for dealing with allegations of scientific
misconduct.

But the most immediate impact of the appeals
board ruling is to clear Imanishi-Kari herself. "This
is absolutely fantastic, but I haven't had time to
enjoy it," she said the day after the verdict. "I am so
pleased that there are some honest people who can make
a fair judgement."

Imanishi-Kari currently works as a research
associate in the department of pathology at Tufts. She
held a faculty appointment at the university until the
ORI verdict forced the university to strip it from her,
although university officials have allowed her to
continue her laboratory research pending the result of
the appeal.

The case began in 1986, when the allegations
against her were made by Margot O'Toole, a postdoctoral
research fellow in Imanishi-Kari's laboratory. O'Toole
took her concerns to both MIT and Tufts University,
which was considering Imanishi-Kari for a position at
the time. Officials at both institutions decided that
the dispute was of a kind "not uncommon in science".

O'Toole's persistence in questioning the Cell
paper led the NIH to set up a panel of inquiry. This
found errors in the paper requiring correction, but no
evidence of fraud, misconduct, manipulation of data, or
serious conceptual error". But by then the louse of
Representatives, through John Dingell (Democrat,
Michigan), chairman of e oversight and investigations
subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
had opened hearings into the matter.

Baltimore's spirited public defence of Imanishi-
Kari at the hearings led to the case becoming
informally known as "the Baltimore affair", even though
Baltimore himself as never accused of misconduct. (His
intervention also cost Baltimore the presidency of
Rockefeller University.)

Dingell, a tireless critic of the 'self-policing'
policy of the US scientific community, enlisted the US
Secret Service to conduct forensic studies of some of
Imanishi-Kari's laboratory notebooks, including
analysis of their paper and ink, as well as the
radiation counter tapes they contained, to establish
the dating of relevant experiments.

According to the Secret Service forensic experts
testifying before the appeals board, there were some
inconsistencies that could be construed as fabrication
of data. But they were quick to add under questioning
that they had no previous experience in analysing
laboratory notebooks.

Nevertheless, ORI eventually found Imanishi-Kari
guilty on 19 counts of scientific misconduct and banned
her from receiving federal research grant money for 10
years. Imanishi-Kari appealed against the verdict to
the DHHS departmental appeals board in November 1994,
and the verdict was finally delivered last week.

The panel appointed to hear the appeal has now
ruled that "no debarment be imposed" and that "no other
administrative ions should be taken", effectively
closing : case for good.

But the publicity that has surrounded the ease
means that its fallout is likely to be felt for some
time. Joseph Onek, for example, the lawyer for both
Imanishi-Kari and Baltimore, says that the appeals
board's ruling is a "great thing for Dr Imanishi-Kari,
but I also think it is a great thing for science". He
adds: "I hope that this case will now lead the
government and scientific community to reassess how
these scientific misconduct disputes are handled, and
try to figure out ways to resolve them more promptly
and fairly."

ORI, never popular among scientists, is now
likely to lose even more support. Indeed, the heaviest
criticism in the appeals board's ruling was levelled at
the integrity office, saying that much of the evidence
it presented was "irrelevant, had limited probative
value, was internally inconsistent, lacked reliability
or foundation, was not credible or not corroborated, or
was based on unwarranted assumptions".


The appeals board ruling comes at a time when
proposed new scientific misconduct regulations are
being hotly debated both within DHHS and in the
scientific community at large. How the department
should respond to a congressionally mandated report on
scientific misconduct is being considered by Shalala
and her staff (see Nature 639, 381;1996 and previous
page).

In addition to ORI, another likely casualty of the
appeals board ruling is O'Toole, now a researcher at
the Genetics Institute, a private biotechnology company
in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "The {board} has had the
same initial reaction everybody has had: they can't
believe that what I said happened, did in fact happen,"
says O'Toole. "But since they have tossed out the
evidence, their conclusions are not surprising."

The appeals board called O'Toole's interpretations
of some events "improbable and unwarranted", and parts
of her testimony "not credible". But O'Toole takes
issue with such statements. "From the beginning, I have
always told the truth, with the full expectation I
would be branded a liar for doing so," she says. "The
miracle was that, without exception, every scientist
who examined the evidence, eventually -- and
reluctantly -- came to the conclusion I was telling the
truth."

The panel said it was important that for
'whistleblowers' to be protected from adverse
consequences. But it also warned that they should not
get too heavily involved in a subsequent investigation.
"Such involvement can compromise both the ability of
the investigators to maintain objectivity, and the
ability of the whistleblower to avoid becoming too
vested in the outcome," it says. "We think that
happened here."

Imanishi-Kari says that her first priority now is
to seek reinstatement of her faculty position at Tufts
University, a request which is likely to be granted by
the university, which has been "very supportive"
through the whole affair. "Then I will be back to the
usual," she says. "Trying to get funding for my
research."

++++++++++

\Macilwain, Colin. "Problems of Integrity are
'Pervasive,'" Nature 381 (27 June 1996), p. 719.\

Washington. The chairman of a congressionally-mandated
commission on misconduct in research has hit back at
critics who claim that the recommendations of a recent
report by the panel are too draconian, and has wamed
that problems of integrity are now pervasive in US
science.

Kenneth Ryan, professor emeritus at Harvard
Medical School and chairman of the Commission of
Research Integrity (CRI), says that its proposals must
be acted on because the scientific commu-nity has
ignored a report published in 1992 by the National
Academy of Sciences, which recommended extensive seif-
regulation of scientific conduct.

He also predicted that Donna Shalala, the health
secretary, will implement most of the CRl's
recommendations, despite the protests of scientists and
groups such as the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (see Nature 38t, 639; 1996).

"It isn't the commission that is on trial here --
it is the scientific community," he told a seminar in
Washington last week organized by George Washington
University and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Ryan hit out at scientists who have attacked the
12-man panel for its failure to include adistinguished
scientists. "That's such an easy thing for scientists
to say," said Ryan. "The twelve were chosen to
represent the public interest, not scientists'
interests."

Congress set up the panel in 1993, and Shalala is
now considering its recommendations. "I'm very, wry
cynical about the scientists who are protesting so much
now about the CRI findings," Ryan said. "I'd like to
see them stand up for what was in the National Academy
of Sciences report."

Speaking before the final verdict, delivered four
days later, in the long-running case involving David
Baltimore, the Nobel prizewinner, and Thereza Imanishi-
Kari (see above), he also warned scientists not to draw
comfort from the result "If Imanishi-Kari is
exonerated, I can see a lot of people saying that there
is 'no problem'. But there is more to {scientific
integrity} than these high-profile cases."


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:35:03 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

Dewey:

We have no real disagreements to speak of. My point was that it
does neither Einstein nor Popper credit to propose that
falsificationism was just Popper following Einstein's lead. Thus
-- mere example, this -- it is pretty good Popper to say (as you
did) that if something is falsified it's not good science. But
in fact Popper himself usually (this is early Popper, of course)
meant, or said, just the opposite: the only good science is that
which CAN BE falsified; and early on, upon such a basis, he
decided that Darwinism was bad science. Later, he reconsidered
that; but it is what's usually taken away from Popper, especially
by scientists, and it's nonsense. Everybody knows that whatever
science is (we leave definitions to the philosophers), Darwin's
contribution -- and that includes the theory of natural selection
-- was pretty damned good science. It was never falsified; but
then again, as the creationist bores never cease exclaiming, it
has never been proven, in the sense that "species" n has been
observed, under selection, to change to species p. Philosophers
side, good scientists of the past, and we know who some of them
were, worked hard to devise means for proving their theories
right as well as wrong, recognizing always that unlike the case
of religion, nothing in science can be assumed to be right
forever.

Paul
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:05:50 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: bobby weinberg <73444.522@compuserve.com>
Subject: ORI false negatives appeal

Ted,

thank you for your kind reply, and so right to the point.

I'll follow your suggestions and let you if and what
turns up.

- ws bobby weinberg
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:11:43 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

Hi Paul:

My impression is that we are in general agreement.

The topic of falsification/verification is a fascinating topic for
me, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

I tried to get Susan Haack's _Evidence and Inquiry_ but, as luck
has it, the library copy is missing. After I buy, and digest it, I'll get
back to you privately for a continuation of our discussion, if you are
willing.

Cheers,
Dewey

>Dewey:
>
>We have no real disagreements to speak of. My point was that it
>does neither Einstein nor Popper credit to propose that
>falsificationism was just Popper following Einstein's lead. Thus
>-- mere example, this -- it is pretty good Popper to say (as you
>did) that if something is falsified it's not good science. But
>in fact Popper himself usually (this is early Popper, of course)
>meant, or said, just the opposite: the only good science is that
>which CAN BE falsified; and early on, upon such a basis, he
>decided that Darwinism was bad science. Later, he reconsidered
>that; but it is what's usually taken away from Popper, especially
>by scientists, and it's nonsense. Everybody knows that whatever
>science is (we leave definitions to the philosophers), Darwin's
>contribution -- and that includes the theory of natural selection
>-- was pretty damned good science. It was never falsified; but
>then again, as the creationist bores never cease exclaiming, it
>has never been proven, in the sense that "species" n has been
>observed, under selection, to change to species p. Philosophers
>side, good scientists of the past, and we know who some of them
>were, worked hard to devise means for proving their theories
>right as well as wrong, recognizing always that unlike the case
>of religion, nothing in science can be assumed to be right
>forever.
>
>Paul


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 22:11:05 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Two More on Imanishi-Kari

Two More on Imanishi-Kari

Here are two comments on the reversal of Dr. Imanishi-Kari's
conviction by the ORI. The first, from the op.ed. page of the
Times, is an essay by Bernadine Healy, former director of the
National Insitututes of Health and one who faced up to John
Dingell in his investigation of science fraud.

The second is yesterday's editorial from The Wall Street
Journal.

The pieces are reproduced in their entirety.

++++++++++


\Healy, Bernadine. "The Dangers of Trial by Dingell,"
New York Times, 3 July 1996, p. A23.\

Columbus, Ohio. In 1991, shortly after becoming
director of the National Institutes of Health, I was
summoned to Capitol Hill by the staff of Representative
John Dingell, the powerful Democratic chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee. The panel's
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, which he
also led, wanted to discuss draft reports being
prepared by the fraud office at N.I.H. in two high-
profile scientific misconduct investigations.

In one, Dr. Thereza Imanishi-Kari, an
immunologist, was accused of fabricating data to
support a 1986 article in the journal Cell. Her
research had been conducted in collaboration with David
Baltimore, a Nobelist who vehemently defended her
findings. In the other, Robert Gallo and Mikulas
Popovic of the R.I.H. were accused of falsifying data
in a study of the virus that causes AIDS.

Becoming director in the midst of this mess, I
received a crash course in how basic constitutional
principles can be violated. At the meeting, I was
taken aback by the Dingell staffers' brutish behavior,
which seemed calculated to put me on notice that these
inquiries were really their investigations -- even
though the Office of Scientific Integrity, a unit of
N.I.H. was officially conducting them.

The staffers demeaned the N.l.H leaders (we were
lap dogs, not scientific watchdogs, they said), and
they gloated about having taken down two of the biggest
names in science -- Dr. Baltimore and Dr. Gallo. I
reminded them that neither scientist had been found
guilty and that the report accusing Dr. Imanishi-Kari
of fraud was a leaked preliminary draft that she had
neither seen nor had a chance to rebut at N.l.H. What
about due process?

The staffers made it clear that they thought she
was guilty, so who cared about the rest? Meanwhile,
the National Institutes of Health was to bow to the
subcommittee's staff, and
I was instructed "to repent" for criticizing the
conduct of these inquiries inside and outside N.l.H.

The final guilty verdicts on these cases were
issued a few years later by the renamed Office of
Research Integrity, which had moved to N.I.H.'s parent,
the Department of Health and Human Services.


Last week, the department's appeals board
reversed this office's finding against Dr. Imanishi-
Kari and completely exonerated her. The board also
vindicated Dr. Baltimore, who in 1991 was forced to
resign as president of Rockefeller University because
of the controversy.


These exonerations followed others the appeals
board had issued since 1993. It found that Dr. Popovic
had not committed misconduct, as the fraud office
charged, and it withdrew the case against Dr. Gallo.
Dr. Ramesh Sharma, a biochemist accused of falsifying
data, was also exonerated. All of these cases were of
special interest to the Dingell subcommittee.

It would be a mistake to see these acquittals as
isolated decisions. Taken together, they expose how
unbridled political power, career opportunism and plain
cowardice hijacked a process initially created by
scientists to insure research integrity.

What happened? In 1991, Mr. Dingell, as head of
Energy and Commerce and its investigative subcommittee,
had amassed a reputation as the most powerful man in
Washington (it all ended when the 1994 elections wept a
Republican majority into the House). He used all these
cases to burnish his image as a crusader against fraud
in science. His subcommittee had broad subpoena
authority and virtually unchecked power to investigate,
prosecute and judge its targets. For example, the
panel used its muscle to derail an open hearing on Dr.
Gallo by the National Cancer Advisory Board, which
operates under he aegis of N.I.H.

At the same time, Congress, exempt from the
Privacy Act and similar laws, allowed Mr. Dingell's
staff to have unrestrained and privileged access to
irrelevant material (including medical information in
personnel records of one accused scientist). In the
Constitution's speech and debate clause -- intended to
give immunity to legislators speaking on the floor of
Congress -- was used liberally, and was extended to
protect staffers who leaked confidential and often
distorted excerpts of documents to favored reporters.
This was material inaccessible to the accused
scientists and uncooperative journalists.

There were other critical players in the so-called
fraud-busting campaign: a cadre of N.I.H. employees
outside of the official fraud office who essentially
became self-appointed investigators for the Dingell
panel. Incredibly, they also invoked the speech and
debate clause when their activities came to light --
actions like taking confidential records out of N.I.H.
offices; leaking privileged materials from scientists'
files; misleading supervisors about the full scope of
their activities and making unauthorized use of N.l.H.
resources.

My staff saw the contents of a computer used
exclusively by one of these employees. It contained
drafts of demanding letters from Mr. Dingell to me --
and to the Secretary and an Assistant Secretary of
Health and Human Services -- about the inquiry, as well
as a near-complete draft of what was to be the
subcommittee's report on Dr. Gallo. As if all this
were taken from "The Wizard of Oz," an N.I.H.
bureaucrat appeared to be ghost-writing the
intimidating words of the mighty Congressional
chairman.


All this, plus the lack of due process in its
proceedings, drastically compromised the workings of
the Office of Research Integrity. The subversion of due
process was aided by many prominent scientists who
seized the chance to wound their competition. Outside
experts used in the fraud office's investigation of the
accused scientists met behind closed doors,
unrestrained by judicial rules of evidence and order or
the rigor of the scientific method. Before a verdict
was in, one Nobel winner came to see me to say that Dr.
Baltimore should be kicked out of the National Academy
of Sciences and stripped of his Nobel Prize.

The prevailing response to the unfair system of
justice meted out by Mr. Dingell and the Office of
Research Integrity was appeasement: kneel, apologize,
grovel and, if need be, collude. For daring to question
the independence and impartiality of this bizarre
system, I was subjected to heavy fire by the
subcommittee.

How do we make sure that such abuses of power
never happen again? One effort to correct the highly
polluted process has been successful. At the insistence
of some of us at N.I.H., the appeals board at Health
and Human Services was set up in 1992, so that
scientists can learn of charges against them, see the
evidence, confront their accusers and defend themselves
in an open hearing before a panel trained in judicial
procedure. And Congress is dismantling the Energy and
Commerce Committee's sweeping investigatory power
structure.

About a half century ago, Supreme Court Justice
Robert Jackson wrote lat "the most odious of all
oppressions are those which mask as justice." This
sentiment must resonate with the scientists who faced
destruction. We must see that this sad story is never
repeated.

Bernadine Healy, dean of the Ohio State University
medical school, was director of the National Institutes
of Health from March 1991 to July 1993.


++++++++++

\Editor, "The Baltimore Vindication," The Wall
Street Journal, 2 July 1996, p. A14.\

The dismissal of all misconduct charges in the
notorious case of Nobel laureate David Baltimore is
being portrayed as the end of some strange
Shakespearean tragedy. We disagree. Despite the happy
ending, the 10-year sage is a commentary on the
corruption of great American institutions by modern
politics.

It wasn't so long ago that American children were
reared to think of scientists as admirable, even
heroic. Jonas Salk became a cultural icon for
discovering the polio vaccine; NASA scientists had the
right stuff. Forty years ago David Baltimore might
have earned similar respect for his feat, at age 37, of
winning a Nobel for his study of how some AIDS-like
viruses reproduce. But he rose to prominence instead
in the modern, post-1960s' age of political correctness
and endemic mistrust, and he suffered the consequences.

Mr. Baltimore was never accused of misconduct
himself. His sin was to defend a colleague and co-
author, MIT biomedical scientist Thereza Imanishi-Kari,
of a paper published in 1986 in the scientific journal
Cell. A young, post-doctoral fellow named Margot
O'Toole accused Ms. Imanishi-Kari of falsifying data.
Three internal reviews by MIT, Tufts and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) found only minor error.
Whereupon Ms. O'Toole brought her complaints to
Congress and John Dingell, and a tale of modern
politics ensured.

Mr. Dingell has faded into insignificance since
Republicans took Congress. But back when Democrats
ruled, he claimed jurisdiction over the universe. One
of his targets became "scientific fraud," a crusade he
pursued with the vindictiveness that made him so
famous. Daniel Kevles summarizes the affair in a
recent New Yorker article: the press leaks, the Star
Chamber character of the inquiry, the intimidation of
bureaucrats to put Mr. Baltimore's scalp on the wall.

For a while Mr. Dingell prevailed. A policing
outfit he forced upon NIH, the Orwellian-named Office
of Research Integrity (ORI), barred Ms. Imanishi-Kari
from receiving federal grants; her career seemed
ruined. But the saga began to turn when Mr. Dingell
forwarded the details of the case to a U.S. attorney
for prosecution. At last Ms. Imanishi-Kari could
respond to the charges against her with her own legal
and technical experts.

The prosecutors soon concluded there was no case.
Secret Service forensic analysis, which was supposed to
be damning, was exposed as "unpersuasive" and ignorant
of scientific record-keeping and interpretation. The
Secret Service;s own gumshoes admitted they'd never
seen anything like this case before. After Ms.
Imanishi-Kari appealed her grant disbarment, a three-
member Health and Human Services panel concluded this
June, a decade after her ordeal began, that ORI "did
not prove its charges."

Yet the episode shouldn't end without some
accounting for how it could have happened in the first
place. Start with Mr. Dingell, who typified the
mentality of the federal regularity state run amok.
Under the guise of protecting taxpayer money, the
Dingells of the Beltway take it upon themselves to
intrude into every corner of American life. These
politicians take credit for doling out taxpayer dollars
far and wide, then they lunge for more credit with
public spectacles of their policing activities.

Of course, scientists willingly tied themselves to
federal grants. But for years scientific error was
thought to be self-correcting. If findings matter,
other scientists will attempt to replicate them. A
fraud of any scientific importance will almost
certainly be exposed by the normal scientific method.
As for more trivial fraud, the cost of trying to ferret
it out probably exceeds any public benefit from seeing
a few bad apples punished. Indeed, in the Baltimore
case, even the accusations of fraud concerned details
that were largely irrelevant to the paper's main
findings, which have since been corroborated by others.

But Mr. Dingell couldn't have done all this
without help, notably from the Naderites who now
dominate the modern press corps. The Dingell staff,
entrenched for so long, developed a symbiotic
relationship with journalists: Reporters got scoops
and Dingell got one-sided publicity for his
accusations. The accused got caught in between.

Especially since the inclination of modern
journalism is to believe every whistle-blower. Because
Ms. O'Toole was cast as challenging authority, she was
the one given the benefit of the doubt. Now that the
verdict has been reverse, even Anthony Lewis at the New
York Times concludes that "the press did a poor job."
Yet Mr. Lewis's own paper, especially writer Phillip
Hilts, led the anti-Baltimore jihad. A March 1991
Times editorial declared that "the Baltimore case is
reminiscent of the Watergate scandal." Right analogy,
wrong reason: While skepticism toward the powerful is
a press obligation, since Watergate too many
journalists assume everyone must be lying -- except
their sources.

Ms. O'Toole also received more than the usual
sympathy because she fit the politically correct model
-- a woman challenging a scientific establishment
dominated by men. The liberal feminist Barbara
Ehrenreich denounced Mr. Baltimore in Time magazine for
a "misguided defense of the sanctity of science" and
for not understanding that "truth is no respecter of
hierarchy or fame." Mr. Baltimore happens to be a
liberal of some passion himself, but he was abandoned
by other liberals when there was a broader political
point to be made.

Nor did the scientific establishment cover itself
in glory. A rare hero was Bernadine Healy, the former
NIH director, who stood up to John Dingell and forced
more due process into the ORI fraud-policing process.
But too many other scientists followed the example of
Harvard's Walter Gilbert and berated Mr. Baltimore for
having the guts to resist someone as powerful as a
committee chairman.

Mr. Dingell was even invited to give the
prestigious Shattuck Lecture in 1992 at the
Massachusetts Medical Society, in which he saluted his
own motives and handiwork. Rockefeller University
especially get a profiles-in-timidity prize for making
Mr. Baltimore its president only to bounce him out the
door when the going got tough. The inference we draw
is that too many scientists now value federal funding
more than they value the integrity of science. Donald
Kennedy, the former president of Stanford, noted last
week: "A lot of people owe David an apology."

Some good might yet come out of the Baltimore
affair if it becomes a brake on the destructive
political zeitgeist we've described. The Times to its
credit now laments its own "rush to judgment." We
suspect Mr. Dingell's epiphany won't come until his
life (or afterlife) after Congress. If nothing else, a
least in this one case science escaped the clutches of
political recrimination.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 13:15:44 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: believing by degrees

John Bailar III writes, "Its clear that there is serious misunderstanding about
the foundations of both statistics and probability. The most sophisticated vi
ew is that probability is a measure of strength of belief."
True, one of the interpretations of probabilism is the "degree of belief" int
erpretation. Of course, if authors came to terms with their beliefs in the fir
st instance they would not need to clothe their independent clauses with probab
ilities in the second instance, then explain and interpret in the third. When
I overstate, I am more or less candid or more or less articulate, but I am not
believing by degrees. Speakers who select words mindful of their beliefs have
no discrepancy problem; of course, they may lose their expert status. If the c
lause is not an overstatement I do not need the language of probabilities (or a
ny other clause qualifier).
John Bailar III has said that thinking probabilistically is a help. But who
does it help? It helps the lottery promoter convince the 99% who cannot win th
at they could ("anyone can win"); it helps the investigator publish "findings"
that no one, including the investigator, believes. It helps the editors respon
sible for the nutrition page fill white space. But it does not help losers of
the lotteries who are misled by false statements. When a probabilist does
not know if some outcome will occur, they say it could occur. Thinking probabi
listically helps no one who is misled as to how things work.
Because philosophers argue about them so much, the following terms could be c
alled philosophical or ideological terms: 'nothing,' 'being,' 'true and false,'
'possibility,' 'existence and non-existence,' and our friend, 'probability.'
They, and a few others, have in common the fact that they strike most readers m
ost of the time as both non-conceptual, logical terms ('no,' 'to be,' 'all,' 'n
ot,' 'some,' etc.) and conceptual. Much of the philosophical literature consis
ts of emphasizing one or the other. They are worth fighting over because
with each, we can use the logical feature to form a language and with the conce
ptual we can set criteria for what can be said with that language. For example
, to the extent that the "degree of belief" interpretation is accepted, it sets
criteria for what can be said with the language of probability. If successful
, language reforms can advance an ideology more rapidly than argument. For a t
ime, logical positivists used the truth-functional language to great effect. T
hey developed a two-valued logic on the one hand and interpreted truth and fals
e as relational properties of statements on the other, a coup for objectivity.
They could then ask such profound questions as: 'How do you determine the
truth or falsity of a statement?' The limited frequency interpretation is anot
her widely used criterion for the language of probability.
For the most part, we condition ourselves so that we respond to logical terms
in one way and conceptual terms in the other. Hybrids confound that condition
ing, making us vulnerable to these committed languages. (Recall how Alice and
the King use 'nobody' in Through the Looking Glass.) I have a simple solution
for several of these hybrids; do not interpret them, dismantle them (no/thing,
no/body). Since 'probably' qualifies 'to be,' it, like 'possibly,' is a non-co
nceptual, logical term. Giving it a noun ending invites unlimited conceptual
interpretations setting forth various ideological criteria for using the langua
ge.
We have an elegant, supple and uncommitted language that keeps separate the
logical and the conceptual terms, the language we use most of the time and our
greatest investion. The philosophical, committed, ideological languages always
involve a hassle since there will always be fellow ideologues who want to vary
it somewhat and others who reject the ideology. (A less abbreviated discussio
n of this is available on request.)

Foster Lindley, Philosophy, Emeritus
The University of Connecticut
32 Ledgewood Drive
Storrs, CT 06268
860-429-2484
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 13:57:43 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: believing by degrees

I hope that Prof. Lindley will understand the following question
as arising from genuine puzzlement, not from any wish to be
dismissive or brusque: So what? All technical language that is
either borrowed from, or adopted by, the general speech has a
range of meanings, and those can be used, by design or ignorance,
to support beliefs, justified or not so. The "probability" of
statisticians is usually (but not always) a more specific and
bounded term than that of most scientists who are not
statisticians also; and the probability of the latter is
different from that of other scholars who don't mess with
statistics. The probability of the media and the general public
is something very much else. I can think -- but certainly won't
pester this list -- about at least a dozen other such concepts
for which a single word serves as the label. And finally, there
are doubtless scholars who know the techncial meaning of
probability and nevertheless use it, on purpose, to mislead. The
"studies" of which the print media and TV are so fond include
many such cases, well-documented, not rarely from the social
sciences. So what's new?

PRG
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 14:44:10 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "j. philip miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: ORI Findings

FINDINGS OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT

NIH GUIDE, Volume 25, Number 22, July 5, 1996

P.T. 34; K.W. 1014004, 1014006

Department of Health and Human Services

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
has made final findings of scientific misconduct in the following
cases:

Robert J. Altman, M.D., University of California at San Francisco
(UCSF): Based on an investigation conducted by the institution as
well as information obtained by ORI during its oversight review, ORI
found that Robert J. Altman, M.D., Research Fellow, Department of
Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, UCSF, committed
scientific misconduct by fabricating and falsifying data in research
supported by two National Institutes of Health grants.

Specifically, Dr. Altman fabricated an experiment related to an
ovarian cell line injected intraperitoneally into 12 nude mice. The
resulting data were reported in (1) a manuscript in page proof
entitled "Inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor arrests
growth of ovarian cancer in an intraperitoneal model" (Journal of the
National Cancer Institute); (2) a manuscript entitled "Vascular
endothelial growth factor is essential for human ovarian carcinoma
growth in vivo," submitted to the Journal of Clinical Investigation
(JCI manuscript); and (3) a published abstract entitled "Vascular
endothelial growth factor is essential for ovarian cancer growth in
vivo" (Society for Gynecologic Investigation, abstract #079).
Further, in the JCI manuscript, Dr. Altman (1) falsified the number
of subjects with ovarian tumors from whom he obtained sections of
tissue for examination of the expression of vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF) purportedly by both in situ hybridization and
immunohistochemistry, and (2) falsely reported that VEGF expression
was examined by in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry in
papillary serous- (n=7) and mucinous- (n=5) cystadenocarcinomas, when
the number of surgical cases involving papillary serous tumors was
four and the number of mucinous tumors was zero. Dr. Altman examined
VEGF expression in only three papillary serous tumor specimens, one
specimen both in situ and by immunohistochemistry and the remaining
two solely by immunohistochemistry.

Dr. Altman has entered into a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with ORI
in which he has voluntarily agreed, for the three year period
beginning June 11, 1996, to exclude himself from:

(1) any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United
States Government and from eligibility for, or involvement in,
nonprocurement transactions (e.g., grants and cooperative agreements)
of the United States Government as defined in 45 C.F.R. Part 76
(Debarment Regulations), and

(2) serving in any advisory capacity to the Public Health Service
(PHS), including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory
committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

The above voluntary exclusion shall not apply to Dr. Altman's future
training or practice of clinical medicine whether as a medical
student, resident, fellow, or licensed practitioner, as the case may
be, unless that practice involves research or research training.

Vipin Kumar, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology: Based upon a
report forwarded to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) by the
California Institute of Technology (C.I.T.) dated January 10, 1991,
as well as information obtained by ORI during its oversight review,
ORI found that Vipin Kumar, Ph.D., formerly a scientist at C.I.T.,
engaged in scientific misconduct in biomedical research supported by
Public Health Service (PHS) funds.

Specifically, ORI found that Dr. Kumar committed scientific
misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating Figures 2a and 2b in a
scientific paper published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine,
170:2183-2188 (1989) (JEM paper). ORI accepted the C.I.T. conclusion
that Dr. Kumar ~freely admitted~ that he mislabeled the lanes in
Figures 2a and 2b, which are labeled to indicate they represent the
results of research from different DNA samples when in fact a number
of lanes are duplicates. Although Dr. Kumar denies that he intended
to deceive anyone, C.I.T. concluded in its Report that the
"deliberate presentation of duplications of one experiment which are
labeled to indicate they came from separate DNA samples deceives the
reader as to the real source of the DNA in the experiment, where the
central point of the experiment is the similarity of results among
different sources." ORI also accepted the C.I.T. conclusion that Dr.
Kumar presented Figure 2c of the JEM paper "in a very misleading
fashion." The central observation of the JEM paper is that both
alleles of the alpha chain of the T-cell receptor gene are frequently
rearranged. This conclusion was based, in part, on Figure 2c, which
C.I.T. found had been labeled in a misleading fashion that led the
reader to believe that the heavy band at the top of the blot was an
8kb restriction fragment (i.e., representing an internal control)
rather than undigested material that failed to enter the gel.
Examination of the original film indicates that there was no evidence
that the second alpha-chain rearranges in mature T-cells. Thus, ORI
further accepted the C.I.T. conclusion that Figure 2 was
intentionally falsified and/or fabricated and that, as a result, "one
of the main scientific results of this paper was not substantiated by
the original data."

In addition, ORI found that Dr. Kumar committed scientific misconduct
by falsifying and/or fabricating Figure 5b of a manuscript that was
submitted for publication to the journal Cell (Cell manuscript), but
was later withdrawn. ORI accepted the C.I.T. conclusion that lanes
6, 7 and 8 of Figure 5b are the same as lanes 11, 12 and 13,
respectively, even though they are labeled as being from different
samples. ORI also accepted the C.I.T. conclusion that Dr. Kumar made
a number of other materially misleading statements in the Cell
manuscript that were not supported by the primary data. For example,
C.I.T. concluded that Dr. Kumar made a number of materially
misleading statements about the age of mice and the timing of the
injection of peptides into these mice in a paper published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87:1337-1341 (1990)
(PNAS paper). This information is material because induction of the
disease studied (i.e., allergic encephalomyelitis) is dependent upon
the age of the mice.

Based upon the findings of scientific misconduct in the C.I.T.
Report, the JEM and PNAS papers were retracted prior to ORI's
findings in this case.

ORI and Dr. Kumar agreed to resolve the case through a negotiated
settlement and limited voluntary exclusion agreement (Agreement),
which the parties agreed shall not be construed as an admission of
liability or wrongdoing on the part of the Dr. Kumar.

Dr. Kumar plans to submit a letter to ORI in which he summarizes his
response to ORI's findings. Dr. Kumar has agreed to exclude himself
voluntarily from serving in any advisory capacity to the PHS,
including service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer
review committee, or as a consultant for a period of three years.
Dr. Kumar has also agreed to exclude himself voluntarily, for a
period of 18 months from any contracting or subcontracting with any
agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for, or
involvement in, nonprocurement transactions (e.g., grants and
cooperative agreements) of the United States Government. However,
this provision will not apply to a currently pending PHS grant
application involving Dr. Kumar.

In addition, any institution that uses Dr. Kumar in any capacity on
PHS supported research must concurrently submit a plan for
supervision of Dr. Kumar's duties, designed to ensure the scientific
integrity of Dr. Kumar's research, for a period of three years.
Similarly, any institution employing Dr. Kumar must submit, in
conjunction with each application for PHS funds or report of PHS
funded research in which Dr. Kumar is involved, a certification that
the data provided by Dr. Kumar are based on actual experiments or are
otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures and
methodology are accurately reported in the application or research
report, for a period of three (3) years.

INQUIRIES

For further information, contact:

Director, Division of Research Investigations
Office of Research Integrity
5515 Security Lane, Suite 700
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 443-5330
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 19:41:12 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: statistical thinking?

Lindley said:

"........said that thinking probabilistically is a help. But who
does it help? It helps the lottery promoter convince the 99% who cannot win
that they could ("anyone can win").

Please tell me who are the 99% who cannot win? I am not questioning that 99%
won't win, but when the lottery promoter says, "anyone can win," is he/she
being less accurate than you, when you say 99% cannot win? It seems that you
both are saying the same thing. He is subtly counseling risk, you are subtly
counseling caution.

Bob Barasch (no claim to being a statistician)
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:26:54 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: The skies are falling.

Tuesday July 9, PBS program:

NOVA "The Doomsday Asteroid" presents evidence that there are thousands of
giant asterouds or comets that could collide with Earth asking: When will a
devastating strike occur, and can anything be done about it?

Leon Mintz July 5, 1996
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:13:33 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: The skies are falling.

Leon Mintz posted:

>Tuesday July 9, PBS program:
>
>NOVA "The Doomsday Asteroid" presents evidence that there are thousands of
>giant asterouds or comets that could collide with Earth asking: When will a
>devastating strike occur, and can anything be done about it?


These questions are good ones. Earth does get hit by
extraterrestrial objects.

For the first question, Gene Shoemaker estimated (_Science_ , 1995,
v. 268, p. 1562) that earth can expect a visit from a 1-km object about
once every 1000,000 years, and that objects about 200 meters in diameter
might hit about every 4,000 years.

For the second, various strategies have been recommended. For
example, Edward Teller's idea of "cosmic exponential billiards," whereby
smaller asteroids are directed to bump into larger ones, deflecting them
from earth, or breaking them into pieces, has considerable support from the
Spacewatch community.

Even small impacting objects could wreak great local/regional
damage. However, on the level of global-scale environmental perturbation, I
do not know of any definitive evidences of any impact event in earth
history causing perturbation severe enough to trigger mass extinctions.

For the K-T extinctions, recent modeling on CO2 and S released via
impact (for the Chicxulub "structure" on Yucatan, claimed by some to be the
biggest impact crater in the inner Solar System) indicates that the "small
quantities of volatiles could not alone account for the widespread K/T
extinctions" (Cygan et al., report on the "Planetary Impact Events..."
conference, _EOS_, 21 May 1996, p. 199).

Dewey McLean









Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 15:36:33 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Greenhouses and politicians

Dear Scifraud colleagues:

America certainly has the best informed and most responsible
politicians on this planet. As proof, I offer the following comments about
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), chair of the subcommittee on energy and
environment (from _Science_ , 1995, v. 268, p. 1695).

"Reporters recently got a taste of how leadership in the House
Science Committee feels about the credibility of reports about global
warming: skeptical. At a meeting with members of the press to talk about
the fate of the Energy Department, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
said that, as chair of the subcommittee on energy and environment, he
intends to put a stop to wasteful research on "trendy science," which, he
said, "has cost us billions." Some climate research, he indicated, is
definitely in that category. And "nowhere is scientific nonsense more
evident than in global warming programs that are sprinkled throughout the
current year budget." But, said Rohrabacher, "There's a new gang in
town.... Our '96 budget does not operate on the assumption that global
warming is a proven phenomenon. In fact, it is assumed at best to be
unproven and at worst to be liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of
style in our Newt Congress."

On the other hand, maybe we don't.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 16:30:47 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The skies are falling.

Leon Mintz asks if there's anything to be done if we discover an
asteroid on a collision path with Earth. Response:

1. Nobody really knows how to calculate the probability (eecch!)
thereof; but it is certainly not zero. The recent visit of
Showmaker-Levy IX to Jupiter told us something about it.

2. IF the TTC (time to collision) were of the order of a few
years, it is very unlikely that we could, in the present state of
knowledge and techniques, do anything about it.

3. Prayer and alternative, holistic healing would probably
(there goes that word again) not help.

4. Plenty of science and technology, between now and when (and
if) it happens, might help.

PRG
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 21:42:34 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: anyone could win

I thank Paul Gross and Robert Barasch for their comments. Paul Gross and I see
m to be on the same wave length now. Robert Barasch writes,
"Please tell me who are the 99% who cannot win? I am not questioning that
99% won't win, but when the lottery promoter says, "anyone can win," is he/she
being less accurate than you, when you say 99% cannot win? It seems that you
both are saying the same thing. He is subtly counseling risk, you are subtly c
ounseling caution."
Ouch, well put. However, the contradictory of anyone can win is 'at least
one cannot.' Thus I am contradicting the lottery promoter when I say 99% canno
t win. The 'cannot' still needs to be explained. Given the conditions of the
toss (spin, whatever) the outcome cannot be other than it will be. Anyone coul
d win or lose for all I know, but that is a description of my mind, not a desc
ription of the device's behavior. My ignorance is irrelevant to the outcome an
d enables no one to win or lose. Probabilists use ignorance not only as an ena
bler; if it is uniform they use it as a generalizing principle.
Although the speaker does not know who will win and who will lose, he/she
knows: that the person who will win cannot lose and those who will lose cannot
win, that no player can either win or lose; one will win, the rest will lose.
If there will be only one winner, the speaker knows that if she tells two playe
rs they could win, she has made at least one false statement. That is, she tol
d at least one person who cannot win that they could. All this we know, not be
cause we know the outcome, but we know how things work. We never hesitate to l
ook to the antecedent conditions to explain events. Ignorance of the outcome n
eed not cause us to declare mental bankruptcy.
Would anyone in this group argue that given the actual conditions, outcome
s could be other than they are? If so, would they say it of any gambling devi
ce in common use? What of the probabilist's favorite device, coins? I have
some stop-action photographs of tossed coins (on request) and I would be surpri
sed if anyone in the group, while looking at the picture, would say that the ou
tcome could have been other than the picture shows it to be.
Even most probabilists first say they believe outcomes are predictable bef
ore speaking as though they were due to chance. (This helps us feel safe aroun
d them.) Few would argue seriously that a coin could fall either way, but they
do not hesitate to use a language presupposing it. It is one of those cases w
here an ideology can be promoted far more effectively by controlling what is sa
id than by argument. We can think probabilistically if we talk probabilistical
ly. Although few would argue that outcomes were due to chance, they do not hes
itate to speak the language of chance. The famous query to which both Pascal a
nd Fermat responded presupposed games that were fair due to chance. The questi
on had to do with a fair distribution of the kitty when games were interrupted.
Whether the fairness of the completed game was due to chance was never questi
oned. With the calculus of probability, chance was perceived to be a calculabl
e factor, throughout. From its inception, the language of probability was an a
ttempt to rationalize gambling behavior, to support the claim that anyone could
win. Thinking probabilistically convinces losers they could have won, helping
them return with more. Teaching clients to think probabilistically helps the r
isk business.

Foster Lindley, Philosophy, Emeritus, University of Connecticut
32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268, 860-429-2484
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:31:13 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: The skies are falling - clarification.

>Tuesday July 9, PBS program:
>
>NOVA "The Doomsday Asteroid" presents evidence that there are thousands of
>giant asterouds or comets that could collide with Earth asking: When will a
>devastating strike occur, and can anything be done about it?
>
>Leon Mintz July 5, 1996

I did not ask these questions, I was just informing about the future program
related to our discussions. This text was from the PBS program guide.
Phrase "The skies are falling" was used in announcing of this new program.
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:11:18 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The skies are falling - clarification.

If "The Skies Are Falling" was used in a PBS program guide, I
apologize to Mintz for my short, serious response to his post.
The PBS reference to Chicken Little makes sense, given the
network's recent tendencies toward "even-handedness" vis-a-vis
science and New Age crap. It began with Bill Moyers's driveling
on the wisdom of the ages applied to "healing," or maybe even
before. One senses that they want to mitigate the pro-science
hyperbole of NOVA with matching excesses in favor of
anti-science. Well, whether it's contributions or plain old
invoices to advertisers, it's business just the same.
Nevertheless, I know a few astronomers, and read the literature
as a rank, but style-consscious amateur. I have never
encountered a Chicken Little among them, although the leading
edges are, as in all science, never free of speculation and
error.

PRG
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:54:44 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: The skies are falling - clarification.

Leon Mintz wrote:

>>Tuesday July 9, PBS program:
>>
>>NOVA "The Doomsday Asteroid" presents evidence that there are thousands of
>>giant asterouds or comets that could collide with Earth asking: When will a
>>devastating strike occur, and can anything be done about it?
>>
>>Leon Mintz July 5, 1996
>
>I did not ask these questions, I was just informing about the future program
>related to our discussions. This text was from the PBS program guide.
>Phrase "The skies are falling" was used in announcing of this new program.


Asteroids we can perhaps cope with. And they might even be fun.
Bringing one down on LA would certainly help Stanford's football team. But
the whole sky falling? It's worse than we knew. That PBS show ought to
convince Congress to keep our most ardent Strangelovian weaponeers in big
bucks for a long time.

That is unless Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) brands it as "unproven and
at worst to be liberal claptrap, trendy, but soon to go out of style in our
Newt Congress."

"Newt Congress"? What is Rohrabacher saying? Newts are amphibians.
Is he saying that Congress is made up of amphibians? They are even lower
down the evolutionary scale than reptiles.

Hey, the thoughts of Chairman Rohrabacher (he is chair of the
subcommittee on energy and environment) just inspired a new theory.
Everyone knows that a falling asteroid ended the Age of Reptiles. The new
theory is that a falling sky will end our leadership Age of Amphibians.

Now, if only Edward Teller would use his "cosmic exponential
billiards" technology to direct a chunk of falling sky toward
Rohrabacher....

That would be fun. And could raise the average I.Q. of Congress a
few points.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 15:42:47 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert barasch <robertb280@aol.com>
Subject: question

I was given an article, openly promotional, that had been prepared by a
person who was identified as a "Nobel Prize Nominee-Medicine." I am curious
to know if such a designation imparts meaningful information. Who nominates
people for the prize, are there identifiable criteria for carrying such a
title, etc.? The article is not trickery, in that it is clear that it is part
of a sales promotion, which I have no problem with. I am curious to know if
the nominating process is bounded by some kind of rigor, or whether the
process is so unbounded that I could, for example, nominate my neighbor, who
could then legitimately carry the title of nominee.

Any light cast on the subject would be appreciated.

Bob Barasch
robertb280@aol.com
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 18:13:16 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: bobby weinberg <73444.522@compuserve.com>
Subject: more nobel questions

how are nobel prices created ?
- what are they supposed to encourage
and reward ?
Why is there a price for economy but none for
engineering or law, why is there a price for
literature but none for music or art?
there is a price for peace - how could one
create a price for integrity in science?

bobby weinberg
integrity in science
who needs it, who cares
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 20:16:13 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: john crewdson <crewdson@aol.com>
Subject: Re: question

In a message dated 96-07-07 15:44:06 EDT, you write:

<< was given an article, openly promotional, that had been prepared by a
person who was identified as a "Nobel Prize Nominee-Medicine." I am curious
to know if such a designation imparts meaningful information. Who nominates
people for the prize, are there identifiable criteria for carrying such a
title, etc.? The article is not trickery, in that it is clear that it is
part
of a sales promotion, which I have no problem with. I am curious to know if
the nominating process is bounded by some kind of rigor, or whether the
process is so unbounded that I could, for example, nominate my neighbor, who
could then legitimately carry the title of nominee. >>

Only distinguished academics, foremost among them Nobel laureates, are
*invited* by the Nobel Foundation to make nominations, but anyone can
nominate anyone else, uninvited.
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 23:01:08 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Re: Nobel Question

If the author of the article in question is Dr. Barry Marshall, then such
identification is totally unnecessary. If the author of this article is
somebody else, then such identification is totally meaningless.

Leon Mintz, July 7, 1996
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:00:26 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ralph alpher <alpherr@gar.union.edu>
Subject: Re: question

It is not difficult to know that one has been nominated. The nominators
usually ask the potential nominee to supply C.V. information, and, on
occasion, send the potential nominee a copy of the nominating letter. As I
understand it, the committee in Sweden circularizes heads of departments
around the world, and previous winners of the Nobel prize, for nominations.
I have heard of only two cases in which a potential nominee made the
effort to gain support for his nomination. I suspect it is rather unusual.
I do
not endorse such activities, I must say. There is a "policical" aspect to
the nominating process which I have heard rumors about, but only that.


Ralph A. Alpher
Union College and Dudley Observatory
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 16:31:30 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: thomas sellke <tsellke@stat.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Prof.Lindley's latest comments call for yet another "so what?'
He apparently thinks that,since so-called random events like
coin-flipping are in fact determined by initial conditions,
the use of probabilistic reasoning (and even language) amount
to a declaration of "intellectual bankruptcy."
But in life one must constantly make decisions in situations
where one does not have anywhere near enough knowledge of
initial conditions to make exact predictions,but where some
relevant partial knowledge (or "enlightened opinion") is
available.Some (but perhaps not all) of these situations
lend themselves to probabilistic reasoning.The fact (?) that
initial conditions determine the outcome is irrelevant , since
one does not (and often one cannot) know them well enough,yet
the need to make some sort of decision remains.

Prof.Lindley's final sentence is,"Teaching clients to think
probabilistically helps the risk business." Mr. Lindley
seems to think that "the risk business" is a bad thing. I am not sure what is meant
here by "the risk business."
Broadly interpreted,
"the risk business" is what life is all about,since we are
constantly making choices in partial ignorance of the
consequences.More narrowly interpreted, "the risk business"
would still seem to include the insurance industry.Does
Prof.Lindley think that insurance is a bad thing? Or should
the insurance industry somehow try to avoid probabilistic
language and reasoning?

It is certainly true that many and perhaps most people
use probabilistic language in a loose way,without any
thought about what it "really means". It is also true
that some people are so goofy that telling them "anyone
can win" is enough to get them to gamble in casinos
and to play in lotteries.There are also plenty of instances
in science where statistics and probability are used incorrectly.
But it's completely crazy to think that one can somehow avoid
the problem of having to make decisions in the face of
uncertainty,or the problem of transmitting partial knowledge..
Probabilistic reasoning is just the logic appropriate for
these problems.The mistakes and abuses that one commonly sees
in attempts at probabilistic reasoning are no more justification
for scrapping it than the mistakes and abuses that one commonly
sees in attempts at other sorts of logical reasoning are
justification for scrapping logic.

Prof.Lindley's wholesale
condemnation of probabilistic language and reasoning
is nothing short of bizarre,especially for a professor of
philosophy.On the other hand,I recently read about a
"feminist" philosophy professor who condemns "logic"
(including simple syllogisms) as hopelessly corrupted
by its male origins.Presumably this feminist thinks that
there is some sort of objectionable "ideology"inherent
in logic,just as Prof.Lindley sees an objectionable
ideology inherent in probability.Perhaps I should look up her name
and arrange an introduction to Prof.Lindley.
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
Thomas Sellke
Statistics Dept.
Purdue University
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:23:19 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Thanks for the additional "so what?" I was hoping SOMEBODY would
be awake enough to chime in. Myself, I gave up.

Paul
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:29:15 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Scientific Misconduct?

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

Do attempts to block publication of opposing scientific viewpoints
constitute a form of scientific misconduct (in spite of current
definitons)?

Edward Anders, a chemist from the University of Chicago, originated
the K-T "wildfires" idea. Supposedly, sparks from a K-T asteroid impact
ignited, and burned down, about 90 percent of the world's forests. Soot
from the fires added to the impact dust-induced "impact winter" (global
blackout and refrigeration) scenario, triggering sudden K-T boundary
extinctions.

In spite of the fact that Anders seems ignorant of the K-T
paleobotanical record, and other critical K-T data, Science magazine
published the "wildfires" paper adding powerful new support for the Alvarez
asteroid theory (1985; Wolbach was first author).

In 1980, shortly after publication of the Alvarez asteroid theory,
I began a search for evidences of any K-T boundary impact winter. Ten years
of search produced no definitive evidences of K-T boundary global blackout
or refrigeration.

In March 1990, Anders and I spoke at a Chapman Conference titled
"Global biomass burning: atmospheric, climatic and biospheric
implications." Anders spoke on K-T wildfires-induced global blackout. I
spoke on the lack of definitive evidences of any K-T wildfires and impact
winter. Following my talk, Anders and I had a "vigorous" exchange before a
large audience.

I prepared a manuscript for the conference titled "Impact winter in
the global winter K/T extinctions: no definitive evidences." My manuscript
caused Anders some extreme distress, and he reacted accordingly. In one
action, Anders obtained a preprint of my paper and sent it to other
impactors requesting that they contact the proceedings editor in attempt to
block publication of my paper.

Anders did not succeed. But not by lack of effort on his part.

I enclose my 3/8/91 letter to Anders as part of the history of K-T
debate.

Cordially,
Dewey McLean


March 8, 1991


Dr. Edward Anders
Enrico Fermi Institute & Department of Chemistry
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637-1433

Dear Dr. Anders:

I have received, and read, your manuscript titled _Giant impact at
K/T boundary: beyond dispute_ that you wrote in response to my manuscript
_Impact winter in the global K-T extinctions: no definitive evidences_.
Your manuscript, that dismisses the work of others (McLean, Hansen, Graup,
and Crockett) as based on "bad sites," "bad samples," "bad data,"
"misinterpretations," etc., is the most blatantly ad hominem scientific
manuscript I have yet seen. For my manuscript, which you state is "based on
misinterpretations, bad data, and other less-than-compelling evidence," I
cited the data and interpretations of literally dozens of respected
scientists that include: Ahrens, Izett, Courtillot, Sweet, Keller, Bohor,
Margolis, Lerbekmo, Morgan, Sloan, Russell, Hsu, Thierstein, Schmitz,
Zoller, Toutain, Smit, and Sutter, to name a few.

I hope that my distress does not offend you. However, a decade of
having some individuals, who have had little experience with the details
required to intelligently address the K-T extinctions: the vast and complex
Cretaceous and Tertiary fossil records (animal and plant, marine and
terrestrial), biostratigraphy, physical stratigraphy, plate tectonics,
mantle processes, paleoecology, climatology, oceanography, and
biochemistry, etc., arrogantly attacking those of us who have spent much of
our careers integrating such data is enough! Your arrogance fits well with
that of some Alvarez asteroid team members, and supporters, who have
attempted to shut down the K-T extinction debate prematurely, attempted to
bully opponents into silence, threatened careers of opponents, seemingly
set up conferences to favor the impact theory, and promoted the Alvarez
asteroid in influential scientific magazines.

It is tragic that the K-T extinction debate became so characterized
by bitter and public personal attacks by some scientists upon the
credibility of others. What should have been a wonderful adventure in which
scientists from many fields could share their expertise to solve a great
mystery--cause of the K-T extinctions--became, instead, a case of
pathogenic American Lysenkoism in which a scientist could either support
the Alvarez asteroid theory, disappear from the debate, or have his
credibility and career attacked. Please see my letters to Luis Alvarez
(enclosed).

For your testimonial on Richard Kerr, staff writer for _Science_
magazine, I have told Kerr that I believe that he has wrongly biased public
and scientific perception of the K-T debate more than any other journalist.
Please see my letters to _Science_ editor, Koshland (enclosed).

A famous scientist once noted that science is self correcting.
However, the K-T debate has been so politicized, and its public status so
influenced by some powerful members of the National Academy of Sciences and
their supporters, who seem determined to force the outcome of scientific
inquiry toward their own ends, that it will likely take a congressional
inquiry to clarify its actual status. The American public that pays for our
science deserves it. Please see an excerpt of my letter to Congressman John
Dingell (enclosed).

Sincerely yours,





Dewey M. McLean
Professor, and Director of Earth Systems and Biosphere Evolution Studies




Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 12:11:02 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Science on the Baltimore Affair

Science on The Baltimore Affair

Here is the substance of Science magazine's latest report on
the Baltimore affair, the recent decision by the appeals board to
overturn the conviction of Thereza Imanishi-Kari.

Interspersed in this article are quotes derived from the
200-page report of the appeals board. The quotes are:

1) "The Cell paper as a whole is rife with errors of all
sorts... {including} some which, despite all these years and
layers of review, have never previously been pointed out or
corrected. Responsibility ... must be shared by all participants
{including Baltimore}."

2) "The credibility of {Imanishi-Kari's} testimony before us
was bolstered ... when much of the evidence in the record, and in
particular some of the document examination evidence,
corroborated her statements and directly contradicted
representations made by ORI."

3) "It is also important to consider ... whether Dr. Imanishi-
Kari had any conceivable motive for the allegedly false dating of
the questioned pages. While some of the pages involved contained
relevant data... ORI offered no possible reason to fabricate
other pages for which the same findings were presented."

4) "After hearing Dr. O'Toole and the other witnesses testify
and examining all of her statements over the years, we question
the accuracy of Dr. O'Toole's memory and her increasing
commitment to a partisan stand."

5) "We are concerned about the implications of involving a
whistleblower too heavily in an investigation. Such involvement
can compromise both the ability of the investigators to maintain
objectivity and the ability of the whistleblower to avoid
becoming to vested in the outcome. We think that happened here."

++++++++++

\Kaiser, Jocelyn and Marshall, Eliot. "Imanishi-Kari
Ruling Slams ORI," Science 272 (28 June 1996), pp.
1864-1865.\

After "a decade in limbo," as Nobelist and co-author
David Baltimore put it last week, immunologist Thereza
Imanishi-Kari has been cleared of 19 charges that she
committed scientific misconduct in connection with a
1986 paper in Cell. The decision, handed down on 21
June by an appeals panel of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), was unequivocal: The
"preponderance of the evidence" did not support the
government's case, the panel said. With that ruling,
the panel voided a proposed 10-year funding sanction
against Imanishi-Kari and laid to rest the government's
best known attempt to prove scientific misconduct.

The ruling was the second significant defeat
before the board for HHS's Office of Research Integrity
(ORI), successor to the federal investigative team that
began looking into this case for the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1989 and later found
Imanishi-Kari guilty of misconduct. In 1993 ORI failed
to convince a similar three-person panel of the guilt
of AIDS researcher Mikulas Popovic Science, 12 November
1993, p. 981). After that loss, ORI dropped a long-
running investigation of Popovic's former boss,
virologist Robert Gallo, who was then at NIH. Despite
two victories, these setbacks have led some observers
to suggest that HHS's system for investigating
scientific misconduct is in trouble and needs fixing.


While it may be bad news for ORI, last week's
decision represents a personal vindication for
Imanishi-Kari and Baltimore, whose names had become
linked in the headlines over the past decade. Asked
repeatedly by staffers for Representative John Dingell
(D-MI) and other investigative bodies to explain gaps
and eccentricities in the data produced by Imanishi-
Kari, Baltimore steadfastly rejected claims that his
co-author had fabricated or falsified data. However,
the negative publicity contributed to his decision to
abandon the presidency of Rockefeller University and
return to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT). "It's wonderful to be vindicated," Baltimore
says. "But it is very sad that it has taken all this
time, money, and energy to see what I believe was
evident from the very start. Thereza has been unfairly
prosecuted.... A lot of people owe her a serious
apology."

Imanishi-Kari, who moved from MIT to Tufts
University in 1986, says "It's a wonderful feeling.
This was a victory for me and for my fellow scientists.
It demonstrates definitely that there's something wrong
with the {misconduct} process."

As might be expected, members of the
investigative team that developed the evidence against
Imanishi-Kari were upset with the ruling. "It's a
goddamn sad day for science," says Peter Stockton, a
former staff investigator for Dingell. Suzanne Hadley,
an as other ex-Dingell investigator who had worked on
the case even earlier as an NIH staffer, says the panel
decision "is a stunning reputation of the truth.... In
the long run, the truth will prevail." Margot O'Toole,
who first raised questions about the paper's integrity
when she was a postdoc in Imanishi-Kari's lab, was also
bitter. "Given that this board tossed out the
evidence," she says, "it is not surprising that they
cannot believe that what I say happened, happened."

Government officials responsible for the handling
of the investigation were silent. Lyle declined
comment, and ORI lawyer Marcus Christ said he'd been
instructed by HHS not to comment. HHS Secretary Donna
Shalala, whose department includes both the office that
brought the charges against Imanishi-Kari and the board
that dismissed them, made no attempt to clarify the
discrepancy. Through a spokesperson, Shalala simply
said hat the decision "speaks for itself." Dingell
declined to comment, saying he had not read the report.

The appeals panel reached its conclusion after
sitting through 6 weeks of hearings last summer,
reading thousands of pages of statements, and studying
the records of earlier investigations. The hearing
also offered Imanishi-Kari her first opportunity to
confront and cross-examine her accusers. The
proceedings focused chiefly on data that she provided
as support for the 1986 Cell paper, which claimed to
show that inserting a foreign mouse gene into a certain
strain of mice caused changes in the host mouse's
repertoire of antibodies.

It was the fifth time the data had been
scrutinized by an investigatory body. O'Toole's
original doubts had led to investigations by committees
at MIT and Tufts, where Imanishi-Kari had become an
assistant professor. The academic committees found
errors, but no misconduct.

The judgments of these university-based panels
were soon overshadowed, however, by a series of
congressional hearings chaired by Dingell. His
committee had asked the Secret Service to undertake
forensic studies of material from Imanishi-Kari's lab -
- notebook pages, counter tapes from assays of
radiolabeled reagents, and inks. In May 1989, Dingell
released his findings: Some of the notebook entries,
his staff concluded, appeared to have been wrongly
dated and were possibly fabricated. The hubbub led the
NIH, which in 1988 had appointed a panel that found
serious errors in the paper but no misconduct, to
reopen its investigation.

Two years later, NIH's draft report on the case
found Imanishi-Kari guilty of "serious scientific
misconduct" for "repeatedly present{ing} false and
misleading information." The report also handed O'Toole
a bouquet for her "courage" and dedication to the
truth, while admonishing Baltimore for not taking the
accusations more seriously. In a final report released
in November 1994, ORI charged Imanishi-Kari with 19
counts of scientific misconduct and recommended that
she be banned for 10 years from receiving federal
funding.

Imanishi-Kari appealed, and her case was heard by
two HHS lawyers, Cecilia Sparks Ford and Judith
Ballard, and immunologist Julius Younger, an emeritus
professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of
Medicine.

As in 1994, ORI focused its case before the
appeals board on the forensic and statistical analyses
of Imanishi-Kari's notebooks. But the appeals panel was
not impressed. A good example is its treatment of the
"June subcloning data," a set of unpublished results
that Imanishi-Kari produced for an early inquiry to
buttress conclusions in table 2 of the Cell paper.

Imanishi-Kari said that she had done the
experiments in June 1985, but ORI claimed, based on the
Secret Service forensics, that Imanishi-Kari had used
green radiation counter tapes left over from an old
experiment to fabricate the results. ORI noted that
the tapes didn't match those in other contemporaneous
but did match the color, font, and ink of tapes from
another researcher's notebook used in 1981 and 1982.

The panel brushed aside this coincidence as
"meaningless." The panel found that innocent
explanations for matches and mismatches of tapes and
printer fonts were as plausible as guilty ones,
suggesting that someone might have changed a printer
ribbon, switched printers, or used a leftover roll of
paper in a way that the Secret Service had not
anticipated. In addition, in reviewing scrambled dates
on pages of Imanishi-Kari's note-books, the panel
suggested that ORI didn't examine enough notebooks from
other researchers to establish a "norm" from which
Imanishi-Kari may have deviated.

ORI also argued that a statistical analysis of
numbers copied by hand into one of Imanishi-Kari's
notebooks indicated that the last digits in a series of
columns were not random and that the data had been
fabricated. But the appeals board expressed doubt that
ORI's methods were "commonly accepted" and found that
other analytical techniques could lead to different
conclusions.

The board essentially rejected all the statistical
and forensic analyses because it found "no independent
or convincing evidence" of fabrication in them.
Instead, the members tried to recreate the conditions
under which the science was performed and weighed the
credibility of each side's arguments. Here, Imanishi-
Kari came out on top even though the board found the
paper was "rife with errors of all sorts" and that
Imanishi-Kari had a "cavalier attitude toward dates."


The board noted, for example, that none of the
scientists involved in the MIT, Tufts, and NIH panel
investigations had found evidence of misconduct. It
said that ORI's charges, to be credible, "would require
a conspiracy of authors and an intentional cover-up" by
the MIT and Tufts review committees. The board also
noted that most of the challenged data wasn't included
in the Cell paper or was trivial or peripheral" and
that some of the allegedly fabricated data was
"bizarre" or worked against the thesis of the paper.

At the same time, the panel aggressively
criticized important elements of the government's case.
ORI "misstated" what the Secret Service tests were
capable of proving, it said, by claiming they
demonstrated that certain pages were created at the
same time when the tests showed only that they "could
have" been. The panel also questioned "the accuracy of
Dr. O'Toole's memory" and her objectivity, and it
suggested that the Secret Service's objectivity was
"under ... threat" from the Dingell committee, noting
that the examiners, for instance, "gladly accept{ed}"
the committee's advice about which of Imanishi-Kari's
notebooks to examine.

How did the appeals panel and ORI reach such
different conclusions based on the same evidence?
Explanations vary widely.

Joseph Onek, the attorney at the Washington, D.C.,
firm of Crowell & Moring who handled Imanishi-Kari's
appeal, believes ORI failed to recognize flaws in its
own case that undermined its credibility. "When you set
up an office with nothing to do" but look for
scientific misconduct, Onek asked, "aren't you going to
get sort of exaggerated zealotry?" Barbara Mishkin, an
expert in misconduct regulations at the Hogan & Hartson
law firm in Washington, D.C., said she thought ORI's
staff in the past lacked adequate training to prepare
such a difficult case.

Hugh McDevitt, a Stanford University biologist who
sat on the early NIH panel that found no misconduct,
said that he believed ORI ran into trouble after its
evidence was challenged in the June 1995 public
hearings. He says he pointed out early on that much of
the circumstantial evidence ORI was developing might
have an innocent explanation. "Ten coincidences -- even
if you add them together -- don't prove guilt," says
McDevitt.

While the ruling marks the end of an ordeal for
Imanishi-Kari, it may accelerate efforts by HHS to
rebuild its system for investigating scientific
misconduct for the second time since 1989. "The current
system is broken; it turns it into a lawyer's game,"
says C. K. Gunsalus, associate provost at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Cases are
heard by "too many levels, by too many people, and by
the wrong people at the wrong levels." Baltimore
believes that ORI needs to be "reconstituted" to give
the accused a "fair set of rights," and Onek notes that
"you shouldn't wait 9 years for an opportunity for
cross-examination."

One change already in the works is a set of
recommendations for "streamlining and making it go
faster," saying the process and making it go faster,"
says HHS science adviser William Raub. Raub was chair
of an intramural working group that forwarded its
advice to Shalala last week (Science, 21 June, p. 1735
). Its message -- that HHS should give institutions
more responsibility to carry out investigations -- is
likely to get a sympathetic reaction from Shalala, who
"hopes to make a decision soon," according to her
spokesperson. But if the appeals board ruling is any
guide, the government must do more than speed up the
process to establish faith in its ability to
investigate and prosecute misconduct in research.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 13:17:31 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: thomas sellke <tsellke@stat.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

A SCIFRAUD subscriber has asked for a reference concerning
the feminist professor who rejects logic as corrupted
by its male origins.The book in question is

Words of Power:A feminist reading of the history of logic,
by Andrea Nye (NY,Routledge,1990)

I have not seen the book itself (The Purdue copy is checked out),
but it is discussed in the wonderful book

Professing Feminism:Cautionary tales from the strange world of
women's studies,by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge (NY,Basic
Books.1994).

Judging from the discusssion in Professing Feminism,Nye has
attained a level of stupidity that is truly spectacular,a
level of stupidity that I would have thought incompatible
with being able to feed and dress oneself.For example,Nye
apparently thinks that Frege's work in mathematical logic
makes him somewhat responsible for the "logic" of National
Socialism.

Thomas Sellke
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:02:36 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Conduct question


Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 13:55:31 -0400 (EDT)
from: susan ganley/chronicle <susan_ganley@chronicle.com>
Subject: Conduct question
to: ach13 <"ach13.cnsvax..albany..edu"@chronicle.com>

An invitation.

Al

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

My name is Susan Ganley. I'm a reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education.
We are hosting a discussion on our Web site, "Academe Today," regarding the
case of Thereza Imanishi-Kari, the Tufts University researcher cleared of
scientific-misconduct charges. Perhaps you might post this message to the
SCIFRAUD list. Everyone is invited to voice comments and opinions as part of
the ongoing discussion at
http://chronicle.com/che-data/colloquy.dir/collmain.htm. Readers will be
prompted for a username and password. For both of those, readers may type "
conduct." That username and password will be valid for a week. Thank you for
your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Ganley


A.C.Higgins


Al Higgins
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:07:00 AEST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: peter bowditch <peterb@acslink.net.au>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

>from: thomas sellke <tsellke@stat.purdue.edu>

<snip>

>philosophy.On the other hand,I recently read about a
>"feminist" philosophy professor who condemns "logic"
>(including simple syllogisms) as hopelessly corrupted
>by its male origins.Presumably this feminist thinks that
>there is some sort of objectionable "ideology"inherent
>in logic,just as Prof.Lindley sees an objectionable

The looniness of the feminist sociologists at my university was captured
perfectly in the following quote. I remember the words as if it were
yesterday.

"Logic is a patriarchal construct, and has no place in women's experience."

This was said just after accusing me of personal, direct complicity in a
ghastly rape/murder incident which had brought lynch mobs to the streets of
my city for the first time in years.

..............................................................
Peter Bowditch .Tel: +61-2-6871247
Gebesse Computer Consultants.Fax: +61-2-6871248
Parramatta NSW Australia .Mobile: +61-419219659
peterb@acslink.net.au .http://www.acslink.net.au/~peterb/
..............................................................
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:12:42 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <521402311@peterb.acslink.net.au>

Two comments on this strand:

1. I happened to hear in my car a British visiting feminist a few weeks
ago, saying that she and (I think) other feminist researchers had faked
the results of surveys. I gathered (the reception kept breaking up) that
she had been interviewing women about how men had treated them at work.
If any woman said that there were no problems, she'd concluded they
needed their consciousness raising and discounted the results. Alas, I
missed her name.

2. Lynch mobs in Parramatta, Peter! Please tell me more!

Martin Bridgstock
Griffith University
Queensland
Australia

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Peter Bowditch wrote:

> The looniness of the feminist sociologists at my university was captured
> perfectly in the following quote. I remember the words as if it were
> yesterday.
>
> "Logic is a patriarchal construct, and has no place in women's experience."
>
> This was said just after accusing me of personal, direct complicity in a
> ghastly rape/murder incident which had brought lynch mobs to the streets of
> my city for the first time in years.
>
> ..............................................................
> Peter Bowditch .Tel: +61-2-6871247
> Gebesse Computer Consultants.Fax: +61-2-6871248
> Parramatta NSW Australia .Mobile: +61-419219659
> peterb@acslink.net.au .http://www.acslink.net.au/~peterb/
> ..............................................................
>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 03:30:16 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Dr. Lindley,
You are certainly well within your area of expertise when commenting on
the philosophical basis for science, but I am surprised that you picked on
the statistical part of the quotation:
"...the heart of science is the scientific method, the heart of the
scientific method {is} inference, and the heart of inference is
statistical thinking."
I believe John might have been referring to the fact that generalizations
can seldom be made on the basis of a single observation or measurement. It
takes many observations and measurements in order for some inferences to be
drawn. This requires statistical thinking. For example, we are able to
estimate the approximate distances to nearby galaxies by observing the
period-luminosity relationship of variable stars. But the inference of
distance would not be possible unless we had a significant statistical
population of stars to observe. The same kind of reasoning applies to
radiometric dating methods, genetics, the weather...almost any
generalization in science upon which a theory can be based.
Pardon me for imlpying that you may have strayed out of your field when you
could be imminently qualified in science. I, on the other hand, not being a
scientist, mathematician, OR philosopher, am equally qualified an ALL
areas... ;-)
Brant
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 03:30:52 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: ReResponse from Jere Lipps

Jere,
Keep up the good fight. What the hell...go for the FCC. While the point has
been made that there is much bs in the media, this does not preclude an
attempt to limit it. These people are hanging ten on the edge of the first
amendment and as monumental a task as it may seem, perhaps someone should
take a stand and question the constitutionality of deliberately presenting
lies and fraudulent claims to the public, whether it be in tabloids or on
television. While people should always be allowed to state their opinions, no
program or article should be allowed total license to proclaim as truth any
lie they choose. The real problem is enforcement. What happens when the
Weekly World News fakes photographs? Well what would be so wrong with hearing
the complaint in court and then fining them?
Make people accountable for what they publish or air. The same laws that
apply to advertising could apply to articles, books, and TV shows. One would
have to prove that the author or publisher knew or suspected that the
information was false. This would be fairly hard to do except in the most
obvious cases, so the principles of the first amendment wouldn't be seriously
jeopardized.
In addition, we're not talking about censorship here. We're talking about
losing profits gained by lying, as a means of discouraging the practice. A
show like MOM wouldn't be banned, but no one would want to air it knowing the
high probability of losing their profits. This does not seem unconstitutional
to me. The FCC could set standards which would outline the rules, just like
they do with commercial advertising, and establish penalties for proven
violations. Cigarette advertisements were banned from television when it was
known that smoking is hazardous. If programs like MOM can be shown to be
hazardous, then perhaps the same kinds of standards could be applied. (I
doubt that will happen, but the principle is the same.)

A personal note to the SciFraud list. I've been out of touch lately because
I have to give up this computer. I've had it longer than I thought I would,
so I put AOL back on just to catch up on my e-mail. If and when I get a new
computer, I'll be looking forward to communicating with all of you again.
Brant
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 03:28:45 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Dewey,
Perhaps I can fish some good knowledge out of this by playing devil's
advocate, so let's use your reference to the General Theory of Relativity.
How would one go about confirming this theory? Wouldn't it require making a
prediction and verifying the observed results through statistical analysis?
Bell labs discovered the cosmic background radiation, considered validation
of big bang. Now whether or not it was correct, didn't this conclusion
require statistical thinking? It was observed to be a certain predicted
temperature. It was observed to be extremely uniform. The determination of
this uniformity required statistical analysis, didn't it?
Rutherford observed scattering of emitted nuclear particles fired through
a sheet of gold foil. The very slight scattering suggested that the nucleii
of the gold atoms comprised a relatively small volume of the atom. Measuring
the degree of scattering also made it possible to estimate that proportion.
Isn't this kind of thinking required in the verification of almost any
scientific hypothesis?
Sure, scientists take guesses then try to analyze data to verify them. Some
fail...that's good. Some succeed...that's even better. You can't be
suggesting that science should be based on intuition alone. That's a key part
of science, but would be nothing more than religion without the observations
and measurements to confirm or refute the intuitive assertion.
If I'm out of my league here, I apologize.
Brant
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:47:22 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john w jacobson, ph.d." <jacobsjw@nysomr.emi.com>
Subject: Nova and PBS
Comments: To: "scifraud(a)cnsibm.albany.edu"@missive.WPC.NYSOMR.EMI.COM

Last night the Nova episode on PBS was on the probability of
Earth colliding with a giant asteroid and the following show on
my local affiliate was called Glorious Accident, with Robert
Sheldrake on the theory of formative causation (morphic
resonance?).

Morphic resonance was one of the concepts that Paul Sokal
juxtaposed with postmodern concepts in his article. BTW, the
Sokal web site includes an Afterward (thusly titled) that will
appear in the next issue of Social Text. The original social text
article is a 48-page download, but can be easily perused with
hypertext links at his site.

I missed the PBS shows, but expect that there are some informed
commentators on these subjects on this list (Dewey?). Anyone have
comments on the content and quality of these segments?

John Jacobson
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:17:38 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

John Jacobson wrote:

>Last night the Nova episode on PBS was on the probability of
>Earth colliding with a giant asteroid...
>
>SNIP
>
>I missed the PBS shows, but expect that there are some informed
>commentators on these subjects on this list (Dewey?). Anyone have
>comments on the content and quality of these segments?

Hi John:
I'm not sure if I have seen the PBS asteroid-earth collision show
you cite. After watching some PBS shows, I stopped paying attention to
them.

For an example of why, I offer some comments on the PBS _The
Dinosaurs!_ series. Robin Bates was producer/director/writer for the
series. The section titled "The death of the dinosaurs" was mostly impact,
with copious commentary by impactors. Volcanists were excluded.

Bates is too cozy with impactors. Some impactors working for the
U.S. Geological Survey took Bates to the field with them. They even
included him as an author on U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 90-635. I attach a
reproduction of the title page.

PBS used to call me asking for donations. After the last time, they
don't call me anymore.

Dewey McLean



Tektites in Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary rocks on Haiti

By

G.A. Izett 1, F.J-M.R. Maurrasse 2, F.E. Lichte 3, G.P. Meeker 4, and

Robin Bates 5




Open-File Report 90-635




This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity
with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards.

  1. U.S. Geological Survey, MS 913, Denver, CO 80225
  2. Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199
  3. U.S. Geological Survey, MS 973, Denver, CO 80225
  4. U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, Denver, CO 80225
  5. WHYY TV, 150 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106





Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:32:31 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ralph alpher <alpherr@gar.union.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Why did NOVA see fit to give video time to a psychic? Casts a very
negative pall on the rest of the show, which was not all that bad.

Ralph A. Alpher
Union College and Dudley Observatory
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:47:48 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <521402311@peterb.acslink.net.au>

Colleagues:

In fact, Peter probably (75%) was complicit in the ghastly
rape/murder. After all, he's a male isn't he? And we all know that deep
down inside their reptilian brains all males are rapists.

But wait, that requires use of a syllogism.

All males are rapists.

Peter is a male.

Therefore, Peter is a rapist.

And another thing we all know is that logic is a flawed concept
developed by males to perpetuate their dominance.

Welcome to the brave new world of feminism and new ageism!

Jim Shea
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:00:22 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS
in-reply-to: <v01510100ae09613794ab@{149.106.36.14}>

Colleagues:

I only saw the very first part of the asteroid impact show, but I
did see the psychic, and my impression was that she came across very
strongly as a complete nut case.

Jim Shea
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:15:25 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "james a. mulick" <jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

>Last night the Nova episode on PBS was on the probability of
>Earth colliding with a giant asteroid and the following show on
>my local affiliate was called Glorious Accident, with Robert
>Sheldrake on the theory of formative causation (morphic
>resonance?).

<snip>

>I missed the PBS shows, but expect that there are some informed
>commentators on these subjects on this list (Dewey?). Anyone have
>comments on the content and quality of these segments?
>
>John Jacobson

You know, I saw most of that. I was attentive to issues that seemed related
to Dewey's concerns, but decided they side stepped most of them after the
sad picture of burning biomass following the giant impact senario. If the
point was that star wars scientists needed a new public front for remote
sensing, platetary science, and weapons development, they seem to have a
fairly reasonable one in "the danger from space." The impacts on Jupiter
alone would do it for them. The proposed equivalence between the risk of
airline crash death being equal to death by earth impact seems a bit far
fetched, and must be based on using air miles traveled to calculate risk
for the former (which would be questionable, as discussed previously on
this list by others). The episode had great production values. ;->


James A. Mulick, Ph.D. voice: 614-722-4700
Professor, Department of Pediatrics fax: 614-722-4718
The Ohio State University compuserve: 72345,1721
700 Children's Drive, CHPB-4
Columbus OH 43205-2696
jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 12:20:40 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Re the Nova episode on PBS on the probability of Earth colliding with a
giant asteroid, Jim Mulick wrote:

>You know, I saw most of that. I was attentive to issues that seemed related
>to Dewey's concerns, but decided they side stepped most of them after the
>sad picture of burning biomass following the giant impact senario. If the
>point was that star wars scientists needed a new public front for remote
>sensing, platetary science, and weapons development, they seem to have a
>fairly reasonable one in "the danger from space." The impacts on Jupiter
>alone would do it for them. The proposed equivalence between the risk of
>airline crash death being equal to death by earth impact seems a bit far
>fetched, and must be based on using air miles traveled to calculate risk
>for the former (which would be questionable, as discussed previously on
>this list by others). The episode had great production values. ;->


Many impactors (including some who are advisors to TV science
shows) ignore evidence contrary to their agendas, and have done so since
the early 1980s. As for biomass burning following an impact, I addressed
that issue yesterday (7/9/96) via posting of my letter to Edward Anders,
chemist at the University of Chicago, and author of the K-T
impact-wildfires idea.

I now add to the Anders story. Anders is not his real family name.
Early in his career, his first scientific paper was so bad, and received so
much criticism, that he was afraid that it would wreck his career. So he
changed his name.

Now, in almost complete ignorance of the K-T geobiological record,
he tells us that sparks from an asteroid impact ignited and burned down
about 90 percent of the world's forests, triggering the K-T extinctions.

To add insult to K-T science, that long ago went bonkers, I read
recently that Anders got an award for his wildfires tommyrot.

The impactors reward their own kind. Luis Alvarez noted in his book
(_Alvarez_, p. 277), "Valuing honors myself, I've worked hard to see to it
that my favorite candidates win them as well."

Three impactors/promoters have received MacArthur Foundation
awards. As I understand it, one of Luis Alvarez's former graduate students
got one, apparently for concocting the Nemesis ("Death Star") for which
there has never been one scintilla of evidence.

On any other planet run with a modicum of intelligence,
sensibility, and morality, consistent and long-term ignoring of evidence by
scientists on the make would likely constitute outright fraud.

I now raise a question that I had planned to put off for a while.

Is the Alvarez asteroid one of the great flimflams in history? One
originating in legitimate finding and speculation (iridium)? But then blown
into full-scale fraud via political control of some scientific magazines,
suppression of opposition, and influence of some essayists, and advisors to
TV videos?

I will explore this question as conditions dictate.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:54:18 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Another Renaissance

Another Renaissance

This week Science magazine reported on the appeals board's
overturning Imanishi-Kari's conviction. Indeed, several have
hailed that decision as a "exoneration" of Imanishi-Kari's
science. Science magazine reported the decision as a "slam" at
the Office of Research Integrity. Baltimore is quoted as being
"vindicated" by the decision.

When the conviction of Mikulas Popovic was overturned by the
HHS appeals board in 1993, ORI decided not to continue with its
case against Richard C. Gallo. He too felt that the failure to
pursue its case was tantamount to exoneration.

Here is an update on Dr. Gallo. He continues to do Big Science
in his own style.

The sidebar from Science is reproduced in its entirety.

++++++++++


\Cohen, Jon. "The Rebirth of Robert Gallo," Science
272 (28 June 1996), p. 1877.\

Baltimore -- An area at the center of the city,
called the Inner Harbor, is often cited as a model of
urban renewal. Once in dire straits, it has been
reborn as Harborplace, a mecca for natives and tourists
alike. Robert Gallo is hoping that it will be a
fitting venue to launch a second career. The
retrovirologist recently ended a 30-year stint at the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) -- where his lab first
published convincing evidence in 1984 that HIV causes
AIDS -- to run a brand-new institute just a few blocks
from Harborplace. Known as the Institute of Human
Virology (IHV), its launch, combined with a recent
landmark paper Gallo co-authored, provides ample
evidence that at least some old-guard researchers are
still a force to be reckoned with.

"I have a desire to leave something behind when I
die," says Gallo, 59. That's an odd for Gallo to say,
considering that he has been credited with speeding the
development of the HIV blood test, which has saved
lives. His NCI lab was also celebrated for discovering
the chemical messenger interleukin-2 and the two human
tumor leukemia viruses -- the first of which proved
that a human tumor virus really exists. If that wasn't
enough, Gallo and Fiorenza Cocchi, working with Paulo
Lusso from Italy's San Raffaele Scientific Institute,
on 15 December 1995 published in Science (p. 1811) a
discovery about the role natural anti-inflammatory
chemicals called chemokines play in the suppression of
HIV -- a finding that has opened up the hottest new
area in the field (see p. 1885 and 21 June , p. 1740).
But Gallo, a man who attracts scientific controversy in
almost equal measure to his scientific achievements, is
restless to prove himself once again. And HIV is the
vehicle.

Set in a refurbished department store warehouse
that boasts 100,000 square feet of usable space framed
around a giant atrium, IHV -- which will focus on
battling AIDS and other viral diseases -- is Gallo's
dream come true. He has shed the bureaucratic shackles
of the NCI, where he has the subject of a long-running
scientific misconduct investigation into his role in
the discovery of HIV. Among the material benefits of
relocation: IHV will soon have its own clinic, so
Gallo will no longer be forced to rely on clinical
specimens from chance collaborations. The center is
part of the University of Maryland (UMd), which will
allow Gallo to interact with students -- another plus,
he says. Because IHV will have its own biotech
partner. Omega Biotherapies, investigators will be
able in theory to develop new treatments quickly (and
also make money). "It's one of the most impressive
facilities I've ever seen," says Dani Bolognesi, a Duke
University AIDS vaccine researcher. Gallo has "an
opportunity there to do wonders."

IHV is still in its infancy. But 12 scientists
have already come on staff in four areas: Gallo is
overseeing basic researchers, former NCI researchers
William Blattner heads the epidemiology division, ex-
Army AIDS researchers Robert Redfield heads the clinic,
and Ed Tramont, the one-time head of the U.S.
military's entire AIDS program, leads the vaccine
division.

In addition to spending $52 million on the
building and equipment, the state of Maryland has
promised IHV $13 million over 4 years. "These became
the carrots to attract {Gallo}, Redfield, and
Blattner," says Tramont, who head UMd's Medical
Biotechnology Center and put the deal together.
Another new hire is Mikulas Popovic, a virologist who
aided Gallo's discovert of HIV and, likewise, was a
subject of the misconduct investigation. )Both Gallo
and Popovic were cleared of wrongdoing.)

Gallo, being Gallo, is not content with simply
starting IHV, which he hopes will employ about 500
people. He's already thinking about expanding to a
second IHV in Pasadena, possible affiliated with the
California Institute of Technology. "What attracts me
is to opens up many more clinical possibilities and
goodwill between the West Coast and East Coast," says
Gallo. Clearly, some of the old guard in AIDS research
are ready for anything but retirement.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:26:44 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: statistical thinking

Hi Brant:


> Perhaps I can fish some good knowledge out of this by playing devil's
>advocate, so let's use your reference to the General Theory of Relativity.
>How would one go about confirming this theory? Wouldn't it require making a
>prediction and verifying the observed results through statistical analysis?
>Bell labs discovered the cosmic background radiation, considered validation
>of big bang. Now whether or not it was correct, didn't this conclusion
>require statistical thinking? It was observed to be a certain predicted
>temperature. It was observed to be extremely uniform. The determination of
>this uniformity required statistical analysis, didn't it?
> Rutherford observed scattering of emitted nuclear particles fired through
>a sheet of gold foil. The very slight scattering suggested that the nucleii
>of the gold atoms comprised a relatively small volume of the atom. Measuring
>the degree of scattering also made it possible to estimate that proportion.
>Isn't this kind of thinking required in the verification of almost any
>scientific hypothesis?

In looking back through postings, I think you are referring to my
comment about differences between laboratory experiments versus a search
for laws governing the deep structure of the physical world. Certainly, use
of statistics is invaluable for many types of research.

But where do the great ideas that illuminate deep secrets of nature
come from? Einstein probed about as deep as anyone. Some believe that his
General Theory is the grandest construct of the human mind. He suggested
that use of statistical methods in theoretical physics was only a
mathematical device for dealing with phenomena involving large numbers of
elementary processes, but that the basic laws for the latter were purely
causal. You might have fun reading about attempts to confirm his General
Theory.

Re statistics and confirmation of the Big Bang, some folks on
Scifraud can address that issue much better than I can.

>Sure, scientists take guesses then try to analyze data to verify them. Some
>fail...that's good. Some succeed...that's even better. You can't be
>suggesting that science should be based on intuition alone. That's a key part
>of science, but would be nothing more than religion without the observations
>and measurements to confirm or refute the intuitive assertion.

Guesses (to me) are quite different from the intuitive flashes that
weld together data from several fields of science into unified whole. To
me, the latter are more likely to illuminate good theories by which to
evaluate multidisciplinary data.

Intuitive "insights" are necessary to keep one's research program
viable. Verification (in a practical sense) lags behind insights/theory. I
believe that insights can emerge as a natural consequence of intense effort
if one is mining a good ore vein. If not, the program is likely to go
degenerative, and stay there.

Re science and religion, Bertrand Russell once stated that the most
profound minds are blends of science and mysticism.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html



Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:46:24 +0200
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <luesse@hermes.med.uni-magdeburg.de>
from: "dr. hans gerd luesse,
Anatomie" <Hans-Gerd.Luesse@Medizin.Uni-Magdeburg.DE>
Subject: unsubscribe

due to an failure of the automatted listmanager please
unsubscribe Hans-Gerd.Luesse@medizin.uni-magdeburg.de
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:24:42 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "jere h. lipps" <jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Dewey McLean writes:

> I now raise a question that I had planned to put off for a while.
>
> Is the Alvarez asteroid one of the great flimflams in history? One
>originating in legitimate finding and speculation (iridium)? But then blown
>into full-scale fraud via political control of some scientific magazines,
>suppression of opposition, and influence of some essayists, and advisors to
>TV videos?
>
> I will explore this question as conditions dictate.

Not entirely. There is quite a bit of evidence that an impact may have
taken place--iridium, isotopes, shocked quartz and some others that seem
like strong inference--as well as evidence that is weak (the
paleontological extinctions say nothing about how they took place, and
should only be used in conjunction with the hypothesis to develop other
testable hypotheses on extinction mechanisms) and purely bogus "evidence"
(carbonized wood that "shows" worldwide fires). The hypothesis has
certainly produced a lot of close scrutiny and additional work that would
never have been done on quite a variety of things--for example, on the
nature of the fossil record; extinction mechanisms; cometary and asteroid
searches; and lots of other things that are positive.

There are negatives here too. This is a case of run-away enthusiasm for a
neat idea with some supporting evidence, but which still remains an
hypothesis to be tested (not "proved" with more suporting or bogus
evidence) with negative evidence, if any can be found. Careers and honors
are premature, IMHO. So are definitive TV and magazine articles. Surely,
programs and mags can be sold in similar numbers if ideas are presented as
speculation or hypotheses, rather than fact. I discovered quite by
accident years ago that controversy sells. This whole hypothesis could
have been presented that way, without damning people or their alternative
ideas. But the personalities would not allow it.

Jere H. Lipps, Professor and Director
Department of Integrative Biology and
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720 USA

Voice: 510-642-9006. Fax: 510-642-1822.
Internet: jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
WWW: http://ucmp1.berkeley.edu/jlipps/jlipps.html
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 14:54:18 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

The distinction between speculation and hypothesis, between
hypothesis and theory, and finally between theory and fact has
indeed been more obscured than ordinarily (in the matter of the
K-T boundary and extinctions). And it seems true that to some
extent this has been encouraged by the impactors themselves,
although, as Lipps observes properly, much of it is due to the
insatiable appetite of the popular media, not only for conflict
but even more so for sensation. It is ever thus. My question to
those who are convinced that the impact story is WRONG (not just
NOT ALL THAT LIKELY) -- which impression I derive from postings
to this list -- is "HOw come you guys haven't organized a loyal
opposition within the profession; or are there too many of them
and too few of you?" And, if the latter, leaving aside
conspiratorial fraud (just for the moment), WHY?

Or have I already missed the PROOF of conspiratorial fraud?

PRG
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:09:24 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: A Review

A Review

\Kolb, Rocky (Edward W.) Blind Watchers of the Sky: The People
and Ideas That Shaped our View of the Universe. Reading,
Massachusetts: Helix Books, 1996.\

Leon Lederman, himself a tireless enthusiast about science,
writes in his Foreword to this book: "Edward (Rocky) Kolb has been
the director of the astrophysics group at Fermilab and is
responsible for replenishing and reinvigorating the connection
between the inner space of particle physics as carried out in the
Fermilab atom-smashers and the outer space of early universe
cosmology that deals with the universe when it was a hot, bubbling
soup of fundamental particles. It takes a certain style to make
and keep the connections lively. Rocky's self-effacing exuberance,
his hesitant militancy, and his neoconservative iconoclasty have
all helped to create an environment of nervous excitement..." (p.
vii-viii) Lederman predicts confidently that the book "will
certainly made a great movie or twelve-part television series..."
(p. viii) Lederman may well be right: Kolb's "nervous excitement"
is displayed on nearly every page of this book. His is an
enthusiast's view of the history of physics. He has written his
history which "...a reader with no technical knowledge of
astronomy, cosmology, or physics should be able to enjoy..." (p.
ix)

Kolb describes science as a very human endeavor. He sees
science as a very personal process which, of course, varies with
the personalities involved. His history, thankfully, contains more
than usual puffery (genius, eureka, myth, flashes of insight and
all the rest of it) for his profession of the history of physics
includes its share of stupidity, gamesmanship, and pretense. At
least this once, the flaws of heroes are detailed and a clearer
glimpse of what science is about can be obtained. Thus, in
describing Robert Hooke: "Hooke was quite an interesting
character: he considered himself the equal of Newton, with whom he
constantly quarreled; he discovered many new phenomena in optics,
mechanics, and astronomy; and he claimed also the discovery of
just about everything else. He was a tireless self-promoter, whose
motto might have been 'I did it first.' But in his defense, he did
do many things first, and he was often right, occasionally
spectacularly right." (p. 157)

And in writing of the Father of Modern Science, Galileo:
"Galileo could humble his opponents and obviously took joy in
destroying all those who dared oppose him." (p. 78-79) And, "In
Galileo's case it was almost a paranoid distrust of any authority
other than his own." (p. 79) And, regarding Galileo's "martyrdom":
"...at least part of the blame for the unfortunate confrontation
must be laid at the feet of Galileo, for his arrogance played no
small part in the tragedy." (p. 80) And concerning his "invention"
of the telescope: "It was characteristic of Galileo's arrogance
that he was not particularly embarrassed to sell to the government
of Venice the equivalent of the patent rights to something he did
not invent and could hardly prevent others from manufacturing." (p.
83) Indeed, in summarizing his discussion of Galileo: "Even the
best fathers are not without shortcomings." (p. 112)

And Kolb explains some apparent synchronicity in this way,
by showing the arbitrariness of a "marvelous coincidence."

Just about every discussion of the history of modern
science recounts the familiar fact that in the very same
year that the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei died in
the Tuscan city of Florence, the English scientist Isaac
Newton was born in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire. It is
almost irresistible to view this happenstance as a
symbolic passing of the mantle from one country to
another, and from one great scientist to his successor.
But like so many other symbolic coincidences, it is
constructed of equal parts fact and fiction, and it is at
the same time relevant and insignificant.
The facts are the history records the death of
Galileo on January 8, 1642, and the birth of Newton early
on the morning of December 25, 1642. But, in the
immortal words of Ronald Reagan, "facts are stupid
things." The stupid thing about these facts is that
Newton was born in the year of Galileo's death only
because Italy and England were using different calendars
at that time. The Italians had adopted the modern
Gregorian calendar in 1582, whereas the English still
employed the Julian calendar (and did so until 1752).
Because of the incompatibility of their calendars,
December 25, 1642, in England corresponded to the January
4, 1643, in Italy. The birth of Newton would have been
in 1643, the year following the death of Galileo, had not
the English regarded calendar reform as a papal plot and
stubbornly clung to the outmoded Julian calendar. Or had
the Italians not adopted the Gregorian calendar, Galileo
would have died in 1641, the year before Newton's birth.
(p. 113-114)

Besides that, "...for the thread of the development
of cosmology and the synthesis of astronomy and physics,
Kepler was a more significant influence on Newton than
Galileo." (p. 114)

Then, too, the knighthood of Newton is put on the line: "The
degree to which Newton's elevation to knighthood was a recognition
of his scientific accomplishments is unclear. Queen Anne knighted
Newton in 1705 at the urging of his benefactor Charles Montague,
earl of Halifax. At that time Newton was standing for election to
the House of Commons from Cambridge, and Halifax, needing all the
allies he could muster, thought a little publicity would help
Newton in the election. It did not--this time Newton finished a
distant last in a field of four." (footnote, p. 114)

And, regarding the falling apple and gravity:

The story of Newton's apple is perhaps the most aberrant
tale in all the legends of science. In many ways it
trivializes Newton's accomplishments and gives and
altogether false picture of the process of science. The
universal theory of gravity and the science contained in
the Principia did not come to Newton as a blinding
insight while sitting under the tree. Looking through
Newton's notebooks, one can trace the clear development
of his ideas of forces, inertia, and gravity. He did not
discover his laws of motion sitting under a tree, nor do
I believe that he fully grasped the significance of his
idea in 1666 (as Newton claimed later in life). (p. 129)

Regarding the scientific method, and borrowing a bit from
Clausewitz, Kolb writs of the "fog of science" and suggests,
bluntly, "Most scientists spend their lives groping around trying
to find their way, as if lost in a fog." (p. 203) That comparison
is apt, he shows, in the development of 20th century cosmology from
Einstein, De Sitter, Freedmann, Hubble, Gamow, Lemaitre -- and, my
favorites in this development, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman. Of
course, the Noble prize-winning measurements of Robert Wilson and
Arno Penzias are detailed, but the inglorious (for science) story
of Alpher and Herman is well told here and can be usefully
summarized with Kolb's zinging conclusion: "Even now the prescient
work of Alpher and Herman has not been properly recognized." (p.
259) (By way of explanation: the reasons science ignored Robert
Herman and Ralph Alpher are sociological.)

Kolb's enthusiastic and romantic treatment of history invites
participation and enjoyment of science for everyone. His is NOT a
reserved science for which only geniuses need apply. He suggest
that it is not a degree from some major university that makes a
scientist: "it is surprisingly easy to find fundamental questions
in cosmology, because in many ways cosmology is a simple science.
Hidden beneath a thin (and sometimes not so thin) veneer of
mathematical complexity are simple, basic questions. Most of
today's most interesting cosmological questions are not even
original, but they are the same questions that have been asked ever
since we first turned our gaze to the skies. Not only can most of
the questions be understood by anyone, but they can be asked by
people who have nonscientific background but do have the only
irreducible requirement for a scientist: curiosity about the
universe." (p. 289)


Kolb ends with a recapitulation of where cosmology stands
today and lists the top ten questions to be asked about the
universe, even by cosmologists:

10. Where is the center of the universe?
9. What is beyond the "edge" of the universe?
8. Into what does the universe expand?
7. Do we live in a special place in the universe?
6. Why was there a bang?
5. What happened before the big bang?
4. How old is the universe?
3. How large is the universe?
2. Will the universe expand forever or ultimately
recollapse.
1. Of what is the universe made? (p. 290)

His answers, like the rest of his book, make good reading.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:00:42 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "james a. mulick" <jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

>Re the Nova episode on PBS on Dewey wrote:
>
> On any other planet run with a modicum of intelligence,
>sensibility, and morality, consistent and long-term ignoring of evidence by
>scientists on the make would likely constitute outright fraud.

It constitutes fraud here too.

>
> I now raise a question that I had planned to put off for a while.
>
> Is the Alvarez asteroid one of the great flimflams in history? One
>originating in legitimate finding and speculation (iridium)? But then blown
>into full-scale fraud via political control of some scientific magazines,
>suppression of opposition, and influence of some essayists, and advisors to
>TV videos?
>

Is it a flim-flam, is it temporary converging social and political and
economic agendas by important segments of the relevant scientists' groups,
societies, funding agencies and entertainment media, or is it just winning
a few rounds and neither the last word nor the end of the debate?


James A. Mulick, Ph.D. voice: 614-722-4700
Professor, Department of Pediatrics fax: 614-722-4718
The Ohio State University compuserve: 72345,1721
700 Children's Drive, CHPB-4
Columbus OH 43205-2696
jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:32:00 AEST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: peter bowditch <peterb@acslink.net.au>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

>
> But wait, that requires use of a syllogism.
>
> All males are rapists.
>
> Peter is a male.
>
> Therefore, Peter is a rapist.
>

I was asked to write an essay demolishing a "rape myth". I chose the one
that says "all men are rapists", but I was told that this was in fact a
tautology as the words "man" and "rapist" were synonyms. Funny how formal
logic is not so bad when it supports your own view.

And they let these creatures teach our children...

Seriously - people may argue that this has nothing to do with fraud in
science, but I have to disagree. I saw people conducting research with the
results predetermined, rejecting data if it didn't fit the hypothesis,
fabricating data, deliberately misinterpreting data, and other sins which in
a real science would see the practitioners ridiculed and censured. The
results of this "research" were then used to influence public policy, so the
fraud affected us all.

..............................................................
Peter Bowditch .Tel: +61-2-6871247
Gebesse Computer Consultants.Fax: +61-2-6871248
Parramatta NSW Australia .Mobile: +61-419219659
peterb@acslink.net.au .http://www.acslink.net.au/~peterb/
..............................................................
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:25:19 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Response to Jere Lipps' 7/11/96 "Nova and PBS" posting.

Hi Jere:

Thanks for the comments. Re the iridium, isotopes, shocked
minerals, etc., I've spent lots of years thinking about them. Full
discussion of these topics would constitute a manuscript. For the purposes
of Scifraud, I'll provide brief comments on my perspectives of their
relevance to cause of the K-T extinctions. I'll send you some of my papers
for more in-depth treatment.

You began your posting with my question "Is the Alvarez asteroid
one of the great flimflams in history?" Because I am getting other
responses to my question, perhaps I should expound upon it. This category
is different from that on iridium, etc. I have always tried to keep this
aspect of the K-T completely separated from the science of the K-T.

For purposes of simplification, I'll break up my response into two
parts, one on the iridium, etc., and the other on my question.

I'll try to post the first one by tomorrow morning.

Cheers,
Dewey


>Dewey McLean writes:
>
>> I now raise a question that I had planned to put off for a while.
>>
>> Is the Alvarez asteroid one of the great flimflams in history? One
>>originating in legitimate finding and speculation (iridium)? But then blown
>>into full-scale fraud via political control of some scientific magazines,
>>suppression of opposition, and influence of some essayists, and advisors to
>>TV videos?
>>
>> I will explore this question as conditions dictate.
>
>
>Not entirely. There is quite a bit of evidence that an impact may have
>taken place--iridium, isotopes, shocked quartz and some others that seem
>like strong inference--as well as evidence that is weak (the
>paleontological extinctions say nothing about how they took place, and
>should only be used in conjunction with the hypothesis to develop other
>testable hypotheses on extinction mechanisms) and purely bogus "evidence"
>(carbonized wood that "shows" worldwide fires). The hypothesis has
>certainly produced a lot of close scrutiny and additional work that would
>never have been done on quite a variety of things--for example, on the
>nature of the fossil record; extinction mechanisms; cometary and asteroid
>searches; and lots of other things that are positive.
>
>There are negatives here too. This is a case of run-away enthusiasm for a
>neat idea with some supporting evidence, but which still remains an
>hypothesis to be tested (not "proved" with more suporting or bogus
>evidence) with negative evidence, if any can be found. Careers and honors
>are premature, IMHO. So are definitive TV and magazine articles. Surely,
>programs and mags can be sold in similar numbers if ideas are presented as
>speculation or hypotheses, rather than fact. I discovered quite by
>accident years ago that controversy sells. This whole hypothesis could
>have been presented that way, without damning people or their alternative
>ideas. But the personalities would not allow it.


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:37:52 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Response to Jim Mulick's 7/11/96 "Nova and PBS" posting.

Hi Jim and other Scifraud colleagues:

>Is it a flim-flam, is it temporary converging social and political and
>economic agendas by important segments of the relevant scientists' groups,
>societies, funding agencies and entertainment media, or is it just winning
>a few rounds and neither the last word nor the end of the debate?


The K-T is complex on nearly every level, scientific and social. At
this stage, I have simply raised a question concerning flimflam.

It is a legitimate question.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:17:28 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Response to the Paul Gross 7/11/96 "Nova and PBS" posting.

>My question to
>those who are convinced that the impact story is WRONG (not just
>NOT ALL THAT LIKELY) -- which impression I derive from postings
>to this list --


If you can find in any of my postings any statements that the
impact is WRONG, please point them out to me.

I have never expended any effort at trying to disprove the impact
theory, and have stated so in previous postings. A scientist would have to
be a fool to state categorically that a K-T impact did not occur. The
record is too complex, and too open to interpretation to do that. I make
this statement having worked with K-T transition strata since the 1960s.
Anyway, that would be self-limiting tactically and strategically.

The K-T debate is about CAUSE of extinctions. A point I have
stressed repeatedly is that no one has yet proved cause of the K-T
extinctions. My complaint is with those who ignore data, and play politics,
in trying to convince others that the debate is over.


>"HOw come you guys haven't organized a loyal
>opposition within the profession; or are there too many of them
>and too few of you?" And, if the latter, leaving aside
>conspiratorial fraud (just for the moment), WHY?

I have cited in earlier postings the difficulties in opposing large
movements involving lush opportunities for funding and careers, and large
numbers of people seeking the opportunities. The K-T is pathogenic science
largely out of control.

It's easy for spectators at a prize fight to tell the boxers how to
fight their battle. As for me, I never work with other scientists, and I do
not join causes.

In any case, after K-T politics caused my health to fail in 1984, I
was able to do no more than meet my barest responsibilities for a long
time. I was too damn sick to care, and could hardly even think about the
K-T. I developed a Pavlovian response to it that still affects me. Every
month since 1984 I have spent time in physical pain and emotional distress
over what happened to me. It is now clear that I will never completely
recover physically and emotionally.

And for what? I had the stupidly naive idea that the work I was
doing on greenhouse-extinction coupling might be useful to a civilization
facing a potential greenhouse. Instead, I learned about the realities that
go along with having an idea that stands in the way of a large movement
that offers many opportunities for many others. And a system where science,
itself, does not want any controls on its activities, and where hardly
anything counts as misconduct.

>Or have I already missed the PROOF of conspiratorial fraud?

I stated that "I will explore this question as conditions dictate."

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 10:28:08 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Is collusion misconduct?

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

Does collusion among individuals to damage another constitute
scientific misconduct? Not by current definitions of misconduct.

Via current ethical standards, powerful individuals and groups are
guaranteed freedom to do whatever it takes to attain their agendas and need
worry little about ever being challenged.

Attached, please find my 11/27/92 letter to David Raup,
paleobiologist from the University of Chicago. The journalist cited in =B63
is Kim McDonald, of the Chronicle of Higher Education who, at about that
time, was writing a Chronicle article on K-T politics ("A renewed debate
over the dinosaur's demise," 10/28/92).

Kim is an admirable and courageous individual. If I recall
correctly, Walter Alvarez threatened Kim that Science magazine might sue
him if he published his article. Bill Glen, of the U.S. Geological Survey,
who is writing the "history" of the K-T debate, demanded that he be allowed
to edit Kim's Chronicle article.

Chuck Officer has written a book on K-T politics that should be
published soon. I requested that he not include me in his book but have
learned recently that he did so anyway. Thus, I take the liberty of
retaining his name in the attached letter. I have deleted it in previous
postings.

I will designate my Virginia Tech geology colleague as "XX."

The "famous paleobiologist" I refer to in =B65 has been mentioned in
several of my Scifraud postings.

Dewey McLean




November 27, 1992

Dr. David M. Raup
Department of Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL 60637

Dear David:

Thanks for your 11/23/92 fax response to my 11/19/92 fax of the
Koshland letter which contains the following comments about you:

"Raup has a history of damaging opponents of the Alvarez asteroid.
Early in the K-T debate, his influence with the NSF's Mosaic editor got
Alvarez's opponents categorized as "Just So," and abiding in "lofty
isolation" (Mosaic, 1981, v. 12, pp. 2-10). That hurt. In addition, my work
on the greenhouse physiological killing mecha-nism was branded "Just So"
even before my paper was published. John Noble Wilford (The Riddle of the
Dinosaurs, 1985) also used Raup's "Just So." For those--and other
actions--I must view Raup as a mean-spirited, politically-manipulative
individual who has no business being on any Editorial Board that must make
decisions on the K-T."

A few weeks ago, a journalist called about your comments on Chuck
Officer's role in the K-T debate: "Chuck Officer is reminiscent of Arthur
Meyerhoff and continental drift" . . . "Meyerhoff was somewhat of a
laughing stock of the field" . . . and that "lots of people draw parallels
between Meyerhoff and Officer."

At the Cincinnati GSA meeting in late October, I talked with other
scientists about your comments. No one I talked to had such an insulting
opinion of Officer. David, it seems that--via personal attack--you were
attempting to undermine Officer's scientific credibility with the
journalist. In the early 1980s, you seem to have done the same thing to
me--only worse.

In the early 1980s--when I had originated the volcano side of the
current asteroid versus volcano K-T debate, and was the main volcanic
opposition to the Alvarez asteroid--your politics, those of another famous
paleobiologist, and Luis Alvarez were fed to the Chairman of my Department
of Geological Sciences with disastrous consequences to my career, and my
health.

David Wones was Chairman of our Department. He was the best boss I
had ever known. He was supportive of my K-T volcanism-extinctions work,
insisted that I attend the 1981 Snowbird I conference, and even paid my
way. Wones' 1/13/81 Faculty Activities Report to the Dean stated, "Dewey is
one of the creative and original thinkers in the department . . . If he is
correct in his analysis of fossil extinctions, the department will have
housed one of the major figures of our time." And, "Dewey has been most
cooperative with me." I adored David Wones.

Then, your old pal, "XX", was promoted to full professor, and got
on the Executive Committee. My relationship with Chairman Wones
deteriorated--quickly. By 1/12/83, K-T "dirty tricks" had so distressed
Wones with me that his Faculty Activities Report noted, "Dewey McLean
remains the least collegial of the faculty in the Geological Sciences."
Wones would get angry with me for reasons I could not fathom and, when he
saw me, might turn red-faced, and utter scathing remarks. Finally--I had
"no future here." And should "look elsewhere." Wones had "no time" to
discuss what was wrong. An article in the NSF's Mosaic (1981, v. 12), that
lumped my work in a special blue-outlined box titled "Just So," also
bothered him; he was very sensitive to the NSF.

I was doing an excellent job here. I had received four Teaching
Excellence Awards (1974 to 1981), was directing a graduate dinoflagellate
program second only to my mentor at Stanford (two of my former graduate
students have been President of the American Association of Stratigraphic
Palynologists, and one received the 1984 Outstanding Graduate Student at
=46lorida State Award, etc.), was doing original research linking internal
earthly processes to evolution of earth's biosphere, and was developing a
physiological greenhouse killing mechanism, etc. (I have the Ph.D. in
geology from Stanford, and all course work for the Ph.D. in biology).
However, I was being hurt because of the K-T, and sometimes brutally so.

Speaking of brutality--one day "XX" told me that the department would
solicit a recommendation about me from Luis Alvarez. "XX" knew that Luis
Alvarez had threatened to wreck my career if I opposed his asteroid theory,
and could be depended on to write a damaging letter about me. "XX" also
indicated that if I wanted to make full professor, I would have to
relocate--"like Tony Hallam had" (something about relocating from Oxford to
Birmingham). I had to take all this, and couldn't do anything about it.

Wones was manipulated. One day, Wones even cursed me in front of
the secretarial staff for being such a "bad scientist" that a Nobel prize
winner (Luis Alvarez) had to chastise me publicly (I have a letter of
apology from Wones). David, you, chairman of three NASA workshops on
extraterrestrial influences of bioevolution, etc., had brought "XX" and
Luis Alvarez together. "XX" brought Alvarez's comments about me into our
department. Wones' upset with me seems to have followed one of your
meetings.

Stresses wreaked upon me by Wones' several-month harangue ground me
down. I learned all about drenching night sweats, endless anxiety, and
helplessness at being attacked, and not being able to do anything about it.
I was being damaged externally by Luis Alvarez's attack upon my
credibility, and internally by K-T politics in my own department. Finally,
I threatened to sue Wones and the University. Some details are in my 6/1/88
letter to Luis Alvarez (attached). Incidentally, paragraph two of my
Alvarez letter contains a comment that might interest you--the one that my
K-T work was "not going anywhere."

David, according to Wones, you were the source of that "cheap shot"
that had helped to turn him against me. He had to take "seriously, the
recommendation from one of the world's top paleontologists, a national
academician, who was actively involved in the K-T debate." By that
description, he had unintentionally identified you. When confronted with a
potential lawsuit--and realizing that he had been manipulated--Wones
admitted it.

Stresses of the politics broke down my health. In January, 1984,
horrible pain woke me one morning. Nearly every joint in my body was
inflamed, and some were swollen. Movement triggered excruciating pain. My
fingers were swollen twice their normal size, and were stiff and immobile.
My wife had to help me get out of bed, and to dress. She had to do that
many mornings. The affliction got worse, and lasted for all of 1984. My
muscle mass atrophied. I spent 1985 so weak and fatigued that I could do
little more than meet my academic responsibilities. I had to face the
possibility that my career might be over for health reasons.

The 1984-1985 episode of pain and emotional trauma embedded in me a
Pavlovian-type response to the K-T such that it became upsetting--even
repulsive--to me. Before 1984, I had never been bothered by stresses; after
that, I have been. I learned in a brutal way that politics could hurt me. I
will never recover physically or emotionally from the trauma that some of
you people put me through. You state in your fax that you had declined "to
write a letter at the time of your promotion at VPI." The method you used
was more effective--and left no documented record.

Whatever could be your motive? Internal K-T politics became most
intense in 1983--the same time you were beginning to promote your idea of
impact-driven periodic extinctions. The Alvarez asteroid offered you the
greatest grab for greatness of your entire career-to develop your own
paradigm of impact-driven bioevolution on our planet-your chance to topple
Darwin, and replace him with--Raup!

However, one impediment for you was my K-T Deccan Traps
volcanism-carbon cycle perturbation model that unifies most aspects of the
K-T record. On this matter, you claim in your fax that you "know so little
about" my work . . . largely because of ignorance of atmospheric chemistry
. . ."

David, your scientific papers touching the K-T seem to display
ignorance of most of the science necessary to really understand the
phenomena of mass extinctions--the data of nearly a couple dozen fields of
science that are absolutely critical to developing holistic comprehension
of K-T dynamics. They span the Cretaceous and Tertiary fossil records
(animal and plant, marine and terrestrial), biostratigraphy, physical
stratigraphy, plate tectonics, carbon cycle, stable isotopes, mantle
processes that include degassing, paleobiology, paleoecology, climatology,
oceanography, biochemistry, solar-earth-space energy flow systems, and
system dynamics, to name some.

Anyway, David, I hope you are beginning to grasp why I sincerely
believe that "Raup has a history of damaging opponents of the Alvarez
asteroid." . . . and "I must view Raup as a mean-spirited,
politically-manipulative individual . . ." If not, please read on.

I have in my possession a 9/14/87 letter stating: "leadership . . .
for the extraterrestrial community . . . shifted to individuals such as
Dave Raup, Steve Gould, Gene Shoemaker, and Kevin Burke . . . all are well
versed in manipulating science policy in their own directions . . . Last
month there was an organizing committee meeting under the auspices of the
National Academy of Sciences to have another Snowbird conference . . . the
meeting was set up by Raup and Shoemaker. There were twelve people at the
meeting, ten of whom were from the extraterrestrial community . . . two
representing as a token the terrestrial interests. The arrogance of some of
the people at the meeting was unbelievable and most distasteful."

David, if you are really fair-minded about the volcanic opposition
to the Alvarez asteroid--as you claim in your fax--why did you not assemble
a balanced Snowbird II organizing committee? I have heard complaints that
Snowbird II was "stacked" to allow the impact community to overwhelm its
opponents. If true, the NAS was manipulated by a few individuals to promote
their own vested interests. Now, I hear that the NAS is being asked to
sponsor a Snowbird III conference.

You note, for your claim of fairness, that "none are more likely
than I to switch to the volcanic alternative." David, your latest book,
Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (1991) does not cite the work of a
single K-T volcanist. It leaves out: that the K-T boundary Deccan Traps
volcanism was coeval with perturbations of the carbon cycle and climatic
warming, Strangelove Oceans, and marine and terrestrial extinctions, and
the fact that the modern Reunion hot spot volcano that produced the Deccan
Traps 65 million years ago is still releasing iridium today. In pointing
this out, I am not accusing you of "unconscious bias" (p. 179). I really
liked your, "Perhaps within the next few months, it will be difficult to
find anyone who ever doubted the impact-extinction link" (p. 163).

Now, for your "Just So" comments in a Mosaic article (1981, v. 12)
that you "know nothing about." The one that got asteroid opponents lumped
into an insulting blue-outlined box titled "Just So," with the note that
"some of the proponents abide in lofty isolation." David, I believe you
introduced the "Just So" epithet into the K-T.

After my 6/24/81 letter to him, Mosaic editor, Warren Kornberg,
told me that he had created the "Just So" box. He got the idea from your
"Just So" comments in the article: "The sort of ad hoc explanations . . .
the kind of 'Just So Stories' . . ." says David Raup "are impossible to
document, except by wishful thinking . . .." But, "The Alvarez theory is
testable." Please, David, a scientist knowledgeable on extinction theory
literature, and authors, somehow provided Kornberg the theory-author data
for the "Just So" box.

On another topic from your fax, you indicate that as a member of
the Science Editorial Board you had no "detectable influence." I will
accept your statement, and delete reference to it from my Koshland letter.

Most of the scientists involved in the K-T debate seem of high
integrity. What should have been a grand adventure in which scientists from
many fields worked together to solve one of the great mysteries of
science--cause of the K-T extinctions--was sullied by a small handful of
vested-interest individuals who saw the Alvarez asteroid as a means for
implementing their own agendas. That handful is responsible for turning the
K-T debate into one of the major episodes of sick, or pathogenic, science
in history.

David, I sincerely believe, with no malice in my heart, that you
are one of that handful.

Sincerely,



Dewey M. McLean
Professor, and Director of Earth Systems and Biosphere Evolution Studies

cc: Daniel Koshland, Jr.; Kim McDonald; Chuck Officer; Arthur Meyerhoff, etc=
.


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:16:34 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: anyone can win

I said that the probabilistic 'anyone can win' as applied to lotteries, etc., w
as false. At least two respondents said, "so what?" Identifying false stateme
nts in the guise of scientific truths is what we are about. That is what.
No one has tried to support the claim that anyone can win, but that would b
e an appropriate argument in support of probabilism. Ad hominem remarks addres
sed to me do not help the probabilistic cause.

Foster Lindley
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 12:58:17 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Many thanks to Foster Lindley for his e-mail of 7/5. (I have been out of
town.) His statement seems to me to present a strong argument for the
view that probability is best understood as strength of belief. I was
particularly struck by the following from Foster: " Anyone could win or
lose for all I know, but that is a description of my mind, not a
description of the device's behavior. My ignorance is irrelevant to the
outcome and enables no one to win or lose." True, but it does tell you
something about betting, and in the same way, about any other situation
where you have some information about the determinants of an outcome, but
not enough information to be certain of how things turned out, or will turn
out.
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 14:17:49 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "james a. mulick" <jmulick@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Dewey wrote:

>Response to Jim Mulick's 7/11/96 "Nova and PBS" posting.
>
<snip>
> The K-T is complex on nearly every level, scientific and social. At
>this stage, I have simply raised a question concerning flimflam.
>
> It is a legitimate question.
>
Agreed. I look forward to your further discussion of the topic. For me, flimflam requires
sustained and premeditated fraud in terms of maintaining false beliefs in others for the purpose of
personal gain. My definition may be different from others'.

Jim
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:25:39 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "jere h. lipps" <jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

>
>Seriously - people may argue that this has nothing to do with fraud in
>science, but I have to disagree. I saw people conducting research with the
>results predetermined, rejecting data if it didn't fit the hypothesis,
>fabricating data, deliberately misinterpreting data, and other sins which in
>a real science would see the practitioners ridiculed and censured. The
>results of this "research" were then used to influence public policy, so the
>fraud affected us all.

I don't see that the way these people conduct their research is necessarily
bad or fraud, depending on the "sin". I think all scientists, because they
are people, operate this way in one degree or another. We don't think we
deliberately do things wrong, but we get enthusiastic. Clearly, some do
fabricate data and results, and I do not doubt these observationskhard@snf.
The real problem here is that policy should never be made on unreplicated
research. That is why science is supposed to work fairly--others can check
it out and show where the biases (or maybe dishonesties) are. On the other
hand, if the research is not published and policy is made from it, then it
is not even science, as that major caveat of science--communication of your
results--has not taken place. Research is not science, it is only one
step in the process. It is a critical difference to keep in mind,
especially for policy makers, manufacturers, and others like them who
demand "scientific proof". Research from one lab, untested by others, is
not proof, nor is it science.

Because we all have our biases, science demands the results be made public
and subject to scrutiny. Dishonest, misrepresented, or mistaken results do
not bother me at all, if the scientific process is allowed to run its
course. That course may take more time than policy or careers do, and we
must be vigilant that we do not permit harm to accrue through
insufficiently tested work.

Fraud in research is bad, but fraud in science requires a huge conspiracy
and hence is less likely.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:37:08 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "jere h. lipps" <jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Peter Bowditch writes:
>
>Seriously - people may argue that this has nothing to do with fraud in
>science, but I have to disagree. I saw people conducting research with the
>results predetermined, rejecting data if it didn't fit the hypothesis,
>fabricating data, deliberately misinterpreting data, and other sins which in
>a real science would see the practitioners ridiculed and censured. The
>results of this "research" were then used to influence public policy, so the
>fraud affected us all.

Comment:

I don't see that the way these people conduct their research is necessarily
bad or fraud, depending on the "sin". I think all scientists, because we
are people, operate this way in one degree or another. We don't think we
deliberately do things wrong, but we get enthusiastic. Unfortunately, some
do fabricate data and results (which I do think is bad and unethical). The
real problem here is that policy should never be made on unreplicated
research. That is why science is supposed to work fairly--others can check
it out and show where the biases (or maybe dishonesties) are. On the other
hand, if the research is not published and policy is made from it, then it
is not even science, as that major caveat of science--communication of your
results--has not taken place. Research is not science, it is only one
step in the process. It is a critical difference to keep in mind,
especially for policy makers, manufacturers, and others like them who
demand "scientific proof". Research from one lab (or company), untested
by others, is not proof, nor is it science.

Because we all have our biases, science demands the results be made public
and subject to scrutiny. Dishonest, misrepresented, or mistaken results do
not bother me, if the scientific process is allowed to run its course.
That course may take more time than policy or careers require, and we must
be vigilant that we do not permit harm to accrue through insufficiently
tested work.

Fraud in research is bad, but fraud in science requires a huge conspiracy
and hence is less likely.

Jere H. Lipps, Professor and Director
Department of Integrative Biology and
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720 USA

Voice: 510-642-9006. Fax: 510-642-1822.
Internet: jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
WWW: http://ucmp1.berkeley.edu/jlipps/jlipps.html
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 14:43:59 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
comments: to: "jere h. lipps" <jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
in-reply-to: <v02130517ae0b445237b7@{128.32.110.34}>

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Jere H. Lipps wrote:

> >results predetermined, rejecting data if it didn't fit the hypothesis,
> >fabricating data, deliberately misinterpreting data, and other sins which in
> >a real science would see the practitioners ridiculed and censured. The
> >results of this "research" were then used to influence public policy, so the
> >fraud affected us all.
>
> I don't see that the way these people conduct their research is necessarily
> bad or fraud, depending on the "sin". I think all scientists, because they
> are people, operate this way in one degree or another. We don't think we
> deliberately do things wrong, but we get enthusiastic. Clearly, some do
> fabricate data and results, and I do not doubt these observationskhard@snf.
> The real problem here is that policy should never be made on unreplicated
> research. That is why science is supposed to work fairly--others can check
> it out and show where the biases (or maybe dishonesties) are. On the other
> hand, if the research is not published and policy is made from it, then it
<deletia>
> Because we all have our biases, science demands the results be made public
> and subject to scrutiny. Dishonest, misrepresented, or mistaken results do
> not bother me at all, if the scientific process is allowed to run its
> course. That course may take more time than policy or careers do, and we
> must be vigilant that we do not permit harm to accrue through
> insufficiently tested work.
>

This is a classical view of the self-correcting nature of science.
Idealistic--I might say Pollyanna-ish. Dishonest, misrepresented, or
mistaken results bother the hell out of me. As for the scientific process
running its course, I am sceptical. First, just try to get money
from a granting agency for the stated purpose of trying to duplicate someone
else's results. If nobody believes the results, you can't get money
because nobody believes the results anyway. If most people believe
the results, you can't get money because most people believe the
results. Second, the careers of honest scientists
can go down the tubes while we are waiting for the system to work.

I suspect you have never been personally affected by a competitor or
competitors who were playing fast and loose with the truth. The simple
fact is that a shady scientist can generate dishonest, misrepresented, or
mistaken results far faster than competitors can set the record right.

So I respectfully, but emphatically, disagree with your belief that it
will somehow all come right in the end.

Ray Gibbons Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics
Univ. of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu (802) 656-8910
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:20:26 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Ray Gibbons disagrees, "emphatically," with Lipps to the effect
that it somehow comes right in the end. I would ask him, then,
what fraction of the standard texts in his own field, which I
take to be physiology or biophysics, is -- to his reliable
knowledge -- wrong or at least suspect. I mean, textBOOKS, not
monographs or compendia of recent "research" (which as one of the
contributors to this list has just noted, with justice, is not
the same thing as "science").

PRG
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 13:14:09 +0800
Reply-To: genedong@leland.Stanford.EDU
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <genedong@popserver.stanford.edu>
from: eugene dong <genedong@popserver.stanford.edu>
Organization: Stanford.edu
Subject: NEW PARTICIPANT

Just a brief note to indicate that I have just subscribed to this
discussion group. I met Al Higgins in 1983 at the Dark Side of
Science meeting in Santa Barbara.
Eugene Dong, MD, JD
Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery
genedong@popserver.stanford.edu
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:14:29 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Response to Jere Lipps' 7/12/96 "anyone could win" posting.

>Peter Bowditch writes:
>>
>>Seriously - people may argue that this has nothing to do with fraud in
>>science, but I have to disagree. I saw people conducting research with the
>>results predetermined, rejecting data if it didn't fit the hypothesis,
>>fabricating data, deliberately misinterpreting data, and other sins which in
>>a real science would see the practitioners ridiculed and censured. The
>>results of this "research" were then used to influence public policy, so the
>>fraud affected us all.


>Jere's Comments:
>
>I don't see that the way these people conduct their research is necessarily
>bad or fraud...
>
>Dishonest, misrepresented, or mistaken results do
>not bother me, if the scientific process is allowed to run its course.


Jere:

I was preparing a response to your 7/11/96 "Nova and PBS" posting
(on my K-T impact-flimflam question) when I read your comments. Perhaps I
will expound upon my question at a later date.

Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:54:39 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Dr. Dong's joining


Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 15:45:09 -0500 (CDT)
from: rlspragu@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (robert l. sprague)
Subject: Dr. Dong's joining
to: multiple recipients of list scifraud <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>

Here, after a slight delay, is a posting from Bob Sprague.

Al Higgins

++++++++++

We welcome you to this group. Many of us are familiar with your
contributions to scientifc integrity and appreciate your past efforts in
this area.



A.C.Higgins


Al Higgins
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 17:08:31 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) SOCETH New Approach to Gender and Ecology


Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 15:05:41 -0400
from: afowler <afowler@aaas.org> (by way of lmintz@tiac.net (leon mintz))
Subject: SOCETH New Approach to Gender and Ecology
To: SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU
FYI...forwarded from SOCETH-L.

After an unfortunate delay is a posting that may be of interest to
some on this list.

Al Higgins

+++++++++


Subject: SOCETH New Approach to Gender and Ecology
Author: Ecopsychology News <claudir@hubcap.clemson.edu> at Internet
Date: 7/9/96 11:02 PM



Hello,

Lately a burgeoning field, ecopsychology, is exploring social and
ethical issues within an ecological perspective. One exciting
development is the following workshop which successfully addresses
gender issues in an ecological ethical context. Profound changes in
ethical behavior towards others and nature develop.

Below is some information about an innovative approach to gender therapy
I think you might find valuable. I also have an article(41K) which describes
these workshops in detail.

"Gender and racial relations in Western societies are dysfunctional and
unsustainable in their current forms. In particular, the domination and
exploitation of women is precisely mirrored in the domination and
exploitation of the Earth's natural ecosystems...

Vital changes have been inspired by the women's liberation and gay rights
movements over the past 30 years, as well as the men's movement in the past
decade...

It {the article} describes a new form of exploratory work for promoting
deep healing between men and women in an ecological context. Ten prototype
workshops have been held in the United States and Australia over the past
three years, and the results are highly encouraging...

We have accumulated considerable anecdotal data from participants about their
experiences in our gender workshops...

The anecdotal feedback has been illuminating and helpful for further
development of the prototype workshops..."

A systematic analysis of this data needs to be conducted, and a formal
evaluative procedure needs to be applied to assess the efficacy of this work.
Nevertheless, some preliminary patterns in participants' responses are
summarized in this article. Amazing, profound changes in individuals'
behavior toward others and nature occur readily in this context.


Please feel free to email me for more info about these results at
claudir@hubcap.clemson.edu See the workshop information below.

Cheers,
Claudia
* + + +
+ Join ECOPSYCHOLOGY at listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu
+ subscribe ecopsychology firstname lastname
+ "Integrating Mind and Nature" >|< >|< claudir@hubcap.clemson.edu


GENDER AND ECOPSYCHOLOGY:
HEALING BETWEEN WOMEN, MEN, AND THE EARTH
July 27 - August 1, 1996
Shenoa Retreat Center (near San Francisco)


You are invited to an unusual gathering of women and men for exploration and
healing of our relationships with eachother and with the Earth.

Over the past 25 years, the women's and men's movements have created a
powerful context for women and men--separately--to address gender issues,
heal their wounds, and make new choices. Now, there is an urgent need for
mutual healing modalities that include both sexes and a diversity of lifestyle
preferences.

Restoring balance between women and men is fundamental to restoring balance
to our relationship with the Earth. Join us--whether straight, gay, or bi
--for intensive exploration and healing as we reawaken the fundamental unity
that underlies our apparent separation.


Content of the workshop:

* ecopsychology: bridging ecology, psychology, and spirituality
* experiential breathwork for accessing inner wisdom
* councils, group process work, movement, ritual
* ecofeminism, feminist psychology, and the new male psychology
* same-sex groups for in-depth exploration with others of same gender


WORKSHOP FACILITATORS


Will Keepin, PhD, Director of Integral Sustainability Associates, has
co-facilited over a dozen gender healing workshops in US and Australia

Johanna Johnson, MA, LPC, Integral Sustainability Associates,
psychotherapist specializing in sexual abuse, chronic trauma and
spirituality

Allen Kanner, PhD, co-author of _EcoPsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing
the Mind_

Amy E. Fox, BA, co-founder of the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine


REGISTER early, before June 15, 1996 for reduced expenses! Some partial
scholarships are also available.

For more information, contact Claudia at claudir@hubcap.clemson.edu



A.C.Higgins


Al Higgins
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:43:43 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) SOCETH New Approach to Gender and Ecology
comments: to: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
in-reply-to: <01i6zrau8ri08y4x0b@cnsvax.albany.edu>

The forwarded post on "ecopsychology" was intriguing (intro snipped below).

> Hello,
>
> Lately a burgeoning field, ecopsychology, is exploring social and
> ethical issues within an ecological perspective. One exciting
> development is the following workshop which successfully addresses
> gender issues in an ecological ethical context. Profound changes in

If the originator is on the list, perhaps s/he can elaborate on the
details of the workshop components (below). I'm particularly interested
to know about numbers one, two, and four.

> ethical behavior towards others and nature develop.
> Content of the workshop:
>
> * ecopsychology: bridging ecology, psychology, and spirituality
> * experiential breathwork for accessing inner wisdom
> * councils, group process work, movement, ritual
> * ecofeminism, feminist psychology, and the new male psychology
> * same-sex groups for in-depth exploration with others of same gender

Thanks in advance for any further explanation.

Jim Whitehead.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 18:02:46 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
comments: to: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
in-reply-to: <199607121920.paa131444@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> Ray Gibbons disagrees, "emphatically," with Lipps to the effect
> that it somehow comes right in the end. I would ask him, then,
> what fraction of the standard texts in his own field, which I
> take to be physiology or biophysics, is -- to his reliable
> knowledge -- wrong or at least suspect. I mean, textBOOKS, not
> monographs or compendia of recent "research" (which as one of the
> contributors to this list has just noted, with justice, is not
> the same thing as "science").
>
> PRG
>

Perhaps I should have said that I disagree emphatically with the view that
we *need not be concerned* with dishonest, misrepresented, etc. science
because it will all come right in the end. We should be concerned with it
for a great many reasons, even if we thought it would all eventually work
out and truth would finally emerge, maybe after you and I are dead. If
nothing else bothers you, consider that people may be harmed by
misinformation in medical science before the truth fights its way
inevitably to the fore.

The recent fraud in clinical trials comparing breast cancer treatments may
not have altered the essential conclusions about appropriate treatments,
and so patients may not have been harmed, but that is just pure good luck
and not evidence that bad science is harmless.

I haven't the faintest idea what exact percentage of textbooks is wrong.
You may think you've scored some sort of debating point, but the question
is irrelevant to my original comments and pretty silly to boot.

If the textbooks were wrong because the authors read bad or fraudulent
science without detecting it, how would I know? I read the same science.

But the fact that a question is preposterous and unanswerable should
never stop a professor. It is an interesting question, even if
irrelevant, so I will take a stab at it.

In those few areas I am qualified to judge, physiology textbooks often say
things that are wrong. Sometimes they are wrong because nobody knows
better. Very likely they are wrong sometimes because the authors have
read bad, fraudulent, or careless research and believed it, but of course
we cannot detect that. Most often, I think they are wrong because the
authors haven't read much science at all.

I have a very old Physiology textbook which discusses the theory that the
semen contains homunculi, which "grow to man's estate" in the womb. It
denies that this can be true, because it is obvious to the author that the
semen is the product of putrifaction and decay. I can't really blame the
author; he felt he had to say something and because he was an MD, he could
hardly admit he did not know anything.

I own an early 20th century Physiology textbook whose original owner was
Joseph Erlanger (Nobelist in physiology). The margins contain notes to
the effect of, "I cannot confirm this." This text may have been based on
reading of the primary scientific literature; at the least, what it
contained was of current interest to a prominent scientist. Certainly,
Erlanger thought the book contained errors. I have not opened it for many
years, but I am certain much of what it contains would now be considered
laughable. Is that an example of the truth coming out? Only if you are
sure that what we have now is perfect understanding of the truth. We may
simply have moved to a different level of wrongness.

Today, my guess is that, with a few rare and welcome exceptions, textbooks
are based on other textbooks. I cannot imagine that text authors struggle
through all the primary literature of physiology and assess it critically;
I cannot keep up with it in my very narrow field. Once errors are in
textbooks, they have a long life and propagate from book to book. Even
if science occasionally corrects itself, it may not find its way into the
textbook.

For example, one of my pet peeves is that many medical physiology
textbooks present as fact that cardiac muscle cannot be tetanized because
it has a long electrical refractory period. The first paper I can recall
refuting this was published about 40 years ago. Why do they say this?
Not because of any fraudulent research. I guess because other textbooks
said it.

I am currently reading a textbook of electrocardiography that is very
popular with our students. I am only a few pages into it, but I find
egregiously wrong blanket statements about the innervation of the
vasculature. That's about 4% of the book right there. Not only has this
author not read original research, he does not appear to have read other
textbooks.

I cannot recommend one of the most popular texts of medical physiology to
our students (unless they have a table with one short leg) because the
author has, as far as I can tell, made the book read well by making up
plausible (to him) explanations for things nobody knows, which he presents
as established fact.

So I don't know what percentage is wrong, but it is significantly above
zero and probably irrelevant to whether one should be sanguine about
sloppy, dishonest science. Bad science cannot help the textbooks, that
is for sure.

WRG

Ray Gibbons Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics
Univ. of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu (802) 656-8910
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:09:43 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "jere h. lipps" <jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

Well, just step out for lunch and look what happens.

I am a pollyannish idealist. Good! How else should we look at science?
Should we assume that science is inherently bad? Should we have lower
ideals? Should we expect that evil permeates science? No, or the entire
endeavor comes to an end. We hold democracy to high ideals too. Does this
mean that we are so stupid that we cannot recognize when things go wrong?
Absolutely not. I know that. In my 30 years in science, I think I have
been denied grants, awards, and other opportunities because of
personalities or just being on the wrong side of an issue. I may be a
pollyanna, but I am not naive. I have concentrated on righting those
wrongs or moving on. I am happy with the system because I believe it gives
me more opportunity to correct those kinds of slights or discriminations
than any other occupation I could have had where I would have also been
subjected to that kind of crap.

I see that Dr. Gibbons only quoted the part of my statement that made his
case stronger. So that I may avoid further slights or discrimination of
the sort he has identified, let me put his quote in context, and ask that
he and you concentrate on the last phrase.

"Dishonest, misrepresented, or mistaken results do
not bother me, if the scientific process is allowed to run its course.
That course may take more time than policy or careers require, and we must
be vigilant that we do not permit harm to accrue through insufficiently
tested work."

Vigilance means watching for exactly the kinds of things that Gibbons
notes. We should all do it, and when we see it, we should jump on it.
Indeed, we should expect it because "scientists are people". But let's
not lose our idealism with regard to science or democracy, or we have no
standard but the sleasy to measure ourselves by. Unfortunately, jumping on
the sleaze can take an inordinate amount of time, as I said, and effort.

A constructive discourse might be to devise a way to ameliorate the kinds
of things we are discussing here--not the bad research, but the personal bs
that does everyone and science harm.

Surely just bitching about the bad in science will not eliminate it. In
fact, I think that holding steadfastly to the higher ideals will do more in
that respect than to bemoan the crap.

Jere H. Lipps, Professor and Director
Department of Integrative Biology and
Museum of Paleontology
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720 USA

Voice: 510-642-9006. Fax: 510-642-1822.
Internet: jlipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
WWW: http://ucmp1.berkeley.edu/jlipps/jlipps.html
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 20:17:56 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) SOCETH New Approach to Gender and Ecology

Hey, Jim (Whitehead): don't you recognize plain English when you
see it?

PRG
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 20:29:11 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
comments: to: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>

To Gibbons, et al.: Nothing in my question had anything to do
with concern about sloppy, bad, or dishonest science. The reasn
I follow this list -- the only reason -- is that I am as
concerned about it as are you. My question was about how much of
"science" is bad, sloppy, dishonest. That is NOT a trivial
question. Nor did it imply my belief that superannuated
textbooks are free of errors. NOTHING written about the world is
full of truth and free of error except -- if you are a believed
-- your particular scriptures. The impression given insistently
on this list is that MUCH, if not all, of SCIENCE (not
"research)) is wrong or dishonest, its motives venal, its vaunted
methods an illusion. My experience, such as it is, tells me that
THAT is bad, sloppy, dishonest; and no dismissal intended to
those contributors who have suffered because of the misbehavior
of competitors or the sub-institutions of science. I, and lots
of others who care about honesty AND the use of public funds, are
still waiting for an answer, and for a straight statement about
the probity of "science" in the context of all other cultural
(and political) institutions.

PRG
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 14:57:46 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
Comments: To: prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu, ljipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
in-reply-to: <199607130029.uaa110642@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> To Gibbons, et al.: Nothing in my question had anything to do
> with concern about sloppy, bad, or dishonest science. The reasn
> I follow this list -- the only reason -- is that I am as
> concerned about it as are you. My question was about how much of
> "science" is bad, sloppy, dishonest. That is NOT a trivial
> question.

Let me try again; I jumped on you and Professor Lipps a bit harder than I
should have, and indeed I did quote him out of context. I apologize for
that. Friday was not a very good day, in part because of issues at least
peripherally related to this discussion.

During my scientific lifetime, I seem to have encountered more than my
fair share of dishonest science and shady tactics. Certainly I have seen
more than many others on this list say they have seen. Science may be
self-correcting if, as Professor Lipps says, the scientific process is
allowed to run its course. However, dishonest or misrepresented results
should bother us whether or not we think the scientific process will be
allowed to run its course. Even if truth does eventually win out, it
will only be after considerable expense in money, time, and perhaps careers.

I would judge that very high profile results, if they are immediately
recognized as important, will generally be tested fairly rapidly as others
attempt to build on them. Large clinical trials may be an exception,
because they are particularly difficult to replicate no matter how
important the data may be. My impression is that a significant percentage
of sloppiness and dishonesty occur in such trials, where the results are
particularly difficult to correct and may affect the lives of patients.
While high profile results will be tested in many cases, results that seem
more pedestrian may not be tested, but may influence thinking for years.
If they are wrong, it may take a long time for the truth to out.

While we are waiting for the scientific process to unmask dishonest,
misrepresented, or sloppy results, those who take the pains to do honest
and careful work and present it fairly are at an extreme disadvantage.
In today's environment, they may perish while the corner cutters
prosper. If the corner-cutters win, will they police each other? It
seems unlikely.

PRG asks what percent of science is dishonest? I don't know; I suspect it
is pretty small, albeit not as small as some would like to think. What
percent is misrepresented? Again, one cannot say. It depends in part on
what you mean by misrepresented. What percentage is sloppy? There, I
think we may be getting into some rather significant numbers.

But maybe a more serious question than absolute numbers is this: where
are present forces pushing us--toward better science and more honesty, or
in the other direction?

I suspect tenure will slowly erode in higher education over the next
decade, until it provides little security and little academic freedom.
That, I think, will be an incentive to cut more corners and will push more
people over the fuzzy line into dishonesty. In our lives, we have seen
cases where people cheated for recognition and advancement in a fairly
non-threatening and secure environment. What will they do when the issue
is survival?

I think I was accurate when I pointed out there is, today, little money
for replication and little recognition for those who discover errors or
dishonesty in the work of others. The emphasis everywhere is on positive
outcomes, and that's where the money is. That is another disturbing
trend.

We have overproduced Ph.D.'s for years in many fields, in part
because of our hunger for cheap and dedicated labor. Is the generation of
a pool of underemployed Ph.D.'s conducive to greater honesty? I find that
unlikely. So even if I might agree that the present level of outright
dishonesty is low, I anticipate it will increase. As for the future of
sloppiness, have you noticed that Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari are saying
they were fully exonerated, because they were only sloppy?

I will close with one personal anecdote. I once developed a hypothesis
based on work that had been unchallenged for a decade or so. Trouble was,
I could not replicate the original work. This led to a year of work to
find that the previous work was erroneous, and correct it. When the
result was submitted to what is probably the most prestigious physiology
journal in the US, one reviewer remarked that the subject was significant,
and our work was done with considerable care. The reviewer felt we were
undoubtedly right, whereas the original work was undoubtedly wrong. He
did not recommend publication, however, because publication would
"needlessly create problems in the minds of physiologists."

If I have concerns about the self-correcting nature of science,
maybe I can be forgiven.

WRG

Ray Gibbons Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics
Univ. of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu (802) 656-8910
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1996 22:48:44 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Lingua Franca

Lingua Franca

The latest issue of Lingua Franca has several items which
may be of interest to members of this board. There is, for
example, follow-up to the hoax of Alan Sokal and there are pieces
by the editor of Social Text, a response from Sokol, and a forum
containing thoughtful responses to the entire affair.

I have reproduced below an item dealing with the American
Chemical Society's support for an exhibit at the Smithsonian.
Again, it's fascinating reading.

The article is reproduced in its entirety.

++++++++++

\Gifford, Bill. "Bad Chemistry," Lingua Franca,
July/August, 1996, pp. 6-7.\

Seven years ago, the American Chemical Society gave the
Smithsonian's National Museum of American History $5.3
million to mount a permanent exhibit on "Science in
American Life." The ACS, the principal voice for
academic and industrial chemists in the United States,
naturally expected that the museum's curators would
create something uplifting -- a bells-and-whistles
affair that would attract young people to scientific
careers, and provide a permanent home for some of the
showpieces of modern technology. What they got was a
show that looked to some chemists like it had been
scripted by the Unabomber.

"Over the past 125 years, most Americans came to
believe that science and technology inevitably brought
progress," announced a label at the entrance to the
13,000-square-foot permanent exhibition. "As the 20th
century ends, people are less sure of this. They
realize science can entail hazards as well as
benefits."

Make that many hazards -- such as chlorine gas,
radiation, genetic engineering, and even the Pill,
which dominated an entire wall of the exhibit. "By the
1960s," a label there said, "some critics had begun to
denounce the Pill as a tool of oppression that would
limit populations selectively by race and class."

Then there was the section called "Mobilizing
Science for War, 1940-1960": Visitors walked past a
mockup of Enrico Fermi's prototype reactor and came
face to face with five photographs of towering mushroom
clouds. Below the photos, at eye level, hung five
images of burned flesh, twisted wreckage, and the
outlines of human beings who were vaporized by the
blast. Visitors then proceeded into the section on
nuclear testing, where an unarmed hydrogen bomb casing
and a device for testing radiation levels were
suspended from the ceiling.

This was not exactly what he ACS had in mind.

And now, after several years of behind-the-scenes
bickering, the society is airing its gripes in public.
In an editorial in the March 11 issue of Chemical
Engineering News, ACS chairwoman Joan Shields scalds
the exhibit, calling it a "revisionist historical
display of science as a litany of moral debacles,
environmental catastrophes, social injustices, and
destruction by radiation."

The lesson Shields draws is that potential donors
should be wary of giving to the museums on the Mall.
"As one of the largest single donors to the
Smithsonian," she concludes ominously, "ACS feels an
obligation to alert other potential private and
corporate donors to the problems they will confront."
This warning comes at a time of declining congressional
appropriations, when the institution is seeking to
raise tens of millions of dollars from the private
sector.

Smithsonian officials remain largely unfazed.
"What {the ACS} wanted was an exhibit that presented
'heroic science,"' says one curator. "They thought they
should have had their trade show, and instead they got
an historically accurate exhibit." And in a sense, the
ACS did get exactly what it paid for: The society's
contract with the Smithsonian gave curators final say
over the exhibit's content. An advisory committee made
up of scientists and science historians -- half
appointed by the ACS, half by the Smithsonian -- was
set up to offer guidance.

From early on, however, there was trouble. "We
should have realized the thing was headed for a
shipwreck," says Spencer Weart, a University of
Maryland physicist who was on the advisory committee.
"It became clear that the exhibit as it was being made
was going to be wholly unsatisfactory to scientists." A
Smithsonian curator who didn't work on the show agrees:
"There were people in influential positions in the
museum who, for whatever reason, wanted to thumb their
noses at the scientific establishment."

One display that particularly annoyed the
scientists was the first stop in the show: a recreation
of the pioneering chemistry laboratory established at
Johns Hopkins in 1876. At a lab bench, professor Ira
Remsen and a researcher, Constantin Fahlberg, are shown
working on their discovery of saccharin, which Fahlberg
later patented. Visitors who pressed a button could
hear the two mannequins speak -- sparring over who
deserved the credit.

But the biggest complaints had to do with a 1950s
nuclear fallout shelter, which the Smithsonian had dug
out of a donor's front yard in Fort Wayne, Indiana; the
curators wanted to include it as a companion piece to a
plasticized 1950s house. The scientists on the advisory
committee were furious. "Every time we'd come back,
they'd say, 'You still have that fallout shelter, and
we told you to take it out,"' says a curator. In the
end, the shelter stayed, but the battle lines hardened.

Through it all, the ACS remained publicly silent.
In fact, when the show opened in April 1994, the
chemists' group threw a lavish party to a celebrate the
exhibit's opening. Behind the scenes, however, ACS
honchos were demanding no less than forty changes. The
museum came back with a list of thirty-five changes
that it said it would make -- but only if the ACS
coughed up another $400,000. To alter one label, the
museum quoted a cost of $4,205, according to the ACS's
Joan Shields.

"It certainly is not a stickum label," explains
museum spokeswoman Tensia Alvirez. It is far more
intricate."

After a mediator failed to work out the
differences between the two camps, the ACS broke off
talks last December. Says a disenchanted observer:
"Both sides started focusing on minutiae -- a sentence
here, a particular image there."

In any case, the die was cast: By the time the
talks ended, the ACS had already signed the last check
for the exhibit. "Twice a year, for five years, ACS had
the power to pull the money plug," says a curator of
the show. "If they didn't like it, they could have
stopped it. We couldn't go on without their support. At
every stage, despite serious disagreements, they went
on."

On its own, the museum has decided to make eight
changes. Among them: the Remsen-Fahlberg dialogue has
been shut off; a few labels, including the one
questioning the Pill, have been changed; some nice
things will be said about penicillin and the war on
cancer.

Will anyone notice? Maybe not. In the ongoing
debate over museums and public memory, it's often
forgotten that exhibitions don't always deliver the
messages that their curators intend. A recent
Smithsonian survey showed that the average visitor
spent only about 15 minutes in the "Science in American
Life" exhibit. And though the exhibit ends with a
section on biotechnology that asks, Is it safe? Is it
right? What can you do?, only 2.6 percent of museum-
goers thought the show was trying to say that
scientific progress entails serious risks.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 00:20:09 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
comments: to: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>,
ljipps@ucmp1.berkeley.edu

I, too, like Prof. Gibbons, spent a lot of time (this was when I
was a graduate student) doing experiments that assumed the
correctness of wortk by a couple of distinguished scientists:
Pauling and Mirsky (the "Mirsky protein"). At a difficult point
in the work, I attempted to repeat their work as presented. I
couldn't. They had, moreover, made an error: they had neglected
the trivial possiblity that in homogenizing unfertilized and
fertilized sea urchn eggs, they were hmogenizing two different
things -- the first with no free Ca++ and the second with lots of
it, which altered the solubility of most cytosolic proteins.
Nobody believed me at first; but I put the results in my thesis
and soon pubished them as well. It didn't make me famous, nor
did it make friends of Mirsky and Pauling (both of whom I did and
do admire, despite their not infrequent silliness and the fact
that both are now dead). But the "mirsky protein" dropped out of
the literature. They went on to bigger and better things. So
did I. I have seen many cases like this one, since then. Later,
by the way, Mirsky was very kind to me, when I was a candidate
for a fellowship. Of Pauling I have recently published a review
of biographies, honoring his unique mastery of structural
chemistry and noting his personal and intellectual failures in
old age.

Life is complicated. So is science. Bad science, not to mention
outright dishonest science, and bad institutional arrangements
(like some parts of the peer review system today) MUST be brought
to light. It's a duty. But it is also a duty not to let people
get away with the claim that science is no better a way of
getting at the truth about the physical world than any other, OR
that science AND ITS PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE is as much bullshit as any
other kind of knowledge. The latter may be temporarily
fashionable, and it may make people who have been hurt by the
social machinery of science (and there are doubtless many of
those) feel better; but it is not good for scholarship, or for
our hopes fordemocracy and for our children.

PRG
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:07:16 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

At 00:20 14-07-1996 -0400, Paul wrote:

>Life is complicated. So is science. Bad science, not to mention
>outright dishonest science, and bad institutional arrangements
>(like some parts of the peer review system today) MUST be brought
>to light. It's a duty.

How?

Ted Gerrard.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 12:22:35 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

At 14:43 12-07-1996 -0400,Ray Gibbons wrote:
Dishonest, misrepresented, or
>mistaken results bother the hell out of me. As for the scientific process
>running its course, I am sceptical. First, just try to get money
>from a granting agency for the stated purpose of trying to duplicate someone
>else's results. If nobody believes the results, you can't get money
>because nobody believes the results anyway. If most people believe
>the results, you can't get money because most people believe the
>results. Second, the careers of honest scientists
>can go down the tubes while we are waiting for the system to work.
>

And even if you can get the money and you DO fail to duplicate the
results, no one belives you anyway! And that is why the Sun still
orbits the Earth, which, incidentally has sharp edges due to being
struck repeatedly by a large asteroid which killed off every last
dinosaur in milliseconds.

Ted Gerrard.


E.C.Gerrard
Ornithology Section
Museu Municipal do Funchal (Historia Natural)
Rua da Mouraria, 31
9000 FUNCHAL, MADEIRA, PORTUGAL
Tel.: +351-91-792591 Fax.: +351-91-225180
e-mail egerrard@tethys.uma.pt
WWW page: http://www.mmf.uma.pt/~egerrard/
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 09:58:41 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Paul Gross wrote:


>The impression given insistently
>on this list is that MUCH, if not all, of SCIENCE (not
>"research)) is wrong or dishonest, its motives venal, its vaunted
>methods an illusion. My experience, such as it is, tells me that
>THAT is bad, sloppy, dishonest;

Mirsky and Pauling may not be the only ones who engage in silliness.

>Life is complicated. So is science. Bad science, not to mention
>outright dishonest science, and bad institutional arrangements
>(like some parts of the peer review system today) MUST be brought
>to light. It's a duty.

So, could you please provide a listing of your efforts that
demonstrate your commitment to this "duty"? Or, MUST it be "brought to
light" by others while you do your part by heckling from the spectator
galleries?

>But it is also a duty not to let people
>get away with the claim that science is no better a way of
>getting at the truth about the physical world than any other, OR
>that science AND ITS PRODUCT KNOWLEDGE is as much bullshit as any
>other kind of knowledge. The latter may be temporarily
>fashionable, and it may make people who have been hurt by the
>social machinery of science (and there are doubtless many of
>those) feel better; but it is not good for scholarship, or for
>our hopes fordemocracy and for our children.

Speaking of bullshit, what are you trying to say in this paragraph?

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 13:27:24 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Henry Miller on Baltimore affair.

\ Henry I. Miller, Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Stanford, Calif. "Demagogues Trample Individuals' Rights"
Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, July 11, 1996 \

Your account of the vile opportunism and abusiveness of
Rep. John Dingell in the David Baltimore affair ("The Baltimore
Vindication," Review & Outlook, July 2) is reminiscent of
another, equally egregious, contemporaneous case. During
highly publicized congressional hearings in 1990, Rep. Dingell,
who was fed misinformation by a self-styled whistleblower,
made unsupported allegations and accusations of malfeasance
against then-Stanford University President Donald Kennedy (whom,
coincidentally, the Journal quoted in its editorial). Rep.
Dingell's accusations included channelling of federal funds
to maintenance of a university-owned yacht, and to personal uses.
In 1994, the government withdrew all charges, having found them
groundless after four years of intensive investigation.

But in such circumstances, what of the reputation of a world-
class research university and that of its former president,
Donald Kennedy - a renowned scholar, administrator and public
servant - who resigned under the Dingell-seeded cloud? How can
they be made whole again? Does Congress reimburse Stanford's
millions of dollars in legal fees? Is Mr. Kennedy invited to
resume his presidency?

Since the excesses of anti-Communist crusader Sen. Joseph
McCarthy, we seem to have learned little about the ability of
individual members of Congress to trample upon an individual's
rights. It is about time that there were checks on the
arrogance and demagoguery of congressmen (traits that, I hasten
to say, seemed far more in evidence during Democrats' control
of the institution). Ideally, miscreants should be censured by
their peers, but that seems too much to ask. We can only rely
on the voters of Michigan's 16th District to act in their own
best interest - and the nation's - in November.

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

From Leon Mintz, July 14, 1996
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 14:04:14 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Derek Freeman

Derek Freeman

Here is yet another fascinating article from this latest
issue of Lingua Franca.

The article is reproduced here in its entirety and reminds
us of the continuing bitter controversies of the past and
present. The breezy informality of this should not hide
the bitterness which is at the heart of this continuing
controversy.


++++++++++


\Monaghan, Peter. "Fantasy Island," Lingua Franca,
July/August 1996, pp. 7-8.\

Most anthropologists would be happy never to hear the
words "Derek Freeman" again. But the pugnacious
Australian ethnographer is back -- at least Down Under
-- thanks to a new play about his sustained critique of
Margaret Mead.

David Williamson, Australia's preeminent
dramatist, comes to Freeman's defense in his play
Heretic, which debuted this past April to fanfare and
sellout crowds at the Sydney Opera House. On
stage, Freeman is depicted as a lone-wolf eccentric who
is savaged by the anthropological tribe when he
publishes his 1983 polemic, Margaret Mead and Samoa:
The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth
(Harvard). Off stage, the theater hawked a variety of
pro-Freeman products, from souvenir programs that
served as primers against "Mead-ism" to T-shirts
emblazoned with the slogan SEX, LIES, AND ANTHROPOLOGY.

On these shores, Williamson's play might not
provoke such enthusiasm. As few f observers of the
social sciences s can forget, Freeman received a frosty
response when he argued that Mead's best-selling Coming
of Age in Samoa, published in 1928, was a classic case
of botched field work. Freeman retraced Mead's 1925
trip to the Pacific islands and spoke to Samoans who
testified that they had pulled the young
anthropologist's leg when answering questions about
their sex lives. The result of their practical joke,
according to Freeman: Mead mistakenly concluded that
Samoan teenagers practiced free love under the palm
trees=FEwithout angst, jealousies, or other travails of
American adolescence. Inspired by this portrait of
blissful Samoan youth, Mead's followers embraced an
"absolute cultural determinism" that all but ignored
biological factors in human behavior. Or so said
Freeman.

When Freeman, an adopted Samoan village chief,
published these arguments five years after Mead's
death, anthropologists lashed out at him for, as he
puts it, "eviscerating the totemic mother." Scholars
branded Freeman a boor, protofascist, and
sociobiologist; delegates to the American
Anthropological Association's 1983 convention passed a
motion of censure against him. Tempers have cooled over
the years, but Freeman still remains an object of
contempt in most anthropology circles (Or
condescension: Rice's George Marcus has called
Freeman's magnum opus a "mere curiosity.") While
scholars grant hat Mead's ethnography vas, as historian
George Stocking puts it, "seriously flawed," Freeman's
condemnation of all cultural anthropology as hostile to
science has won him scant support -- and made many
enemies.

Playwright Williamson clearly feels for the
embattled scholar. "Derek took on a profession in which
the tabla rasa brain was so entrenched," he says, "that
to question it was to be vilified in the most
unpleasant way." He praises him as "an intellectual
pioneer of great importance."


Yet for all his play's success, David Williamson
is not at all pleased with the Sydney Opera House
production -- which is, he says, full of "campery and
trivialization." In his stage directions, Williamson
set the action of Heretic in a hallucinogenic dream in
Freeman's head, occasioned by his horrified memory of
the Sixties, "Mead's most fabulous legacy." To the
director, Wayne Harrison, that suggested LSD. So
Harrison went with garish psychedelic colors, costumes,
and textures, and chucked in musical excerpts from
Hair. During some scenes, the actors
recline on kandy-colored beanbags.

On paper, Williamson depicts Mead as an earnest
but misguided young scholar. In the show, she comes
across a bit more colorfully: The actress portraying
Mead appears dressed in the various guises of presumed
soul sisters Marilyn Monroe, Jackie O, and Barbara
Streisand (complete with schnozz). In an equally
curious move, Harrison decks out Mead's mentor Franz
Boas in a salmon-colored suit, yellow and black cowboy
boots, and red bow tie. At the play's climax, a giant
rubber head looms Oz-like over the stage, representing
"Samoan Woman."

Williamson feels his work has been distorted and
has even considered seeking a court injunction to shut
down the production. But perhaps even a traditional
staging wouldn't shed much new light on the Samoan
saga. Despite the fact that Williamson conducted
extensive interviews with Freeman, Heretic appears to
have been culled largely from the Movie-of-the-Week
play-book. Why did Mead wishfully cast the islanders as
sexually unfettered? To please father-figure Boas, of
course. Similarly, Freeman is portrayed as having had
so smothering a mum that it is no wonder he went after
the mother of anthropology. Perhaps the biggest
surprise in Heretic is the revelation that Freeman
endured serious mental-health problems while conducting
research in Samoa. On stage, the Freeman character
says: "I had a powerful psychological abreaction." )
Frankness on this subject was long overdue; many Mead
supporters have suggested sotto voce that Freeman's
psychological battles provide the true explanation for
his animus towards Mead. In the end, Williamson
suggests that these problems, while serious, did
nothing to undermine Freeman's scholarship.

As for the eighty-year-old Freeman, he absolutely
loved the Sydney production of Heretic sitting through
the show five times. Marilyn and Barbara
notwithstanding, Freeman is thrilled by anything that
helps the world understand why he is right and Mead was
wrong. To capitalize on the publicity surrounding the
new play, Freeman's Australian publisher has just
published a second edition of his 1983 broadside. The
book is now titled Franz Boas and the Flower of Heaven:
"Coming of Age in Samoa" and the Fateful Hoaxing of
Margaret Mead. And it's dedicated to David Williamson.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:10:19 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: hiram caton <h.caton@hum.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Derek Freeman

Peter Monaghan, writing in Lingua Franca, reports of David Williamson's
play The Heretic

> Perhaps the biggest surprise in The Heretic is the revelation that
>Freeman endured serious mental-health problems while conducting research
>in Samoa. On stage, the Freeman character says: "I had a powerful
>psychological abreaction." Frankness on this subject was long overdue;
>many Mead supporters have suggested sotto voce that Freeman's
>psychological battles provide the true explanation for his animus towards
>Mead.<

Williamson has merged two events into one. Freeman's 'abreaction', his
'momentous experience', his 'Kierkegaardian earthquake' (as he variously
styles it) occurred between July 1960 and March 1961. It was triggered by
two independent confrontations with evidence about the human psyche that
Freeman was unable to interpret in the framework of British social
anthropology. The earthquake shattered Freeman's 'faith' in his field. He
changed his research orientation to make it include psychoanalysis, human
ethology, and philosophy of science (Popper's version). (Caton 1990:
99-101)

The second incident occurred in early October 1967, while Freeman was
conducting fieldwork in Samoa. He was invited by chiefs to Manu'a to hear
a solemn declaration by older Samoans of their recollections of Mead and
her behavior during her nine month stay. The gist of this declaration was
that Mead behaved disgracefully, and extremely offended her guests.
Although she had been made a taupou (ceremonial virgin) by two different
villages, she had an affair with a young man branded locally as dissolute,
and danced bare-breasted with another. Because Samoans were then
puritanical about sexual decency and sensitive to matters of village honor,
they perceived this conduct to be outrageous. However, the chiefs could
not discipline her as they might (by driving her from the village) because
Mead was their guest under the auspices of the US Navy.

These revelations deeply shocked Freeman. He thought Mead's behavior
disgraced anthropology. He wrote at the time

"In reality, her acocunt (as I have long half-suspected) is a projection on
to Samoan females of her OWN sexual experiences as a young woman, in the
far-away, romantic South Seas. I have, indeed, been long interested in the
way in which anthroplogical fieldwork presents immature personalities with
massive opportunities for what might be called cultural regression. And of
which not a few anthropologists avail thesmelves." (Caton 1990: 318)

The whispered lore among anthropologists is that Freeman suffered a
breakdown on that visit to Manu'a, became violent, and was removed from the
island by a US Navy patrol vessel. Freeman acknowledges that he had an
altercation with the patrol boat commander, who removed him from the island
under arrest, but there was no breakdown.

What is going on here?

*Freeman had just experienced what for him was a profound insight into
Mead's fieldwork that explained why she could have been so desperately
mistaken about Samoan sexual moeurs. It was an insight powerfully toned
with moral reprobation.

*He was exposed to the intense local hostility to Mead for having disgraced
the taupau title, and subsequently, through her book, have spread a
scandalous, false (in their perception) picture of Samoan life.

*Freeman identified with Samoan culture and as an honorary chief, was bound
to share their grievances and to 'do something about it'. Indeed, the
chiefs pleaded with him to restore Samoan honor. He pledged to do so.

*Samoans were unable to correct Mead's misdemeanor because in their
preception the force of the US Navy sanctioned her presence. Mead, in
other words, was perceived to be an agent of American colonialism. Insert
another dose of hatred. (In Samoa today, the anti-Mead Samoans are
cultural purists. They are disliked by the majority who have absorbed
American culture and its pleasant vices. The purists yearn to restore the
culture to its pristine state).

*Without naval backing, Mead would have been expelled and her book would
never have been written. Insert more anger.

This is why Freeman, at that moment, picked a quarrel with the US Navy. I
imagine that the boat commander was the worse for the encounter. (As a New
Zealand naval officer in WWII, Freeman knew the US and British navy from
direct experience).

As one who enjoyed very close contact with Derek between 1984-1994, I am
troubled by The Heretic and (judging by reports) troubled even more by
Wayne Harrison's production, for it trivializes the Mead-Freeman saga to
the point of non-recognition. That Derek (who says that he has never taken
drugs in his life) rejoices in the play and the production saddens me. He
is (or was) among the most serious and learned scholars I have met. But on
August 16, he turns 80; perhaps his judgment has been warped by the poison
of celebrity. He was on guard against this fatal dose during the years of
controversy. It seems that he has finally succumbed.

Freeman's correction of Mead's Samoan ethnography, and his critique of the
cultural determinism paradigm in anthropology, are separable from his
vision of the 'interactionist' anthropology that he espouses. The latter
is a projection of his personal quest enlightenment (in the Buddhist sense
of enlightenment: he is a fervent Buddhist). It is Derek's manner to make
his personal quest a public matter, and to do so in such a turbulent way
that people in his neighborhood wonder whether he has a screw loose; if so,
what is its psychiatric name? This will be something for his biographer to
ponder.



Hiram Caton


Reference

Caton, H., ed. 1990. The Samoa Reader: Anthropologists Take Stock.
Lanham MD: University Press of America.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:35:13 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: Derek Freeman

The latest version of the Freeman book I have seen here in Australia is a
paperback called "Margaret Mead and the Heretic". I have not yet seen the
title 'Franz Boas and the Flower of Heaven:"Coming of Age in Samoa" and the
Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead', reportedly dedicated to David
Williamson, the prominent Australian playwright.

The book I do have includes the new revelations about the elderly Samoan
woman who has admitted to hoaxing Mead. Freeman has also defended the
veracity of this woman in the local press.

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 16:04:57 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Someone (Dewey McLean I think) wrote:

>>
>> Is the Alvarez asteroid one of the great flimflams in history? One
>>originating in legitimate finding and speculation (iridium)? But then blown
>>into full-scale fraud via political control of some scientific magazines,
>>suppression of opposition, and influence of some essayists, and advisors to
>>TV videos?
>>


At a page on the 'net called "Terrestrial Impact Craters" I found this
description of the Chichxulub crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico,
"NASA scientists believe that an asteroid 10 to 20 kilometers (6 to 12
miles) in diameter produced this impact basin. The asteroid hit a
geologically unique, sulfur-rich region of the Yucatan Peninsula and kicked
up billions of tons of sulfur and other materials into the atmosphere.
Darkness prevailed for about half a year after the collision. This caused
global temperatures to plunge near freezing. Half of the species on Earth
became extinct including the dinosaurs."

Comments anyone?

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:15:09 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

To Ted: By doing exactly what you're doing, but not pressing the
point beyond utility or escalating personal grievance to
universal denunciation.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:42:17 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Derek Freeman

The Mead/Freeman controversy is indeed interesting and, despite
its age, appropriate for mention on this list, for, although
there was no FRAUD implied in Freeman's charges (original or more
recent), it was "bad, dishonest science" that was at stake.
Where the fraud came in was the steadfast denial of an entire
discipline that Mead's saga of Samoan free love was fiction. To
the best of my knowledge (which is superficial but not absent),
nobody has ever refuted Freeman's charges of sloppy scholarship
by a very young woman anxious to confirm the convictions of her
mentor -- that human behavior is ENTIRELY a social construct and
owes little or nothing to heritable pattern. This was an idea
central, nay, indispensable, to the new kind of cultural
anthropology of the time. Certainly also today. WHy is this
important (or not unimportant) and similar cases less so? Because
the originally erroneous work, shown to be so, continued to set
the standard for a whole discipline, and because its conclusions
were very widely adopted outside the discipline -- i.e., had
profound social consequences. It is interesting that Mead, who
went on to write and teach productively, never challenged
Freeman's findings publicly (so far as I know). And, finally,
referring to Pros. Higgins's posting, whether or not Freeman ever
had moments of flakiness seems to me irrelevant to the issue of
the FACTS. Flakiness is rather common in the world, especially
among intellectuals and scholars. (I distinguish flakiness from
psychosis.) And there is every reason why historians and
sociologists of science whouls take note of it; but it becomes
important to "science studies" only when it has a demonstrable
influence on the conclusions of the knowledge under discussion.
Science studies is supposed to be more, in short, than biography.
Neither Freeman's ethnography nor Mead's later work was (again,
only so far as my reading informs me) importantly marked by their
particular hangups.

PRG
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:20:08 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Nova and PBS

Response to Julian O'Dea's 7/15/96 Nova and PBS posting.

Hi Julian:

Your posting on the Chicxulub "structure" is a good one, and I
thank you for it.

>Someone (Dewey McLean I think) wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the Alvarez asteroid one of the great flimflams in history? One
>>>originating in legitimate finding and speculation (iridium)? But then blown
>>>into full-scale fraud via political control of some scientific magazines,
>>>suppression of opposition, and influence of some essayists, and advisors to
>>>TV videos?


The K-T asteroid versus volcano debate crystallized at the May 1981
K-TEC II Conference in Ottawa where I debated Luis Alvarez and his team for
two days. Alvarez claimed that iridium found at the K-T boundary was proof
of asteroid impact. At the January 1981 AAAS meting in Toronto, I had
proposed that the K-T iridium had been released from within earth's mantle
by the Deccan Traps volcanism.

Usually, when I begin a major project, I consult the world's
foremost authorities to determine if I have a good case before proceeding
forward. Prior to the 1981 AAAS meeting where I proposed that the Deccan
Traps mantle plume had released the K-T iridium, I had consulted with Jerry
Wasserburg at Cal Tech, Tuzo Wilson, and Jason Morgan at Princeton, the top
intellects I could find. Wilson was an authority on mantle plumes, and
Wasserburg and Morgan had had direct experience with the Deccan Traps. For
my plan to couple the Deccan Traps to the K-T extinctions, each told me
that it was a good idea.

Source of the K-T iridium became a point of conflict at the K-TEC
II meeting. Alvarez, learning that the iridium--the basis of his asteroid
theory--may have an earthly origin, responded badly. Instead of acting as
would a typical scientist, and reexamining the basis of his theory, Alvarez
threatened my career if I opposed him publicly. And he followed through by
undermining my credibility with other scientists and the news media.

From the time of the 1980 publication of the Alvarez asteroid
theory until 1984 when some shocked minerals were found at the K-T boundary
Alvarez pushed his theory that "everybody believes." He even claimed in a
1982 NAS talk (and in a 1983 NAS publication) that "1) that the asteroid
hit, and 2), that the impact triggered the extinction of much of the life
in the sea, are no longer debatable points. Nealy everybody now believes in
them."

He also claimed in the same publication that he had not "heard of a
serious suggestion in place of the asteroid theory." That was after the
turbulent 1981 K-TEC II meeting and the 1981 Snowbird I meeting where I had
the only volcanic opposition to the asteroid. Alvarez was being dishonest.
I have already noted the point by others that Alvarez perhaps "purloined"
his asteroid idea from a manuscript that he had reviewed prior to
publishing his own theory.

Of course, I suspected that Luis Alvarez was engaged in flimflam.
Re his claiming proof, when in fact he had none, attempts to shut down the
debate prematurely, and by attacking opponents, how could it be otherwise?
I never raised the issue publicly, but studied that aspect of development
of the asteroid idea to see where it would go. I kept that aspect
completely compartmented away from the science of the K-T. In fact, I
always made attempt to be conciliatory to impactors in person, and in
print.

Is the Alvarez asteroid a flimflam? I have raised the question.
And, having observed from the debate from inside since 1981, have a unique
perspective. In developing aspects of this question, I will move at my own
pace. After all, the debate has go on since 1981.



>At a page on the 'net called "Terrestrial Impact Craters" I found this
>description of the Chichxulub crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico,
>"NASA scientists believe that an asteroid 10 to 20 kilometers (6 to 12
>miles) in diameter produced this impact basin. The asteroid hit a
>geologically unique, sulfur-rich region of the Yucatan Peninsula and kicked
>up billions of tons of sulfur and other materials into the atmosphere.
>Darkness prevailed for about half a year after the collision. This caused
>global temperatures to plunge near freezing. Half of the species on Earth
>became extinct including the dinosaurs."


New work on SO3 , SO2 and CO2 released via impact indicates that
the "small quantities of volatiles could not alone account for the
widespread K/T extinctions" (EOS, 1996, v. 77, p. 199; report by Cygan et
al., 1996, on a meeting titled "Planetary impact events: material response
to dynamic high pressure").

Some impactors are splendid and objective scientists and let their
data speak for themselves.



Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:50:44 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

As I have said here before, we never, never know as much as we think we do
-- even after allowing for all of the uncertainties we can think of. This
is relevent to the discussion of textbooks and their errors. But the
important question is perhaps not whether there are errors, but whether the
authors have made a serious effort to understand what thery are writing,
and put in all of the caveats. Then the reader must apply the extra
(large) dollop of uncertainty. Unfortunately, this is not taught in an
organized wayt anywhere in our schools, from kindergarten through post doc.
We tend to cogive students the impression that if something is in the
secondary or tertiary literature it has been thoroughly checked out and is
very likely to be true.

But all this uncertainty is no reason for doubting the general efficacy and
effectiveness of science. The fruits of the method are all around us, and
I will not bother to enumerate some of them. It is rather a call to do the
very best we can (hence the gravity of misconduct in science) and remember
both the uncertainty about each part of the whole enterprise as well as its
general overall success. We aren't always wrong enough to matter when it
comes to important applications. Newtonian physics is still pretty useful
to almost everyone with a real problem to solve.


John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 10:08:12 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

In just over forty years of combined research and science, I have made no
more than half a dozen contributions that I would describe as major. (And
I regard that as a pretty good ratio of progress to time.) Every one of
the important advances has called forth shrieks of outrage from someone,
and a couple of times from the whole of the relevant establishment. And,
despite the protests, every one is now a part of the accepted wisdom (which
makes me worry a bit). My personal experience suggests that anything that
is accepted easily and universally is either trivial or wrong. The moral?
It takes persistence, a thick skin, and time, as well as very careful
attention to the strength (and possible correctness) of opposing arguments,
to make much of an impact, at least in the fields I have worked in.


John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 11:26:33 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

John Bailar wrote:


>In just over forty years of combined research and science, I have made no
>more than half a dozen contributions that I would describe as major. (And
>I regard that as a pretty good ratio of progress to time.) Every one of
>the important advances has called forth shrieks of outrage from someone,
>and a couple of times from the whole of the relevant establishment. And,
>despite the protests, every one is now a part of the accepted wisdom (which
>makes me worry a bit). My personal experience suggests that anything that
>is accepted easily and universally is either trivial or wrong. The moral?
>It takes persistence, a thick skin, and time, as well as very careful
>attention to the strength (and possible correctness) of opposing arguments,
>to make much of an impact, at least in the fields I have worked in.


John,

you have described the realities of creative science as only a
participant in the process can understand. Thank you for sharing your
experiences.

Cordially,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:39:37 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: alexander bok <alexbok@aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Economist on Fraud in Science

Adding to the on-going discussion about the amount of fraud in science
and the fallout from the Dr. Imanishi-Kari case, the current (July 13, 1996)
issue of the London-newsweekly The Economist has a thoughful editorial on the
need for better ways to investigate fraud in science. Alex Bok (counsel for
Dr. Pamela Berge and Dr. Erdem Cantekin in their False Claims Act NIH
whistleblower cases)

Fraud in science

It might be rare, but every profession needs its whistleblowers

Few professions have emerged untainted from the modern world's
propensity to dubunk and distrust. In America, lawyers are the butt of
disparaging jokes, doctors increasingly accused of incompetence or
malpractice. The reputation of academic scientists, however, remains high.
By and large, scientists are seen as people who love truth, who have wrought
wonders, and who have established and sustained their own impeccable
standards of professional behavior.

Every so often, however, a scientific fraud occurs. Ambition,
jealousy or impatience tempts a researcher to supress the inconvenient bit of
data that undermines a much-loved theory, or simply to make up reams of data
that ensure attention from a respectable scientific publication. It would be
nice to believe that in such cases the well-ordered procedures of
peer-review, and the effort by other scientists to replicate the experiments
in question, will quickly unmask the guilty. Unfortunately, in science as in
other walks of life, such systems do not always work as smoothly as they are
supposed to.

In America, an especially tangled episode involving alleged fraud has just
ended after a decade of bitter argument. In 1986 Thereza Imanishi-Kari, then
a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published a paper
in the journal Cell on the subject of immunology. One junior colleague,
having spent a year trying and failing to build on Dr. Imanishi-Kari's
results, suggested that the paper contained errors. Later, investigations
conducted by the government department that funded her research concluded
that Dr. Imanishi-Kari had falsified her results. Last month, however, an
appeals board from the same department found the allegations not proven.

This is bad enough: the career of a scientist is blighted for ten
long years before a panel declares the case against her unproven. And the
moral seems obvious: science needs a way to resolve cases more swiftly. But
many in science are drawing another conclusion altogether. They say that
science itself has been exonerated by the exoneration of Dr. Imanishi-Kari,
that fraud is vanishingly rare, and that on the few occassions when it
happens science should be allowed to put its own house in order with the
interference of outsiders, including those who are funding it. Recent
government guidelines on dealing with fraud have accordingly been denounced,
in some cases hysterically, as a dangerous intrusion.

This is a counsel of complacency. Fraud indeed may be rare in
science, but that is no reason to argue against better ways of investigating
it. Still less does it justify the witch-hunt that now appears to be turning
on those who took the allegations seriously. Indeed, like other professions,
science has all too few whistleblowers ready to defy their peers and risk
their careers by speaking up when they believe wrong is being done. Dr.
Imanishi-Kari has suffered, as have many people who lives are clouded by an
allegation before being cleared by a court. But, until now, nobody has used
an acquittal by a court as an argument against law itself.
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:31:30 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted hermary <czth%mcgilla.bitnet@vm1.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re{2}: The Economist on Fraud in Science
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Tue, 16 Jul 1996 07:39:37 EDT

Aside from a few details, I see nothing teribly new in this
article. In particular, calls for a new way to investigate
(or otherwise respond to) scientific misconduct/fraud - the vast
majority of which give me no semi-vivid picture of what such
a new way would be. Any suggestions?

Regards,


Martin (Ted) Hermary (A.B.D.)
Department of Sociology
McGill University
855 Shebrooke Street West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
H3A 2T7
e-mail: czth@musica.mcgill.ca
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:58:33 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Thanks to Julian O'Dea

"When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers
such an explosive force that on the day it bursts out, it blows up
everything with it." (Emile Zola, 1898)


Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

Fluctuations can become so powerful via positive feedback that they
can shatter preexisting organization and force a system to reorganize
itself and evolve to new states. Small inputs can trigger huge effects.

Such was it for me with Julian O'Dea's 7/15/96 "Nova and PBS"
posting. Julian triggered in me fluctuations on things I must do when the
battlefield is set. And I have been preparing it.

In my response to Julian, I noted that I had kept the possible
flimflam aspects of the K-T compartmented away from the science of the K-T.
But always, I knew that the barrier separating the two domains must be
shattered, reacting the turbulent chemistry of each with the other. At that
time, I would then enter a new phase of work. It was but a matter of
preparation and timing.

My work on this current phase is nearly complete. A few more
postings to tie up loose ends, and to further set the field, and I will go
on to the new phase of my work.

Julian, you are the type of person I hoped to find--one who can
trigger in me useful feedbacks that grow into evolutionary advance toward
what I must do.

Thank you.

Dewey McLean







Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:16:12 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: stuart offenbach <sio@psych.purdue.edu>
Subject: Investigating Misconduct

The following is a copy of a letter I sent to the Chronicle of Higher
Education email discussion of misconduct and the Imanishi-Kari Appeals Board
reversal of the ORI finding of misconduct. In this letter, I describe what
I think are problems in the current miscondcut inquiry process and suggest
some changes in the way we investigate misconduct.

Letter follows:

After ten years, the potential exists for some closure in the ongoing saga
involving O'Toole and Imanishi-Kari. Clearly now is the time for some
reflection -- not on this particular case but on why this case has dragged
on so long (outlasting some television soap operas). If there is a "bad
guy" in this sad tale, it is the process not the scientists. As an
uninvolved observer reflecting on what has been written, the hearings, the
investigations, the inquiries, the books, letters, etc., etc., it is clear
that the process for determining whether misconduct has occurred is badly
flawed. Many others have noted that this is not a trial in the legal sense,
and that the investigation of misconduct should not be a trial. At one time
I would have agreed with that statement, but now I am not so sure about that
conclusion. Consider what has gone wrong here: the accuser has become part
of the prosecution team; the accuser has also become a victim; a noted
scientist was "convicted" of guilt by association; investigators at the
various institutions were effectively stakeholders in the outcome of their
investigations; people made judgements of procedureal errors when they were
not familiar with how laboratories actually work function; investigations
that did not provide a politically correct answer were dismissed and new
investigations were conducted until the politically correct answer was
reported; and the list goes on and on and on.

What should be done in when accusations of misconduct are made. It seems
to me that the legal system should provide the model of how we proceed. I
see nothing wrong with a local university committee inquiring as to whether
the accusation has potential merit. Perhaps the process should be much like
a grand jury, with the chair of the committee directing the inquiry. This
committee must, however, be free of bias either in favor of the accuser or
the accused. I think a committee formed of academic peers, not from the
same department and perhaps not from the same university division or school,
could make an objective judgement as to whether there is substance to the
accusation. At all times, the accuser should be kept out of the process
except for providing information (testimony). In the "real" world, when a
grand jury does not indict someone, the matter is truly dropped. Why? I
believe it is because we have confidence that the system works (at least
most of the time). And often we believe that if the accused slipped through
the system this time, a later inquiry will get the person for some new
crime. Here again, a person who engages in misconduct probably will do it
again. And the next time, or some next time, that person will get caught.
Witnesses must be protected, in the same way as they are in our court
system. It the threat to the truth sayer is so great that retaliation is
probable, the institution should have a positive obligation to not only
protect that individual, but to find a new position should that be necessary
(even at another institution).

When an accusation is found to be potentially credible, the investigation
should be taken out of the hands of the home institution. The loss of grant
funds, negative publicity, etc., all make the creation of an unbiased,
conflict free committee impossible. I would suggest that the process many
universities use for academic reviews might serve us well here as well.
That is, an outside committee of scholars both in the accused specialty and
from other academic enterprises could publicly investigate the accusations.
A "prosecutor" should be appointed to lead the investigation and present the
evidence to the members of the committee. That "prosecutor" would not
participate in the decision. The individual who made the original
accusation would give testimony, but would not be permitted to become part
of the "prosecution team." A "defender" also should be appointed or
selected in some manner to present evidence that fails to support the
accusation. A final decision might be made in weeks or months, not years.

If the decision is that misconduct occurred, the committee should
recommend "punishment," and the fact of that punishment should be made
public. Punishment for misconduct should be severe, limiting the individual
so convicted from independently conducting unsupervised research or writing
for some significant period of time. Debarring a scientist may have grave
implications for those in expensive bench science labs, but might have
little effect when less expensive science is involved. If the decision is
that misconduct did not occur, then that result too must be publicized. The
individual who was accused should be publicly exonerated. The accuser who
acted in good faith should not be punished, and should continue to be
protected from reprisals and retribution. The accuser who is found to have
acted from other motives, and acted in bad faith, should be subject to
inquiry, investigation, and decision on their own merits.

While such a procedure as I have outlined might prevent the ten year sagas
that seem too prevalent in the consideration of scientific misconduct,
several other comments need to be made. First, most cases of scientific
misconduct are settled rather quickly now, and with little fanfare (perhaps
too little fanfare). The individuals concerned are not well known. Second,
this system might prevent the "whistleblower"-"prosecutor" combination from
consuming people's time, energy, and productivity. For those of you who
read the SciFraud email list, a number of scholars regularly state their
frustrations with a system that has ignored (in their view) legitimate
misconduct. These folks battle against a science world that is unwilling to
hear their complaints. Whether correct or incorrect, these advocates (or
nuisances, again depending on one's point of view) have tried to become
prosecutors. But their adversaries rarely step into the arena. The
procedures I outlined above again might provide the appropriate forum for
adjudicating these disputes.

Again, I am a researcher (I have studied children's learning for many
years), and I am always surprised when scientists (and nonscientists) break
the rules. I would like to see a system that involves some trust replace
the current system that has to many opportunities for biased decision
making. I would welcome comments, and refinements. Perhaps this discussion
in the Chronicle will move the process forward.
Stuart I. Offenbach (Stu)
Professor of Developmental Psychology
Department of Psychological Sciences
Purdue University
Phone: 317-494-6223
Fax: 317-496-1264
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 13:28:11 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Ironic Science

On Ironic Science

Here is an op.-ed. page article by the author of The End of
Science.

The essay is reproduced in its entirety.

++++++++++


\Horgan, John. "Science Set Free From Truth," New
York Times, 16 July 1996, p. A17.\

Last month at a conference in Buffalo called "Science
in the Age of (Mis)information," scores of scientists
railed against "anti-science," including the vile trend
known as postmodernism. Hearing the denunciations at
this meeting, one might guess that distinguishing truth
lovers from truth defiers is child's play. The forces
of rationality sport shiny white jump suits, like the
hero of "Toy Story," while the epistemological
subversives skulk about in black T-shirts and berets.

If only things were that simple. Like a mutant
virus, postmodernism has infected not only philosophy
and the social sciences but even such alleged bastions
of truth and objectivity as physics and chemistry.
Some of the most prominent scientists in the world
traffic in hypotheses that are remarkably postmodern in
character. I like to call this type of theorizing
ironic science.

The concept of irony is central to that
wellspring of postmodernism, literary criticism.
According to such eminent critics as Northrop Frye, no
text should be viewed as literally
true. The Bible, "Finnegans Wake," even Mr. Frye's own
essays are all ironic in the sense that they have
multiple meanings, none of which are definitive. The
job of the literary critic is thus not to pin down the
true meaning of a text -- an impossible task -- but to
invent new meanings ones that challenge received wisdom
and provoke further dialogue.

Similarly, ironic science advances hypotheses
that, while often profound and provocative, should not
be considered literally true. My favorite example of
ironic science is superstring theory, which for the
last 15 years has represented the cutting edge of
physics. Sometimes called a "theory of everything," it
posits that matter and energy in the universe, and even
space and time, stem from infinitesimal loops of
urstuff writhing in a hyperspace of 10 (or more)
dimensions.

The leading practitioner of superstring theory is
Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton, N.J. Time magazine recently named Dr. Witten
one of the 25 most influential Americans, and with good
reason. Dr. Witten's papers on superstrings have made
him far and away the most cited physicist in the world.
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
In a now famous paper published last May in Social
Text, a quarterly devoted to cultural studies, Alan
Sokal, a physicist at New York University, proposed
that superstring theory might help liberate science
from "dependence on the concept of objective truth."

Professor Sokal later announced that the article
had been a hoax intended to expose the hollowness of
postmodernism. In fact, however, superstring theory is
exactly the kind of science that subverts conventional
notions of truth.

The tiny domain that superstrings supposedly
inhabit is even less accessible than the quasars
haunting he edge of the visible universe. For instance,
a superstring is to a proton in size as a proton is to
the solar system. To probe this realm directly would
require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years
around. (The entire solar system is only one light-day
around.) In other words, it is highly unlikely that we
will ever know whether superstring theory is true;
that's what makes it ironic.

Ironic science has flourished on the macro end of
physics as well. Physicists like Sidney Coleman of
Harvard and Andrei Linde of Stanford have speculated
that our galaxy-emblazoned cosmos is merely one of an
infinite number of universes, some perhaps with similar
laws of physics and even similar inhabitants. A
fascinating possibility -- and one that will probably
never be verified.

The phenomenon of human consciousness is a seed
from which myriad ironic blooms have sprung. Every year
more books and conferences are devoted to the question
of how mere matter can possibly give rise to subjective
thought. Is a bat capable of thought or an amoeba?

What about a computer?

Of course! thunders Marvin Minsky, the
artificial-intelligence maven of M.l.T.

No way! retorts Roger Penrose the British
physicist and best-selling author.

The real answer is, Who knows? Science cannot
gain access to the subjective realm. No human can be
absolutely sure that any other human has an inner life.
We all make this assumption because it is the
reasonable thing to do. But reasonable people always
can and will disagree on whether a machine or an amoeba
thinks, because there is no way to settle the dispute
empirically.
Most scientists vehemently reject the notion that
they are engaged in anything smacking of postmodernism.
But a few brave souls have made such an admission,
albeit obliquely. One is the Belgian chemist Ilya
Prigogine, who won a Nobel Prize in 1977 for showing
how certain chemical reactions "self-organize" into
striking patterns.

Professor Prigogine's work is the inspiration for
the trendy field of "chaos," which addresses phenomena
so messy and complicated that they resist conventional
scientific analysis. Pointing out that chaotic
phenomena are by definition unpredictable, Professor
Prigogine has declared that we have reached "the end of
certitude." Science in the future will be increasingly
probabilistic and speculative -- in other words,
ironic.

An even more radical view has been set forth by
John Wheeler of Princeton, who coined the term black
hole and is one of this century's most respected
physicists. Professor Wheeler spent years pondering
quantum mechanics, which portrays electrons as either
waves or particles, depending on how the experiment is
carried out. He concluded that reality is a
"participatory" phenomenon, defined in some sense by
the questions we put to it.

"I do take 100 percent seriously e idea that the
world is a figment of the imagination," Professor
Wheeler once said.

Professor Wheeler's view evokes that of the late
Thomas Kuhn, the philosopher whose 1962 book, "The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions," remains a seminal
text of postmodernism. Professor Kuhn contended at
science reflects not the truth about nature but merely
scientists' prevailing mind-set, which is always
subject to change.

This claim simply does not withstand scrutiny.
Science has established beyond a reasonable doubt the
existence of atoms and elements, DNA and bacteria,
stars and galaxies, gravity and electromagnetism,
natural selection and the expansion the universe. These
are all facts. They will be true a century or even a
millennium from now.

Why, if scientists can achieve real truth, do they
indulge in ironic science? Because conventional
science, as far as it has come, has left many mysteries
unresolved. Are quarks and electrons made of smaller
particles, which are in turn made of still smaller
particles, ad infinitum? Is our universe just one of
many universes? Was the evolution of conscious,
intelligent beings inevitable a fluke of nature?

Lurking behind all these questions the biggest
question of all: Why is there something rather than
nothing? Unfortunately, scientists have even less hope
of solving this riddle than literary critics have of
deciding, once and for all, what Keats's "Ode a
Nightingale" really means.

I do not mean to imply that ironic science has no
value. Far from it. At best, ironic science, like great
literature or philosophy or, yes, literary criticism,
induces wonder. By addressing unanswerable questions
and imagining realms beyond the reach of true science,
ironic science helps insure that we remain forever awe-
struck before the mystery of the universe. But ironic
science cannot give us the truth.

John Horgan, a senior writer at Scientific American
magazine, is the author of "The End of Science: Facing
the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific
Age."


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 14:47:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Grade inflation

Jim Whitehead recounted, in part:

Student: "Well if it was excellent, how come I didn't get an A?"

Me: "Because the Graduate Handbook defines excellent work as meriting a
B, and _superior_ work as meriting an A. Your work was excellent."

Student: "Well, I would have LIKED an A.......!"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How times have changed. My first few undergraduate philosophy courses were
lectures with "breakout" discussion groups led by graduate students, who
also graded written essays/exams. The approved grading criteria were:

Failure to complete assignments, participate in discussions: F

Below "C" level: D

All that could reasonably be expected of an undergraduate: C

As good as the graduate student himself (pre-coed) could have done: B

So good the grad student wished he had thought of that!: A

We did not have many A's, but we had extremely stimulating
discussions! John G.
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:29:18 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Ironic Science

On John Horgan's "Ironic Science," might I suggest looking at a
few reviews of his book on same ("The End of Science") in
SCIENCE, NATURE, and elsewhere, not least my own, due out this
week in THE WILSON QUARTERLY? Of course reading his book would
help: the NY TIMES piece does nothing to convince any serious
reader that "ironic" science exists except by Horgan's
definition, much less that frontier science has suddenly gone in
for postmodernism. Neither does the book, but if you like
cleverly nasty images of supposedly important scientists and
philosophers (even Popper, who is displayed as a mad old nut),
you'll like the book anyway. Of course none of this has anything
whatsoever to do with fraud, and Horgan makes no such suggestion
anyplace.

PRG
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:54:01 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Scifraud case

Hi Ted:

It's been a while since I've seen any postings on Scifraud
concerning your scifraud case. How's your case coming along?

For me, Scifraud has been a good experience. I've met some good
people, learned a bit about what others think about the field of scifraud,
and have laid some groundwork for my own future work.

Of all the people on Scifraud, I've been especially fond of you
because you are one of the few who has actually confronted fraud, and tried
to stand up to it. That takes guts.

For myself, I am in the process of beginning a new phase of my
work, and may go off-line in order to concentrate on thinking and writing.


Whatever, I have enjoyed both communicating with you, and reading
your Scifraud postings.

Wishing you my very best in winning your scifraud case, I am

Cordially yours,
Dewey






Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:56:50 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Delete last message

My last message was meant to be a private communication. Please delete it.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:00:27 +0100
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: dr n w goodman <nev.w.goodman@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: clinical trials/anti-science

W. R. Gibbons <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu> wrote (of fraudulent
results):

>>>>>Large clinical trials may be an exception, because they are
particularly difficult to replicate no matter how important the data
may be. My impression is that a significant percentage of sloppiness
and dishonesty occur in such trials, where the results are
particularly difficult to correct and may affect the lives of
patients. While high profile results will be tested in many cases,
results that seem more pedestrian may not be tested, but may
influence thinking for years. If they are wrong, it may take a long
time for the truth to out.<<<<<

I'm sure this is an important point. I was sitting in our operating
theatre rest room one night, when the duty surgeon came in and
started riffling through some envelopes in a box. He was searching
through the "blinded" envelopes for a clinical trial of antibiotics
looking for one that would enable him to give the antibiotic that he
wanted to give. This was some years ago. If that happened now, I
would report him and his project to a number of people who would take
action. In fact, the trial was pretty Mickey Mouse (a UK expression
that means of little or no importance - I don't know if it means the
same to others), but who do you think actually did all the donkey
work in the vast post-myocardial infarction drug trials?
Hard-pressed interns and resident doctors who would rather have been
in bed. Their names weren't on the papers, of course; and some of
the names who were probably did little more than attend a few
"protocol conferences" in nice places. I bet a few of the ticked
boxes on those forms came from trainee doctors' imaginations.

And although I have no great respect for the Hans Eysenck, his
article in the British Medical Journal a year or two back makes good
reading. He just asked us to think: if a treatment needs tens of
thousands of patients to prove its worth, or immense statistical
effort for a grand meta-analysis, wouldn't we do better looking for a
treatment that really works?

I must come to the defence of Paul Gross (PRG). He wrote:

>>>>>But it is also a duty not to let people get away with the claim
that science is no better a way of getting at the truth about the
physical world than any other, OR that science AND ITS PRODUCT
KNOWLEDGE is as much bullshit as any other kind of knowledge. The
latter may be temporarily fashionable, and it may make people who
have been hurt by the social machinery of science (and there are
doubtless many of those) feel better; but it is not good for
scholarship, or for our hopes for democracy and for our
children.<<<<<


And Dewey McLean commented:

>Speaking of bullshit, what are you trying to say in this paragraph?

Anyone who has read many of the "anti-science" books around at the
moment will know exactly what PRG meant: and I share his worries,

cheers,

Neville

Dr Neville W Goodman
Consultant Anaesthetist
Southmead Hospital
BS10 5NB UK
Nev.W.Goodman@bris.ac.uk

"There once was a brave academic
who was wont to deliver polemic
on the farce and the fraud
which most people ignored
that, alas, had become epidemic."
(AMSB of NWG, Xmas 95)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:17:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Reminds me of an exceptionally fey "Frank and Ernest" cartoon. An aggrieved
young woman announces to a thoroughly bemused male, "If men are supposed to
be more logical than women why do they grow hair on their faces?"

John Gardenier, incidentally an admirer of my many highly competent and
logical female colleagues.


from: peter bowditch <peterb@acslink.net.au>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
to: multiple recipients of list scifraud <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
content-length: 1142
--
>from: thomas sellke <tsellke@stat.purdue.edu>

<snip>

>philosophy.On the other hand,I recently read about a
>"feminist" philosophy professor who condemns "logic"
>(including simple syllogisms) as hopelessly corrupted
>by its male origins.Presumably this feminist thinks that
>there is some sort of objectionable "ideology"inherent
>in logic,just as Prof.Lindley sees an objectionable

The looniness of the feminist sociologists at my university was captured
perfectly in the following quote. I remember the words as if it were
yesterday.

"Logic is a patriarchal construct, and has no place in women's experience."

This was said just after accusing me of personal, direct complicity in a
ghastly rape/murder incident which had brought lynch mobs to the streets of
my city for the first time in years.

..............................................................
Peter Bowditch .Tel: +61-2-6871247
Gebesse Computer Consultants.Fax: +61-2-6871248
Parramatta NSW Australia .Mobile: +61-419219659
peterb@acslink.net.au .http://www.acslink.net.au/~peterb/
..............................................................
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 17:45:04 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: clinical trials/anti-science

Hi Neville:

Sorry if I offended you. I didn't realize that the paragraph in
question was about books. In fact, I couldn't make out what it was about.

The paragraph contained the word "bullshit" which, I confess,
seemed to be a good word to express my confusion.

Re "anti-science," I've had experience with that.

Thanks for the message.

Cheers,
Dewey

>I must come to the defence of Paul Gross (PRG). He wrote:
>
>>>>>>But it is also a duty not to let people get away with the claim
>that science is no better a way of getting at the truth about the
>physical world than any other, OR that science AND ITS PRODUCT
>KNOWLEDGE is as much bullshit as any other kind of knowledge. The
>latter may be temporarily fashionable, and it may make people who
>have been hurt by the social machinery of science (and there are
>doubtless many of those) feel better; but it is not good for
>scholarship, or for our hopes for democracy and for our
>children.<<<<<
>
>
>And Dewey McLean commented:
>
>>Speaking of bullshit, what are you trying to say in this paragraph?
>
>Anyone who has read many of the "anti-science" books around at the
>moment will know exactly what PRG meant: and I share his worries,


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:27:54 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Luis Alvarez and the New York Times

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

As I noted earlier, I'll post a few more K-T offerings, and then go
on to a new phase in my work. I suspect that, by now, most of you are bored
sick with the K-T anyway.

This posting contains some Luis Alvarez comments in a New York
Times article by Malcolm Browne (1/19/88) titled "The debate over dinosaur
extinction takes an unusually rancorous turn." This article publicly
exposed for the first time the vicious politics played by some K-T
impactors since 1981.

Some comments from the article:

"they're {paleontologists} really not very good scientists. They're
more like stamp collectors."

"If the president of the college asked me what I thought about
Dewey McLean, I'd say he's a weak sister. I thought he'd been knocked out
of the ball game and had just disappeared, because nobody invites him to
conferences anymore." {In fact, Alvarez held a conference at Berkeley and
didn't invite me.}

"There isn't any debate. There's not a single member of the
National Academy of Sciences who shares Jastrow's point of view." {Jastrow
had voiced the opinion that impact had not triggered extinctions. He also
noted that Alvarez had been one of five physicists to denounce Robert
Oppenheimer as a security risk before the AEC.}

"My son Walter took just two minutes to demolish Officer after he
delivered his paper." {Officer noted that "This is misstatement...There was
no derision of me as a scientist by the audience."}

For Bill Clemens, a Berkeley dinosaur expert, the article notes
that "Dr. Alvarez...considers Dr. Clemens inept at interpreting sedimentary
rock and that his criticisms {that global impact blackout did not kill the
dinosaurs} can be dismissed on grounds of general incompetence..."

"These guys deserve some scorn, because they're publishing
scientific nonsense."

I reiterate that this sort of stuff had gone on for about seven
years. Malcolm Browne performed a public service by exposing it.

Attached please find my letters to Luis Alvarez in response to the
New York Times article.

Re the K-T letters I have posted, I offered them as a window into
the deeper political workings of science that many people never get to see.
They represent my experiences as a participant in an episode of pathogenic
science, the K-T extinction debate.

If, at times, my commentary seemed strained, I note that my
rereading of these old letters stirred up memories, and emotions, perhaps
best left buried. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

Cordially,
Dewey McLean


June 1, 1988

Dr. Luis W. Alvarez
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California
Berkeley, VA 94720

Dear Dr. Alvarez:

I read your comments in Malcolm Browne's New York Times article.
Now that passage of time permits reflective contemplation, I respond.

For your reference to my promotion: After one of my VPI colleagues
had attended a meeting with you on the Stanford campus in 1982, he informed
our department head and Executive Committee on comments you had made about
me. In conjunction with recommendations from some "prominent" highly
political paleontologists that my K-T work was "not going anywhere," and
that I had spent my career puttering in a "little square mile," the
department head became distressed with me. I found out about these
activities when he informed me that, because my "work was not going
anywhere," I could "never be promoted at VPI," that I had "no future here,"
and should "look elsewhere."

That situation devastated me. By my own originality, I was a
principal in a great scientific debate with one of the world's most
creative living geniuses, himself working in an environment predicated upon
creativity, and I had been undermined, and nearly destroyed, in my own! The
stresses over the damage to my career here at VPI did its work. Throughout
1984, nearly every joint in my body was so inflamed, and swollen, that any
movement was excruciating; medication kept me nauseated. Finally, by the
grace of some objective and fair-minded scientists who informed the head
that my work was original, and forefront, I was promoted.

For "knocked out of the ball game..." and "nobody invites...": For
the past decade, I have worked to show that earth's thermal evolution, and
orbital dynamics, are the primordial sources of evolution of the biosphere.
By now, I have unified the K-T via the carbon cycle to my satisfaction, and
am subsuming it into the bigger picture of thermal evolution of the earth.
Last year, I gave four invited talks (Phoenix National GSA meeting, Rocky
Mountain GSA meeting, NASA Langley, and the University of Colorado).

My work is going somewhere: consensus is emerging that there was a
K-T carbon cycle perturbation as I originated in Science (1978), etc.

I enclose an "open letter" that I had written in response to your
New York Times comments. I did not send it to the news media.

Sincerely yours,


Dewey M. McLean
Professor of Geology


=46ebruary 1, 1988

An Open Letter to Luis Alvarez:

Bronowski (Science and Human Values, 1956) noted that
"scholars...are oddly virtuous. They do not make wild claims, they do not
cheat, they do not try to persuade at any cost, they appeal neither to
prejudice not to authority, they are often frank about their ignorance,
their disputes are faily decorous, they do not confuse what is being argued
with race, politics, sex or age...These are the general virtues of
scholarship, and they are peculiarly the virtues of science."

In 1980, you proposed asteroid impact as cause of the K-T
biological extinctions. Quickly, you moved to shut down opposition to your
theory declaring: "1) that the asteroid hit, and 2) that the impact
triggered the extinction of much of the life in the sea, are no longer
debatable points" (talk, Nat. Acad. Sci., 4/18/82; pub. Proc., 1983: 80,
627-642). Many times, and recently in the New York Times (1/19/88), you
have stated "There isn't any debate." In Physics Today (1988: 41, 118-120),
you stated "it is no longer appropriate to say, 'Whether this impact was
the primary cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs is still an open
question'...that question has been thoroughly closed off in the past
several years." Your public media blitz has been rich in "everybody
believes..."

Operating in a science you do not comprehend, you publicly insult
paleontologists. In the New York Times (1/19/88) you abased paleontologists
as "not very good scientists...more like stamp collectors," and attacked
opponents by name as "weak sister," "incompetent," and "publishing
scientific nonsense." In your own field, you have stated "There is no
democracy in physics. We can't say that some second-rate guy has as much
right to opinion as Fermi" (in Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science,
1967, p. 43). Now, you would deny paleontologists the right to opinion in
their own field. Some tell of threats to silence them.

Your activities in the K-T debate do not locate you among
Bronowski's "virtues of science." Your own created a K-T debate scenario as
pathogenic as was polywater.

Sincerely yours,


Dewey M. McLean
Professor of Geology
=A9 1996 Dewey M. McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 11:34:46 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: Thanks to Julian O'Dea

> "When truth is buried underground it grows, it chokes, it gathers
>such an explosive force that on the day it bursts out, it blows up
>everything with it." (Emile Zola, 1898)
>
>
>Dear Scifraud Colleagues:
>
> Fluctuations can become so powerful via positive feedback that they
>can shatter preexisting organization and force a system to reorganize
>itself and evolve to new states. Small inputs can trigger huge effects.
>
> Such was it for me with Julian O'Dea's 7/15/96 "Nova and PBS"
>posting. Julian triggered in me fluctuations on things I must do when the
>battlefield is set. And I have been preparing it.
>
> In my response to Julian, I noted that I had kept the possible
>flimflam aspects of the K-T compartmented away from the science of the K-T.
>But always, I knew that the barrier separating the two domains must be
>shattered, reacting the turbulent chemistry of each with the other. At that
>time, I would then enter a new phase of work. It was but a matter of
>preparation and timing.
>
> My work on this current phase is nearly complete. A few more
>postings to tie up loose ends, and to further set the field, and I will go
>on to the new phase of my work.
>
> Julian, you are the type of person I hoped to find--one who can
>trigger in me useful feedbacks that grow into evolutionary advance toward
>what I must do.
>
> Thank you.
>
>Dewey McLean
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


>Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
>Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
>Virginia Polytechnic Institute
>Blacksburg, VA 24061
>
>Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
> Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html
>





Dear Dewey

I posted the stuff from the terrestrial impacts page (which is a pretty
good page on the whole) to indicate how (?over) confident the
impact-killed-the-dinosaurs people are. I do not take sides in this debate
(I am not qualified to judge) but I *do* think free speech and debate in
science is tremendously important.

Taking up another recent thread, I am more and more concerned that a lot of
what one reads in all kinds of writing about science 'ain't necessarily
so'. In some cases I have made a point of advancing counter-theories (in
the press or in scientific journals).

In fact I was wondering if I could interview you (privately) over the
Internet. It might make a fascinating story for a local (Australian)
paper: I was thinking of a title like "Dead Dinosaurs: Did the asteroid
really do it?".

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:53:21 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win


Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
from: daniel laure hailey <eagledan@copland.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>

On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> Ray Gibbons disagrees, "emphatically," with Lipps to the effect
> that it somehow comes right in the end. I would ask him, then,
> what fraction of the standard texts in his own field, which I
> take to be physiology or biophysics, is -- to his reliable
> knowledge -- wrong or at least suspect. I mean, textBOOKS, not
> monographs or compendia of recent "research" (which as one of the
> contributors to this list has just noted, with justice, is not
> the same thing as "science").
>
> PRG
>
I'm new to the list so I'll introduce myself first. I am a high school
science teacher in Delaware. Now that the introduction is out of the way
I would like to respond to the above post. I'm not sure about physiology
or biophysics books but the textbooks used in our school teaches
evolution as a proven fact. Last time I checked it was a unprovable
theory based on a fossil record hypothesis with not a single fossil for
evidence.

If that ain't fraud, What is?

\\\|||///
=== === dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
{ O O }
| > | People who know how, work for people who know why.




Al Higgins
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:10:29 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <01i76jye3p6u8y4x0b@cnsvax.albany.edu>

Dan Hailey:

I don't know whose propaganda you've been reading, Dan, but you
really do need to read more biology, geology, and philosophy of science.
To say that your knowledge of evolution is incomplete would be a gross
understatement of the most extreme kind, and I do not consider myself to
be an expert.

Jim Shea
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:08:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: Leon's Review

OK, so the problem is endemic and highly resistant to correction. In my
opinion, that is the ample reason to support the report and recommendations
of the Committee on Research Integrity. To date, it is the only practical
proposal on the table to deal with many of the problems. Its detractors are
certainly not co-conspirators in a cover-up; they simply think that the
status quo is acceptable. It is not.

John Gardenier
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:43:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: probabilistic thinking

The posting below by Foster Lindley reminds me of a brief discussion at a
AAAS meeting. A philosopher had illustrated philosophical reasoning using
the common syllogism with the major premise, "All crows are black.." An
avian biologist pointed out that it is difficult for practical scientists to
take philosophers seriously when they make arguments using statements which
are nonsense in fact. The objector clearly understood that the philosopher
was not claiming that all crows are factually black; nonetheless, her point
was that such errors are so off-putting as to discourage interest in the
philosophy of science by empirical scientists. The result is a disservice
both to philosophy and empirical science.

John Bailar responded to Prof. Lindley's posting, graciously using it as an
opportunity to point out that there is a practical (or "most sophisticated")
interpretation of probabilities as measures of strength of belief. There
are several credible underlying theories of statistical probability. That
is one of a family of "Bayesian" theories, which are broadly recognized and
supported by statisticians. Apparently, it is useful for statistically
sophisticated medical doctors in actual practice, among many other
applications.

My own background has been in finance/economics and in public health.
There, "frequentist" theories are generally more useful. Von Mises treated
the underlying philosophy of frequentist statistical theory quite well in a
1950's book the title of which I cannot recall. For some limited
applications, such as games with "fair" dice or coins, Laplacian theory
provides a simplistic, but effective, shortcut to frequentist theory.

Why mention all of this? The point is that there are a number of different
valid ways of stating problems, probabilities, or propositions
statistically. Unfortunately, Prof. Lindley's example cannot be supported
by any of them. Similarly to "All crows are black", it is easy to make
nonsense statements about statistical probabilities when one does not have,
or does not use, a suitable background in that science. This may sound more
derogatory and offensive than I really intend. Still, a statistician in the
public health field cannot carry on a meaningful debate on the basis of a
problem statement like that below. It is far divorced from any realistic
application.

Jim Whitehead properly responded that assessment of individual risk of heart
attack is generally made by using the American Heart Association risk
factors. These do not yield numerical results, but rather suggest to people
ways that they can reduce their personal risk of heart attack. No doctor
with any competence in statistics would ever conclude, much less announce in
a newsletter, that certain specific individuals within a company, comprising
20% of the work force, will have a heart attack during their tenure and the
remaining specific individuals, comprising 80% of the work force, will not.


Even worse, no competent health statistician would draw any conclusion about
overall corporate heart attack risks merely from a study of corporate
records. We know of many factors which have been shown either to be
causally related to heart attacks (such as electrical shocks) or highly
correlated precursors of heart attacks (such as a history of exposure to
tobacco smoke). These include: obesity, cholesterol levels, family medical
history, other personal health conditions, and various environmental
exposures. For each of these, there is some empirical probability
distribution linking the "independent" (causal or correlated) variable to
the "dependent" variable of a heart attack during tenure at the company.
Each such distribution has an "error" term, meaning that the statistical
linkage is subject to some degree of uncertainty. An analysis such as Prof.
Lindley is suggesting would involve a complex process of "multivariate
statistical modeling." Most important of all, it would certainly NOT
involve taking some data from corporate records and personal medical records
and throwing a computer program at them.

The first thing a professional statistician would do is try to understand as
precisely as possible: who wants the information, how do they intend to use
it, and how amenable is the practical issue to treatment under statistical
theory. Given a satisfactory assessment of those issues, the statistician
would then have to involve several subject matter experts in an assessment
of the practical problem, including: corporate safety personnel, the medical
staff (internal or external) who oversee employee medical care, and
personnel staff who are knowledgeable about turnover rates, corporate
training and physical fitness programs, etc. The statistician should also
have some background data regarding heart attack risks among the general
population of the area who are similar demographically to the corporate
workers.

Next comes the difficult problem of determining what available data exist to
support the desired analysis. Most often, one would find that much of the
available data are only marginally relevant, some of the most relevant data
are missing for various individuals, and different record systems bearing on
the problem are not totally compatible in the ways they define and treat
common variables. The statistician must determine what form(s) of
statistical sampling and analysis, if any, are capable of providing an
approximation to the desired practical answer by using the data which are
actually available. There are practical and economic problems of making do
with available data or collecting additional specific data, say by survey or
by physical examination.

Let me skip over the predictable tediousness of the data: collection,
cleaning, screening, and management problems. Assume that suitable data are
identified, processed intelligently, and subjected to appropriate analyses,
resulting in numeric estimates of heart attack probability, along with
appropriate measures of the residual uncertainty (ties). Those results are
subject to interpretation, which may be within the competence of the
statistician or may demand additional involvement of the subject matter
experts. Finally, a scientific conclusion is reached. One thing we know up
front; the results do not tell us which specific individuals are "at risk"
or are not "at risk" of a heart attack during their tenure. Even the
conclusions about a corporate distribution of risk must be very carefully
explained and documented. It can be difficult to explain clearly, in plain
English, to corporate management the exact nature of the findings and the
caveats. Nonetheless, that must be done. If the statistician makes a
brilliant analysis, but cannot communicate it clearly and accurately, it is
useless or worse.

So where does that leave us regarding Prof. Lindley's suggestion that
probabilistic analysis may be so misleading to affected individuals that
there are serious ethical problems regarding communication of the results?
His example problem is poor and irrelevant, but that does not matter. He
is absolutely correct about there being moral problems in communicating
probabilistic information. In fact, that is a central concern here at the
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. We have less trouble explaining our data and analyses to
experts in public health statistics than we do to the general public or to
politicians - - and certainly to philosophers. The best thing I can say
about it is that we are very aware of the problem, and we do our best with
it.

What about statistical analysis generally? I do not care to comment on that
any more than I expect Prof. Lindley would like to comment on the quality of
philosophical reasoning and explication by philosophers, generally.
Certainly, there is a lot of bad statistical information bandied about:
some fraudulent, some incompetent, and a lot subject to honest differences
of scientific opinion. John Bailar and I, among many others, are very
concerned about that. That is why we serve as volunteers on the American
Statistical Association Committee on Professional Ethics. When we post
here, of course, we speak for ourselves, rather than for our employers or
the American Statistical Association.

If Prof. Lindley wishes to continue this discussion, which I expect, I urge
him to do so in the context of the simplest possible examples or else to
state the relevance of his arguments to specific aspects of probability or
statistical theory.

John S. Gardenier, JSG6@ NCH11A.EM.CDC.GOV


from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: probabilistic thinking
to: multiple recipients of list scifraud <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
content-length: 765
--
I am sorry John Gardenier cannot answer this, but would anyone argue that
the
following is moral?

A doctor,after studying company records, concludes that 20% of the employees
will have a heart attack during their tenure. however, he is not merely a
descriptive statistician; is is also a probabilistic thinker, so in the
newsletter
he states that the probability of an employee suffering a heart attack is
1/5.
Is it moral to tell the 80%, whom be believes will not have a heart attack
that they could and the 20%, whom he believes will have a heart attack that
they might not? Is he not lying to each and every employee?

Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
The University of Connecticut
32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268
860-429-2484
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:15:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: anyone can win

To Foster Lindley: It is unfortunate that the "so whats" were dismissive of
you personally. Please reread Thomas Sellke's commentary. He is right.
Even accepting your claim that time lapse photography of coin tosses
supports a conclusion that each toss has a determinable result based on the
initial conditions, it does not follow that probabilistic or statistical
analysis is false.

As a practical matter, competent statistical analysis remains the most
effective means of predicting distributions of outcomes of future events in
many (bit not all) cases where we have no practical means of knowing the
precise initial conditions and processes for each event of interest.

As to the "anyone can win" debate, that is simply a matter of whether the
statement is made before or after the lottery drawing, coin toss, or
whatever. Prior to the event, circumstances involving the initial
conditions, the contestants, and perhaps even the processes are subject to
change. There is no way of knowing in advance who will win or lose. In the
absence of the relevant information, it is not false to say that "any player
might win" (as far as can be determined in advance of the event.) This
argument depends on the definition of a random (more correctly,
pseudo-random) event and the assumption that the game play conforms to the
randomness definition used. After the event, it is certainly true that the
winner(s) are fully determined and that the other players have lost. To
make the same statement at that point would be demonstrably false.

Prof. Sellke also pointed out correctly that misuse or misinterpretation of
the practical implications of the "anyone can win" statement are hardly the
fault of the science involved. Still, we statisticians face a constant
struggle to communicate probabilistic information so it will be understood
correctly outside the field (or even within in some cases.) Similar
communication problems plague philosophers, cosmologists, or
sociobiologists, to name only a few.

Mathematically, there are various types of experiments, computer
simulations, or analytical calculations which may be used to quantify the a
priori chances that any single "play" (note: "player" involves a different
calculation) might be the winning one. Frequentist probability theory, to
remain tenable, conforms to experiment, properly conducted. To win this
debate, you would have to establish by replicable experiment that the
outcomes of each event could be precisely determined in advance. I will
submit, expecting you to disagree, that this is impossible. To convince me,
you would have to demonstrate, for example, determining the winning number
and the holder of that number in advance of a lottery drawing. In fact, if
you did that, I would attribute it to coincidence. If you were to do it ten
times in a row, with no failures, then I would be almost totally convinced
you were right. AND I could explain statistically why I then conceded your
point. :-)

Hope this helps. John Gardenier


from: foster lindley
To: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD
Subject: anyone can win
Date: Friday, July 12, 1996 12:16PM

from: foster lindley <vpacad20@uconnvm.uconn.edu>
Subject: anyone can win
to: multiple recipients of list scifraud <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
content-length: 462
--
I said that the probabilistic 'anyone can win' as applied to lotteries,
etc.,
was false. At least two respondents said, "so what?" Identifying false
statements in the guise of scientific truths is what we are about. That is
what.

No one has tried to support the claim that anyone can win, but that would
be an appropriate argument in support of probabilism. Ad hominem remarks
addressed to me do not help the probabilistic cause.

Foster Lindley
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:37:28 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: On The Other Hand

On the Other Hand

One of the interesting things about science is that it is
supposed to be engaging, attractive, and even playful. Allowing
for different ideas can be productive as well as threatening.
But there seem to be some who insist that there is only one
correct view of science. I argue that there are many views of
science: There is not one Truth to be defended against heresy.

Freeman Dyson, in an article in Scientific American, quotes
Bohr's comment on one of Pauli's ideas: "We are all agreed that
your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it
is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling
is that it is not crazy enough." (p. 80)

Science is not limited to the naive realists who,
religiously, are committed to their "objective universe." That's
an article of faith for true believers. Here's the way Nobelist
Sheldon Glashow puts it:

We believe that the world is knowable, that there
are simple rules governing the behavior of matter and
the evolution of the universe. We affirm that there
are eternal, objective, extrahistorical, socially
neutral, external and universal truths and that the
assemblage of these truths is what we call physical
science. Natural laws can be discovered that are
universal, invariable, inviolate, genderless and
verifiable. They may be found by men or women or by
mixed collaborations of any obscene proportions. Any
intelligent alien anywhere would have come upon the
same logical system as we have to explain the structure
of protons and the nature of supernovas. This
statement I cannot prove, this statement I cannot
justify. This is my faith.

Glashow takes his science very seriously. My own feeling
is, "Lighten up." One can take alternative poses with regard to
science. One can "play" at science and enjoy it rather than feel
threatened by imagination and relativism. Here, for example, is
a pleasant alternative to the faith of Glashow. (The essay is
reproduced in its entirety.)

+++++++++


\Conroy, Frank. "Mind Games," New York Times
Magazine, 14 July 1996, p. 50.\

1950. STUYVESANT HIGH SCHOOL. GEOGRAPHY. ROOM 312. I
SAT IN THE THIRD ROW, NEAR THE TALL windows through
which the sunlight flowed, providing me the opportunity
to make interesting shadow shapes with my fingers on
the surface of my desk. Mr. Dediase had been explaining
the Mercator projection (which I knew about) for some
time, drawing stuff on the board, talking about peeling
grapefruit. Finally, Dediase pulled down an enormous
map of the world; Its size and brilliant colors caught
our attention.

"First the continents," Dediase said, "the great
land masses exposed when the oceans receded in
prehistoric times." He walked us through with his
pointer, showed us ca the great rivers, the major
mountain chains, the inland be seas, the polar icecaps.
He did this quickly, and then suddenly stepped back.
"Take a look at the whole thing," he said.

What does it suggest to you?"

We looked at the map. Silence. Incredibly, Dediase
let it alone. I looked at the map. I saw a map.

"Oh, wow!" somebody said.

"Skorton. What do you see?" Dediase was smiling.

"They fit. Sort of. Like the pieces of a jigsaw
puzzle."

"Very, very good, Skorton."

I felt a distinct thrill. "So you mean way back
sometime it was all one piece? Parts broke off and
floated away?" In my excitement, my eye kept catching
what seemed like fits.

"That's what it looks like, Conroy."

"It's terrific," I said.

"Yeah," Dediase agreed. "But it didn't happen."

"What?" I was outraged. "What?"

"The field is geomorphology. Prevailing wisdom
says it didn't happen. It shows how careful we must be.
The obvious answers are often wrong, as in this case."

Hence, many years later, when plate tectonics
became a paradigm, I felt a great deal of pleasure. The
prevailing wisdom in geomorphology in 1950 had been
dead wrong.

I've always loved wild theories. I collect them
the way other people collect paintings, first editions
or stamps. I have more than I can possibly mention, and
though most of them are simple curiosities, some have
more than a kernel of truth.

In 1955, for example, at Haverford College,
Robert Oppenheimer stated that the existence of life
elsewhere in the universe was a "virtual certainty." I
was thrilled, but many others thought the great man a
bit flaky. So imagine my delight now that scientists
are seriously reconsidering that possibility.

"Worlds in Collision," by Immanuel Velikovsky,
also caught my eye in the 50's. It described an earth
that had been bombarded with meteorites large enough to
cause catastrophic climactic changes. The cover was
lurid, the paper was pulp and the contents presumably
science fiction. (And almost all of it was.) But only a
few years ago, the scientific community confirmed
Velikovsky's idea. (The rest of his work has about as
much scientific value as Nostradamus's.)

Some wild theories are simply a joy to play with,
like the work of J.W. Dunne, a mildly crazed British
polymath. Consider the often-observed sense that time
goes faster as we get older -- supposedly an illusion.
Dunne proposed forgetting Ockham's Razor -- which says,
in effect, if you have two answers that completely
satisfy a mathematical problem, take the simpler and
shorter one -- at a certain point in the relativity
equations. If the more complicated solution is applied,
you get a model in which time is accelerating
infinitely. In other words, time seems to be moving
faster because it is moving faster. Einstein was
apparently underwhelmed by this idea.

These days we have the work of the Harvard
psychologist who believes that people who claim to have
been abducted by aliens actually have been abducted by
aliens. And let's not forget the hitherto scoffed-at
idea that two or three glasses of wine a day is good
for you.

I suppose my love of these theories comes partly
out of identification with the outsiders, rebels and
autodidacts who (mostly) think them up, unafraid to run
against the grain. Their outspokenness suggests that
the advance of human knowledge is not as smooth as one
might think. There have been bumps, interesting garden
paths and cul-de-sacs that force us into a more active
testing of our assumptions. But care must be taken
about false science -- astrology, numerology and
various fraudulent systems encouraging us to stop
thinking altogether. After all, it's fun to think.
It's no fun not to.


Frank Conroy is the author of "Stop Time" and "Body and
Soul."

References

\Dyson, Freeman. "Innovation in Physics," Scientific American
(September, 1958), pp. 74-82.\

\Glashow, Sheldon. "We Believe That The World is Knowable,"
New York Times, 22 October 1989, p. E24.\


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:26:04 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: probabilistic thinking

Foster Lindley wrote as shown below, in a reply to John Gardenier. I am
simply baffled. Suppose, Dr. Lindley, that you are a physician and your
patient says, "Tell me, Doc, what are my chances of getting a heart attack
sometime?" One answer might be, "I do not know what will happen to you,
but about 20% of people of your gender, age, occupation, and smoking
history eventually have a heart attack. That figure might be highter or
lower depending on your family history, weight and height, and other things
I haven't even thought of, but I do not know how to adjust the 20% figure
for those things."

Does Lindley object to that? But that is precisely what a statistician of
the relative frequency persuasion means by the work "probability". It also
fits in quite readily with other views of the foundations of probability
that Gardenier and I have mentioned here. And so, I would call that 20% a
probability -- estimated, as probabilities almost always have to be, but
the uncertainty can also be quantified (as confidence bounds, for example).
I see nothing whatever that is immoral in this. If Lindley thinks
otherwise, perhaps the problem is his, in using his own definition of the
word "probability" rather than one that would be accepted by experts in the
field

But, as stated, I am baffled, and wonder whether I have completely
misunderstood Lindley. Perhaps a part or all of the problem is in not
recognizing that while 80% will not have a heart attack, that 80% cannot be
identified by the informed observer, so any useful response will have to
treat all 100% in the same way. I would be glad to have Lindley's
definition, with an example or two of how he would deal with outcomes that
are not yet known to him. .

One possible response that I would not accept for myself is to plead
ignorance and refuse to respond. Information relevant to the individual is
contained in the information about the group; the question is how (not
whether) to use it

John

>I am sorry John Gardenier cannot answer this, but would anyone argue that
>the
>following is moral?
>
>A doctor,after studying company records, concludes that 20% of the employees
>will have a heart attack during their tenure. however, he is not merely a
>descriptive statistician; is is also a probabilistic thinker, so in the
>newsletter
>he states that the probability of an employee suffering a heart attack is
>1/5.
>Is it moral to tell the 80%, whom be believes will not have a heart attack
>that they could and the 20%, whom he believes will have a heart attack that
>they might not? Is he not lying to each and every employee?
>
>Foster Lindley, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus
>The University of Connecticut
>32 Ledgewood Drive, Storrs, CT 06268
>860-429-2484

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago MC-2007
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453 Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:52:22 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win

Evolution IS a "proven fact," or better, a set of brute facts
about the history of this planet and the course of change in its
biosphere. The only argument going is about the MECHANISM of
change in the biota; within biology it is about how much of the
change is due to plain old natural selection and how much due to
other -- vaguely defined -- processes. That selection is at
least a large part of it nobody who knows those brute facts ande
is honest disputes. The other legitimate argument is religious
and quasi-philosophical: it is called "intelligent design," and
it didn't work very well for St. Thomas or William Paley (1802);
but it's getting a bit of a ride again these days. It remains
"legitimate" only because there is not a solid theory of the
origin of life on this planet, a few billion years ago. So it is
NOT fraud for a textbook to suggest that evolution happened.
It's just a fact.

PRG
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 17:02:19 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: probabilistic thinking

I thank John Gardenier for a clear, useful, and appropriately
short discussion of what is entailed in probabilistic sentences,
and especially for indicating that argument from example places s
certain obligations upon the thoughtful arguer. That there is
quite a lot of thoughtLESS assertion going about probabilities,
especially in the media, is certainly true. But FRAUD exists not
with the thoughtless but with those who know better and phrase
those probabilistic assertions inappropriately for the facts of
the case and/or for the intended audience. There's a lot of
that, too, some but certainly not all of it coming from people
with degrees in science.

PRG
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:11:36 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Reply to Dan Hailey

>I'm new to the list so I'll introduce myself first. I am a high school
>science teacher in Delaware. Now that the introduction is out of the way
>I would like to respond to the above post. I'm not sure about physiology
>or biophysics books but the textbooks used in our school teaches
>evolution as a proven fact. Last time I checked it was a unprovable
>theory based on a fossil record hypothesis with not a single fossil for
>evidence.
>
>If that ain't fraud, What is?
> dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
>
I can not defend text in any particular textbook which I never read. There
is a lot of errors, confusion, ignorance, and fraud in school and college
textbooks.
Nevertheless, I can try to explain the confusion about the evolution theory
and any other scientific theory as I see it.

There is general confusion about terminology. The word "fact" is rarely
used in science. Very few things or phenomena are called "facts", e.g. "It
is a fact that sun rises in the morning on the East (at least where I live)".

The word most often used is "experiment". Experiment in physics usually
result is some measurements and described by numbers. The experiment is no
more reliable than qualifications and honesty of the scientists who conduct
it. Luckily, experiments in physics can be independently conducted by
different people in different times and places and thus can be compared and
verified.

Experiments in evolution can be conducted in laboratory on a small time scale.
On a large time scale experiments can not be conducted. Scientists use
fossil records as their experimental data. While individual records can be
falsified (see Piltdown Man with his bat), over the years, scientists
created a reliable and consistent data collection which can be analyzed by
different people.

Another word used by scientists is "hypothesis". Somebody proposes an
explanation for many observations that scientists make. Giordano Bruno made
a guess that little stars are like our Sun and have their own planetary
systems. Newton proposed a hypothesis that all material objects including
Sun and planets pull one another. Darwin proposed a hypothesis that
different species change, "evolve" from generation to generation creating
new species. Alvarez proposed a hypothesis that an asteroid smashed into
the Earth and killed all dinosaurs.

On the next step scientist are trying to check if all existing experimental
data fit the hypothesis. Then they are trying to find out if this
hypothesis can predict new experimental results. By the time the hypothesis
becomes more precisely defined and provides good agreement with experimental
results, it is called "theory". Thus we have the Theory (Law) of
Gravitation, the Laws of Motion, and the Theory of Evolution.

Only recently astronomical observations provided direct information that one
of the stars has a planet. It took more that 400 years for the hypothesis
of Giordano Bruno to receive this direct confirmation.

Newton's theory resulted in prediction of the planet Neptune.

Darwin's theory provided mechanisms for systematic explanation of fossil
records and the spread of drug resistant bacteria.

Real scientists are working hard to provide new experimental results to
confirm or reject existing theories. Precise observations of the orbit of
Mercury were inconsistent with Newton's laws. New theory proposed by Albert
Einstein resolved these problems. Newton's theory was not declared bad or
fraud, it was found to be imprecise. Every time new and more precise
experimental methods appear, Einstein's theory is subjected to new scrutiny.

Our knowledge of Earth's development is tiny relative to hundreds of
millions of years that we are trying to cover. I do not think that
scientists made a claim that we had a comprehensive picture of these events
but, by the time this information was simplified for the textbooks, some
"unscientific" language could be used.

I tried to describe the scientific meaning of the words "fact",
"experiment", "hypothesis", and "theory". While Dan Hailey did not mention
it, usual opponents of the theory of evolution promote the competing theory
of Creationism to explain existing fossil records. The problem is that if
we use the word "theory" in a way that it is used in science, Creationism is
not a theory. Creationism is a "revelation", that is the truth revealed by
God and recorded in the Holy Book. Revelation is the absolute truth or
"fact" in itself. It does not need experimental results to confirm or
reject it. It does not need to predict future experimental results.

Revelation can not be disproved by experimental data. No experimental facts
can prove that God did not create Earth with all fossils to challenge human
intelligence for millennia. The question is: How the Theory of Evolution
and the Revelation of Creation can help a scientist who is trying to dig out
a dinosaur from the hills of Utah?

If the scientist believes that this dinosaur was buried by a sandstorm 100
million years ago and digs carefully, he can find dinosaur's eggs underneath
and prove that dinosaurs were sitting on their eggs. If the scientist
believes in the Revelation of Creation, he can expect to find the Golden
Scroll of New Revelations that God deposited there during the six days of
creation together with all the fossils. There is no limit to God's miracles!

Conclusions:

1) Give into God what is due to Him and leave to science and public schools
what belongs to their domains.

2) I am surely glad that Dan Hailey is not teaching my children.

Leon Mintz, July 17, 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:00:33 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <01i76jye3p6u8y4x0b@cnsvax.albany.edu>

(SNIP)

textbooks used in our school teaches
> evolution as a proven fact. Last time I checked it was a unprovable
> theory based on a fossil record hypothesis with not a single fossil for
> evidence.
>
> If that ain't fraud, What is?
>
> \\\|||///
> === === dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
> { O O }
> | > |


Hi ho, two slogans which come straight from Creation Science:

1. (evolution is) an unprovable theory

2. not a single fossil for evidence.

Back when creation science was a hot issue in my state and country, I put
letters carrying these claims straight into the the bin. They show
so little understanding, either of science or of the evidence, that
replying was just a waste of time. I also got fed up of being hectored by
self-righteous people who seemed more concerned about scoring cheap
points than actually discussing the issue (Unprovable theory, hiding from
your God, one day you will realise your terrible folly etc etc).

Still, time has mellowed me a bit so here's my response to Dan Hailey (or
dan hailey, if he prefers).

Dan, if you want to discuss this issue seriously, without the sneering
self-righteousness, sloganeering and evasiveness that I've encountered in so
many opponents of evolution, then I am prepared to do so. My view is

1. Evolution is not proven, but that is no criticism of it, since science
intrinsically cannot prove any of its theories (and that is science's
great strength, not a weakness). I do believe the evidence for evolution
to be overwhelming, and I regard your implicit accusation that thousands of
scientists are involved in fraud as outrageous.

2. I did a lengthy analysis of creation science back when it was a hot
topic. I found evidence of monumental amounts of fraud:
misrepresentation, misquotes and grossly selective use of evidence. I
regard creation science as being predominantly fraudulent, using the
latter term in exactly the way that most people understand it.

Martin Bridgstock (wondering if he's done something stupid)
Girffith University
Queensland
Australia
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:07:04 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Dan Hailey
in-reply-to: <199607172211.saa17211@zork.tiac.net>

Dan Hailey wrote:

>I'm new to the list so I'll introduce myself first. I am a high school
>science teacher in Delaware. Now that the introduction is out of the way
>I would like to respond to the above post. I'm not sure about physiology
>or biophysics books but the textbooks used in our school teaches
>evolution as a proven fact. Last time I checked it was a unprovable
>theory based on a fossil record hypothesis with not a single fossil for
>evidence.

Exactly where did you check, Dan?

I agree with someone who said, with folks like this teaching in the high
schools, who know so little about the subject they teach, education is in
sorry shape.

There's plenty of net resources to expose the foolishness of creationists
and their misrepresentation of science. My home page has a few such
documents, and links. One of the better ones is the talk.origins archive.

As to the use of the word 'provable', that should be used only for
mathematics propositions. A previous poster explained how science works
(which every high school teacher *ought* to already know), so I'll not
repeat.

To illustrate. Suppose someone says "You can't *prove* the sun's surface
has a temperature of 5700K. You've never been there to measure it, and
any thermometer would melt at such a high temperature. And to claim the
*inside* of the sun is hotter still, is just absurd!" Should we take this
person seriously? Should we even waste our time explaining how such
conclusions are arrived at, what facts, measurements and theory support
them, and how they can be tested and confirmed or refuted? If this person
suggests that the black body radiation from the sun is created by God as
it leaves a cool sun, and only has the *appearance* of that from a 5700K
object, need we include this *alternate theory* in our physics courses?

I submit that this example has many parallels, on all important counts,
with what the creationists are about. Their game is a guerrilla attack on
science, cleverly pitched to *sound* scientific, and to conceal their
underlying religious motivations. They have no testable scientific theory
to offer in place of evolutionary theory. They really don't unerstand or
even care about a scientific search for understanding, they only wish to
discredit science, because the see parts of it running counter to their
religious convictions and their literal interpretation of the Bible.

My biologist colleagues distinguish the "fact(s)" of evolution from the
"theory of evolution" which accounts for those facts. It's safe to
say that 99% of biologists accept the fact of evolution (the progression
of development of life through historic time), though some details of
the theory still remain to be clarified.

Whatever faults the theory of evolution may have, or whatever faults its
critics may imagine it has, it's not fraud. It's the way science works.
And any teacher who doesn't understand how science works shouldn't be in
the classroom.

Science claims no absolute or revealed truths. Science attempts to build
models and theories to account for observed facts. The models must be
testably related to observations we have made or can make.

Science invents models and theories, and that process can take many
forms, including hunches, intuition, reading tea leaves, whatever. These,
however, are only hypotheses until tested. The testing must be objective
and ruthless. The hypotheses which fail are discarded (and sometimes
swept under the rug of history). The remaining ones are tentatively
accepted until something better comes along, or until new observations
show them in need of extension, modification, or replacement. At no point
should a scientist *believe*, in the strong religious sense of the word,
in these models or theories. The scientist is a practical person who
accepts the current science as a very powerful and well-tested tool for
understanding the phenomena of the universe, but is always aware that it
is as yet incomplete, and still imperfect. Still, no one expects future
advances to destroy our present science completely, only to extend and
improve it.

Religion invents gods and creation scenarios. Then religious people
believe in these gods and mythical scenarios.

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:30:21 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Statistical thinking

Foster,
In a message dated 96-06-26 15:40:37 EDT, you write:

<< If, at this late date, meteorologists outlined the
ir problems without claiming that the weather was problematic, I do not know
if
the public could adjust to their candor.
Of course, they could have been forthcoming all along. They could have
dist
inguished between what they did and did not know, foregoing all talk of
chances
and probabilities. We could have seen their knowledge grow as their
questions
narrowed. >>

Just a little post-script to your comments: as the recent hurricane,
Bertha, neared the Carolina coast, the Baltimore forecaster, Marty Bass, made
a statement that went something like this: "It doesn't seem to matter how
much technology we have or how much data we get on these things, there's just
no way we can know for sure. It's just gonna do what it wants to do." Now if
our local forecasters can have the same humility about SNOW in this area and
give up on their five-day forecasts, then maybe we'll get somewhere. Weather
is chaotic and dependent upon so many variables, the outcomes of which
frequently seem to have a very sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
Long-range forecasting can be quite difficult and as far as physical science
goes, has to represent the extreme in speculative thinking, driven by
competition and instant public need for results on a daily basis. Perhaps it
isn't a fair representation of statistical thinking that typifies science.
Still, I think they do a pretty good job, all things considered.

Brant
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:32:35 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Jim,

In a message dated 96-06-28 10:23:52 EDT, you write:

<< I'm sure that many others have similar stories. >>

I had the parents of a former student come into my classroom after school
and take turns reaming me out and cussing at me because their daughter was in
danger of getting a B in my class. I gave her an A.

Brant
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:33:16 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Kirlian Photography

Stephen,
The effects of Kirlian photography are purely due to coronal discharge in
the presence of a high voltage source. The purported variations can be
attributed to the fact that the prints are sensitively subject to a wide
range of uncontrolled variables in early experiments. Also, due to the
wishful thinking of people like Thelma Moss, the subject gained some
attention in the media. I have seen evidence of deliberate fraud in some of
the more extraordinary demonstrations of the phenomenon..ie. after-images of
amputated parts.
The book, Science and the Paranormal, (I think), has a good chapter on
this.

Brant
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:31:10 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Jim,
In a message dated 96-06-28 10:09:50 EDT, you write:

<< "Doubting Shea" has the grumps again! What do you mean standards are
being destroyed -- there are more students on the honor rolls than ever
before!! >>

Yes, and in the school where I teach, 62% of the 6th grade made the honor
roll one marking period! Honor roll is defined as a maximum of one C with no
grade below C. And C is still defined as "average". Right!

Here's one I'm sure you will enjoy, as it relates to the use of statistics.
A few years ago, our principal read a memo to the teachers at a faculty
meeting. This had come down from the Board and was meant to be taken very
seriously. Research had shown that teachers in our county had been taking
38% of their sick leave days on Mondays, Fridays, and days that bordered long
weekends or holidays. We were being reminded of our professional duty and
"encouraged" to take sick leave only when warranted.
Later I presented my argument to the principal. He didn't understand. It is
comforting to know that no explanation is necessary to the members of this
list.

Brant
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:32:24 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Paul,
In a message dated 96-06-28 10:35:36 EDT, you write:

<< Shea, Whitehead, et al. seem not to understand that DIVERSITY is
now a well-recognized educational STANDARD. What are you guys,
asleep?

PRG >>

I don' t think diversity is the source of the problem. To me it seems to
stem from the fact that our educational priorities have changed over the
years from what is good for society to what is good for the individual. We
suffer from ubiquitous hyperentitlement. This should not be too quickly
condemned as it is probably the natural consequence of several generations of
Americans striving very hard to take advantage of the land of opportunity and
provide for their children a world that was better than theirs. They have
been so successful that we now seem to have lost the competitive edge. This
may explain why Asian Americans have made such a strong academic showing here
and why so many of them work so hard at jobs that most Americans would avoid.
Many of them come from backgrounds which were fraught with poverty and
political oppression. In many ways, I believe they are more like the
European founders of this nation.
Just a thought.

Brant
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:33:08 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Statistical methods

Paul,
Did you, by any chance, attend McDonogh school in Maryland? You can e-mail
me privately at BrantW3@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 08:12:15 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

To Brant Watson:

>Jim,
>
>In a message dated 96-06-28 10:23:52 EDT, you write:
>
><< I'm sure that many others have similar stories. >>
>
> I had the parents of a former student come into my classroom after school
>and take turns reaming me out and cussing at me because their daughter was in
>danger of getting a B in my class. I gave her an A.



What are you trying to state, or imply, in this message? That you
caved in to parental pressure, and GAVE a mediocre student an "A" grade?

One of the most unpleasant tasks of my quarter century of teaching
university freshmen was listening to students--who were failing my
class--complain to me how they had been "A" students in high school.

And that their current difficulties must be the fault of the
university professor--because they KNOW that they are "A" students. Because
their high school teachers said so.

High school teachers who mischaracterize mediocre students as "A"
students delude colleges and universities into thinking they are something
they clearly are not. And fill up our university classes with students who
should not be there.

On another point, any high school teacher who claims that evolution
is fraud needs to become at least minimally educated before he tries to
educate others. I have spent a big chunk of my professional career trying
to isolate the primordial driving sources of evolution on this planet.
Evolution is as close to fact as scientists are able to come.

Not so cheerfully,
Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 08:31:20 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <960717223222_579208873@emout10.mail.aol.com>

Dear Brant:
Thanks for these comments, with which I agree entirely. You took my
adjuring of Shea, Whitehead, and a few select others seriously, however: I
meant it as a joke (which I think the two named got). Diversity is NOT an
educational standard -- in my book. Educational standards in that book,
for what it's worth, are standards of intellectual content or performance,
not of admission or retention or tenure. The absence of diversity therein
may be (in many cases IS) a problem; but it is not what should be an
EDUCATIONAL one. Joking aside, what I've just said is nowadays so much a
minority view that merely typing it reflects back to me the snout of a
TRICERATOPS, hegemonic, phallocentric, Eurocentric, and (approximately)
white. I'm still trying to re-learn grammar so as to write such memos as
begin "Any student wishing to substitute a term paper for the final exam
should hand in THEIR proposal by May 15th..."

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Brant Watson wrote:

> Paul,
> In a message dated 96-06-28 10:35:36 EDT, you write:
>
> << Shea, Whitehead, et al. seem not to understand that DIVERSITY is
> now a well-recognized educational STANDARD. What are you guys,
> asleep?
>
> PRG >>
>
> I don' t think diversity is the source of the problem. To me it seems to
> stem from the fact that our educational priorities have changed over the
> years from what is good for society to what is good for the individual. We
> suffer from ubiquitous hyperentitlement. This should not be too quickly
> condemned as it is probably the natural consequence of several generations of
> Americans striving very hard to take advantage of the land of opportunity and
> provide for their children a world that was better than theirs. They have
> been so successful that we now seem to have lost the competitive edge. This
> may explain why Asian Americans have made such a strong academic showing here
> and why so many of them work so hard at jobs that most Americans would avoid.
> Many of them come from backgrounds which were fraught with poverty and
> political oppression. In many ways, I believe they are more like the
> European founders of this nation.
> Just a thought.
>
> Brant
>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:32:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: School days, school days . . .

Brant Wilson wrote, in part:

in the school where I teach, 62% of the 6th grade made the honor
roll one marking period! Honor roll is defined as a maximum of one C with
no
grade below C. And C is still defined as "average". Right!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This, combined with the high school "science teacher" (??!!) who thinks
evolution is scientific fraud, illustrate why I cannot in good conscience
allow my children to attend public school. Despite an occasional competent
and conscientious teacher, my experience has been that the public schools do
not teach the basics, have no rational grading standards, are incapable of
discipline - often due to parental pressure - and leave much of education to
parents while teachers indulge pet concerns, prejudices, or a preference for
field trips as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, sound
grounding in academics.

In sixth and seventh grade, over 65% of my older son's class made the honor
roll, which is defined as only A's and B's. Why? Because it is an
exceptionally bright class; they earn those grades. Some classes ahead and
behind that one, including my younger son's, got a more normal distribution
of grades from the same teachers. Fortunately, that is NOT because teachers
were grading "on the curve," but because those classes do not happen to be
exceptionally loaded with talent. There is no reason not to have absolute
standards of performance. That is the only way students and parents can
have confidence that grades mean something.

Science instruction in the school is also "no nonsense." Every child is
taught the 14 point scientific method and use it to perform science
projects. Fifth graders learn the first 58 elements of the periodic table;
later grades learn more. Everybody learns math at least through
pre-algebra; those who are ready for it learn algebra as well. There is no
confusion of evolution with religion, although both are taught in the
school. It is a Catholic parochial school.

Based on awards received, there is some evidence that it is above average
for Catholic schools. Still, the philosophy of the school system includes:
firm grounding in academic basics and moral values, strong emphasis on both
science and religion without confusing the two, absolute standards of
grading, and firm but loving discipline. The public school system, of
course, has to differ in that it cannot teach a particular religion. Why,
however, does it also abandon those other virtues which are found in so much
of private education?

John Gardenier
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:46:43 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Paul Gross wrote:


>The absence of diversity therein
>may be (in many cases IS) a problem; but it is not what should be an
>EDUCATIONAL one. Joking aside, what I've just said is nowadays so much a
>minority view that merely typing it reflects back to me the snout of a
>TRICERATOPS, hegemonic, phallocentric, Eurocentric, and (approximately)
>white. I'm still trying to re-learn grammar so as to write such memos as
>begin "Any student wishing to substitute a term paper for the final exam
>should hand in THEIR proposal by May 15th..."


Paul, my friend, I wish you good luck in re-learning grammar. I take from
your "Joking aside..." that you are serious.

I recently helped one of our M.S. students cut the text portion of
his thesis from 256 pages down to 47. As you can imagine, much of his
writing was unfocused, rambling, irrelevant, and incomprehensible. Such
writing ain't hardly no good to nobody.

Because you are a professor charged with the responsibility of
educating others, your professed endeavor reverberates deeply upon the
heartstrings of my reptilian brain which is CROCODILIAN, anti-hegemonic,
femalecentric (I love 'em), Swampcentric, and (approximately) green.

May God grant you speedy progress in your journey toward clarity,
conciseness, and comprehensibility.

Cheerfully,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:52:29 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to Dan Hailey
in-reply-to: <199607172211.saa17211@zork.tiac.net>

Dan Hailey:

Jonathan Weiner's book, "The Beak of the Finch" is a marvelous
description of a the work of a number of scientists who are finding that
evolution due to natural selection takes place much faster and is more
common than had previously been believed. Mr. Hailey should read it.

Jim Shea
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:01:04 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <960717223233_579208859@emout08.mail.aol.com>

Brant:

I hope she truly deserved the "A". I would not like to think that
you caved in to parental pressure.

Jim Shea
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:05:31 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
comments: to: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
in-reply-to: <pine.a32.3.93.960718082153.245040c-100000@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>

I didn't want to let a good thread die, so following from the latest
postings by Brant, PRG, etc., here is the latest update on DIVERSITY...

...with the issue of the decree nisi, and the consequently almost
inevitable divorce of the royal couple, DIVERSITY may have to lose its
patronage and inflated title. Thus, when (if?) the decree absolute is
issued, DIVERSITY will revert to its original name (DIPOLYTECHNIC).

For those who may doubt this story, let me tell you now that We are not
amused!!

Jim W.

P.S. While on good threads, here's another question: Do the British
royal family count as part of the fossil record -- and if so, what are
the implications for the theory of evolution? (Don't lose your heads
answering this one ;-)).
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:05:58 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com> "re: name inflation" (jul 17,
10:32pm)

> I had the parents of a former student come into my classroom after school
> and take turns reaming me out and cussing at me because their daughter was in
> danger of getting a B in my class. I gave her an A.

The parents probably think their efforts worked.




--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:08:26 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: School days, school days . . .
in-reply-to: <31eddca9@smtpout.em.cdc.gov>

John Gardenier:

Could you enlighten me as to what "the 14 point scientific method"
is. I have never heard of it.

Thank you.

Jim Shea
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:22:24 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: School days, school days . . .
in-reply-to: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov> "school days,
school days . . ." (Jul 18, 10:32am)

> Every child is
> taught the 14 point scientific method and use it to perform science
> projects.

What are the 14 points of "the" scientific method?


--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:10:33 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: The Roots of Baltimorism.

/From the article "Does HIV cause AIDS?" by Mark K. Anderson.
Published in Valley Advocate and in The Boston Phoenix (July 5, 1986, p.17)/

More important, the prevailing paradigm has held sway ever since
Gallo's press conference {April 23, 1984}, so that by itself is a
statement of its irrefutability. If Duesberg and his colleagues
are even partly right, how could most of the industrialized world
be (in the words of Patsy Cline) so wrong for so long? Duesberg,
in part, sees it as battle of egos, expertise, and that eternal
corrupting influence, money.

"Look at all my peers in AIDS research," he says. "They're all
virologists or retrovirologists like me. They're either on the
boards of biotechnology firms developing vaccines, developing
anti-viral drugs, developing AIDS-test kits, selling them,
marketing them, owning the companies. They're millionaires.

"Gallo alone, even at the NIH, gets a supplement to his salary of
over $100,000 a year," says Duesberg. "And that's a small token
compared to what people get at private universities. David
Baltimore sold a company on AIDS a couple of years ago for $30
million. Harold Varmus had to sell millions of investments
before he could become director of the NIH.

"It is very difficult." he says, "if you have 20 or 30 people
working for you at a company that makes a couple of million on
the side to tell them, 'Hey guys, we're working on the wrong
track. Let's give up that stuff.' So this explains why we have
so little freedom to move here."

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

Don't cry for David Baltimore. For the past ten years, he was doing very well.

Leon Mintz July 18, 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:36:31 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Response to Jim Whitehead's 7/18/96 "name inflation" posting.

>I didn't want to let a good thread die, so following from the latest
>postings by Brant, PRG, etc., here is the latest update on DIVERSITY...
>
>...with the issue of the decree nisi, and the consequently almost
>inevitable divorce of the royal couple, DIVERSITY may have to lose its
>patronage and inflated title. Thus, when (if?) the decree absolute is
>issued, DIVERSITY will revert to its original name (DIPOLYTECHNIC).
>
>For those who may doubt this story, let me tell you now that We are not
>amused!!


Jim, you made a believer out of me.


>P.S. While on good threads, here's another question: Do the British
>royal family count as part of the fossil record -- and if so, what are
>the implications for the theory of evolution? (Don't lose your heads
>answering this one ;-)).


About 99 percent of the species that ever lived have become
extinct. If alive, they seem like an evolutionary dead end.

If non-living, there's not much hope for their evolving into life,
now that earth's atmosphere is oxygenic.

As for losing my head, I don't plan on going to England anyway.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:46:17 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: School days, school days . . .

>> Every child is
>> taught the 14 point scientific method and use it to perform science
>> projects.
>
>What are the 14 points of "the" scientific method?
>
>Gregory Hennessy



The only 14-point thing I ever saw in science was Luis Alvarez's
pitchfork while he was chasing me around in the K-T swamp.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 14:37:12 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: About volcanoes.

1) I have a question for Dewey McLean.

What is the possibility of a giant volcano eruption? Is it possible that
for the kind of eruption that happened 60 million years ago to happen now?
Did Earth changed for the past 60 million years?

2) I can not judge the evidence for the killer asteroid theory, especially
if (as Dewey McLean claims) this evidence was cooked. I want to use another
method to compare dangers of asteroids versus volcanoes - extrapolation.

I know of only one historical record of a large extraterrestrial hit: 1908
hit in Siberia. The energy of this explosion could destroy London, but it
did not hit London and there were no recorded victims in Siberia.

There is a huge historical record of the disasters caused by volcanoes. The
whole cities and civilizations had been wiped out. How many catastrophic
eruptions did we have in the past 120 years? How many more huge eruptions
did not result in large catastrophes because they happened in wilderness
(Mt. St. Helens) or because people had been evacuated (Mt. Penatubo)?

How many volcanic eruptions during recorded human history resulted in world
wide climate changes: cold winters and "years without summer?"

The amount of disasters from volcanoes and asteroids can not be compared!
If we extrapolate our experience over millions of years, volcanoes must be
the first suspects in any catastrophic events.

Humanity suffered from earthquakes and tsunamis even more than it suffered
from volcanoes but it has no relation to K-T extinction debate. Earthquakes
can not influence Earth's climate or kill wild dinosaurs. Only domesticated
dinosaurs could have been killed when heavy stone barns collapsed.

Leon Mintz July 18, 1996
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:03:41 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: About volcanoes.

Response to Leon Mintz's 7/18/96 "About volcanoes" posting.


Wow! And I thought Luis Alvarez was tough.

Thanks, Leon, these are fun questions, and I'll try to answer them.
But please promise you won't chase me around with a 14 point pitchfork.

I was getting something ready for one of Jere Lipp's postings on
the K-T. I'll try to combine the two.

Give me little time. Now that I'm beginning a new phase of
research, another of my multiple personalities is trying to take over. I'm
afraid it may be the Amphibian.

I've heard, from good source, that God doesn't like my K-T theory
and may send me back to the amphibian level for reeducation by
Creationists.

But, what the hell. If Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA, of "Newt Congress"
fame) can get elected to Congress, and wind up as chair of the subcommittee
on energy and environment, scientific illiteracy (did I spell it right?) is
no impediment to success.

Cheers,
Dewey


>1) I have a question for Dewey McLean.
>
>What is the possibility of a giant volcano eruption? Is it possible that
>for the kind of eruption that happened 60 million years ago to happen now?
>Did Earth changed for the past 60 million years?
>
>2) I can not judge the evidence for the killer asteroid theory, especially
>if (as Dewey McLean claims) this evidence was cooked. I want to use another
>method to compare dangers of asteroids versus volcanoes - extrapolation.
>
>I know of only one historical record of a large extraterrestrial hit: 1908
>hit in Siberia. The energy of this explosion could destroy London, but it
>did not hit London and there were no recorded victims in Siberia.
>
>There is a huge historical record of the disasters caused by volcanoes. The
>whole cities and civilizations had been wiped out. How many catastrophic
>eruptions did we have in the past 120 years? How many more huge eruptions
>did not result in large catastrophes because they happened in wilderness
>(Mt. St. Helens) or because people had been evacuated (Mt. Penatubo)?
>
>How many volcanic eruptions during recorded human history resulted in world
>wide climate changes: cold winters and "years without summer?"
>
>The amount of disasters from volcanoes and asteroids can not be compared!
>If we extrapolate our experience over millions of years, volcanoes must be
>the first suspects in any catastrophic events.
>
>Humanity suffered from earthquakes and tsunamis even more than it suffered
>from volcanoes but it has no relation to K-T extinction debate. Earthquakes
>can not influence Earth's climate or kill wild dinosaurs. Only domesticated
>dinosaurs could have been killed when heavy stone barns collapsed.
>
>Leon Mintz July 18, 1996


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:15:58 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

Leon Mintz:

Does your quotation of that drivel from The Boston Phoenix (et
al.) mean that you don't think HIV causes AIDS or that you are
associating D. Baltimore with those hegemnonic heavies Duesberg
is accuses of scientific fraud because they're rich?

PRG
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 06:55:21 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: william grey <w.grey@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <pine.a32.3.93.960718082153.245040c-100000@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> I'm still trying to re-learn grammar so as to write such memos as
> begin "Any student wishing to substitute a term paper for the final exam
> should hand in THEIR proposal by May 15th..."

I agree that these constructions grate, but familiarity will soften their
impact. After all the singular pronouns "thou" and "thee" have also gone
the way of triceratops and have been replaced by plural counterparts. No
doubt an earlier generation complained about akward constructions and
grammatical solecisms. I think it's worth perservering with the felt
awkwardness in the interests of developing a more inclusive language. (I
don't have any comparable tolerance for the addition of "phallogocentrism"
and other such terms of art to our vocabulary. I just don't find them
helpful in the task of making sense of it all.)

William Grey email: pdwgrey@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Department of Philosophy Tel: + 61 7 336 52099
University of Queensland Fax: + 61 7 336 51968
Brisbane QLD 4072, AUSTRALIA http://www/uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:08:56 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: robert curtis <rkc1@village.ios.com>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Thou art too tolerant!

R. K. Curtis
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:21:14 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 17:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
from: daniel laure hailey <eagledan@copland.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> Evolution IS a "proven fact," or better, a set of brute facts
> about the history of this planet and the course of change in its
> biosphere. The only argument going is about the MECHANISM of
> change in the biota; within biology it is about how much of the
> change is due to plain old natural selection and how much due to
> other -- vaguely defined -- processes. That selection is at
> least a large part of it nobody who knows those brute facts ande
> is honest disputes. The other legitimate argument is religious
> and quasi-philosophical: it is called "intelligent design," and
> it didn't work very well for St. Thomas or William Paley (1802);
> but it's getting a bit of a ride again these days. It remains
> "legitimate" only because there is not a solid theory of the
> origin of life on this planet, a few billion years ago. So it is
> NOT fraud for a textbook to suggest that evolution happened.
> It's just a fact.
>
> PRG
>
Evolution is NOT a proven fact! You can't duplicate it or show me one
fossil of something that evolved. As far as the mechanism goes, natural
selection only changes the genes being used in a particular organism. It
does not add new ones. Mutatated genes are debilitating if they survive.
The problem is perceptual. You look at a group of genetically similar
organisms and see progression (but without transition). I see design.
If I were in a development of similar houses I would percieve that the same
builder had been there. I imagine you might think one house evolved from
the previous one. Sound ridiculous? That's what I think when someone
tells me evolution is a proven fact and offers no evidence. To date no
one has offered any verifiable proven evidence and therfore I conclude
that evolution is a theory not a fact.


\\\|||///
=== === dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
{ O O }
| > | People who know how work for people who know why.




Al Higgins
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:22:28 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 17:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
from: daniel laure hailey <eagledan@copland.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>

Jim,

Why, do you have a fossil of a transitionary form of life?
If so, it would be a first.
Perhaps you would like to show me some evidence of evolution like maybe
an example?
I was always taught if you couldn't reproduce the results then what you
have is a theory not science. As far as the propaganda I've been
reading, it's called college and high school textbooks. Lots of theories
but little or no evidence. I have a standard public high school and
college education (Temple and Univ. of DE) and I've been taught evolution
since I was in my first elementary class. When I began teaching it to my
own students I really began to investigate the theory. Perhaps I need a
phd to study it as well as you but I have done the best I can with the
meager brain I have been given and have come to the conclusion that you
phd's take more on faith than the religious people do when they tell me
there is a God.

But, like I said if you got a fossil of some transitionary form show me.
I believe Darwin said the fossil record would bear out his theory and all
the research I have done tells me the fossil record shows explosions of
life not gradual changes and of the millions of fossils we have not one
is of a transitionary form. Just too many holes in this theory for me.

Dan

On Wed, 17 Jul
1996, James Shea wrote:

> Dan Hailey:
>
> I don't know whose propaganda you've been reading, Dan, but you
> really do need to read more biology, geology, and philosophy of science.
> To say that your knowledge of evolution is incomplete would be a gross
> understatement of the most extreme kind, and I do not consider myself to
> be an expert.
>
> Jim Shea
>

\\\|||///
=== === dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
{ O O }
| > | People who know how work for people who know why.




Al Higgins
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:28:54 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <v01540b00ae13e15a7b10@{128.173.32.83}>

Yes, I think we all have this problem. One real problem with grading - at
least in non-mathematical subjects - is simply that it isn't all that
accurate. Our pass-mark is defined as 50%, but I can't say with any
conviction that a student who scores 50 is actually doing any better work
than one who gets, say, 49.5 or 49, let alone doing work _so much better_
that one passes and one doesn't.

I can alter the pass-mark, but then what about 48.5, 48 and so on . . . .

My most memorable confrontation took place about a decade ago, when a
young woman student brought her fundamentalist pastor in to argue her
case for a higher mark (she'd built a lot of religion into a purely
secular assignment topic). After I got him out of evangelical mode, I
explained the reasons for the mark and he said "Well, I think I have to
agree with you." And the student looked as if she'd got a sudden case of
concussion!

Martin Bridgstock

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Dewey M. McLean wrote:

> To Brant Watson:
>
> >Jim,
> >
> >In a message dated 96-06-28 10:23:52 EDT, you write:
> >
> ><< I'm sure that many others have similar stories. >>
> >
> > I had the parents of a former student come into my classroom after school
> >and take turns reaming me out and cussing at me because their daughter was in
> >danger of getting a B in my class. I gave her an A.
>
>
>
> What are you trying to state, or imply, in this message? That you
> caved in to parental pressure, and GAVE a mediocre student an "A" grade?
>
> One of the most unpleasant tasks of my quarter century of teaching
> university freshmen was listening to students--who were failing my
> class--complain to me how they had been "A" students in high school.
>
> And that their current difficulties must be the fault of the
> university professor--because they KNOW that they are "A" students. Because
> their high school teachers said so.
>
> High school teachers who mischaracterize mediocre students as "A"
> students delude colleges and universities into thinking they are something
> they clearly are not. And fill up our university classes with students who
> should not be there.
>
> On another point, any high school teacher who claims that evolution
> is fraud needs to become at least minimally educated before he tries to
> educate others. I have spent a big chunk of my professional career trying
> to isolate the primordial driving sources of evolution on this planet.
> Evolution is as close to fact as scientists are able to come.
>
> Not so cheerfully,
> Dewey McLean
>
>


> Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
> Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
> Virginia Polytechnic Institute
> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>
> Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
> Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html
>


>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:01:31 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win

Bailey says, in reply to Gross,

>Evolution is NOT a proven fact!

But then, what in science IS a proven fact? Isn't uncertainty the essence
of science? In my view, the evidence in favor of evolution is stronger
than the evidence for most other aspects of science, particularly in the
medical sciences that I know best. That is no barrier to progress, and we
are constantly readjusting our views. So what? We move forward, not
backward, and if someone can show me stronger evidence for an alternative
than for evolution, I'll be happy to rearrange my view on that, too.

The problem as I see it is that no verifiable evidence for creationism has
ever been offered and validated, while the evidence in favor of evolution
is massive. It would take a LOT to satisfy minimal requirements for a
burden of proof. Even the most dedicated creationist must view the world
as if God, when he created the earth, put fossils in the rocks, rings in
the trees, maybe a navel on Adam, etc. And the creationist must then go on
to ask if God is inconsistent -- wouldn't He also create and allow us to
discover a geology that is entirely consistent with the formation of
geologic structures over time (though as we learn more our understanding
may change), astrophysical objects and properties that, when we find them,
will be consistent with the observations already made (again allowing for
change, perhaps radical change), even the biologic traces consistent with
evolution? And if God is consistent, wouldn't it make sense to view the
world AS IF it were formed more or less along the lines of our preesent
sccientific understanding? And that would be a defensible position --
everything created some 6000 years ago, but with every object and process
as if it had been operating (and evolving) over the millenia. (I don't
believe it for a moment, but that position would be almost unassailable,
and I could respect the creationist who believes it.)
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
I'm a bit tired of creztionists who do not understand science and who do
not listen enough to understand the scientists' point of view. Simply
repeating over and over that "There is no proof" doesn't get us anywhere.


John C. Bailar III
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:58:40 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: dean costello <costello@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win

At 06:22 PM 7/18/96 -0500, you wrote:
>


>Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 17:29:40 -0400 (EDT)
>from: daniel laure hailey <eagledan@copland.udel.edu>
>Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
>to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
>Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD
<SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
>
>Jim,
>
>Why, do you have a fossil of a transitionary form of life?
>If so, it would be a first.

Not at all. How many would you like? Since you have something about
transitional fossiles, you might want to check out the labrynthodont. This
is a transitional form between amphibian and reptile. It is used in
comparative chordate anatomy as an example of transitory species (actually,
in this case, I think it would be a
transitory...mmm...{kingdom,phylum,class...} order, I believe. I can never
remember the correct order.

>Perhaps you would like to show me some evidence of evolution like maybe
>an example?

Like maybe I have the bad feeling that you are a True Believer, and as a
result I can show you anything and it will be a priori rejected?
-
Dean Costello
costello@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 20:49:56 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Creation

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 18:01:31 -0600 "John C. Bailar III"
<jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu> writes:
>Bailey says, in reply to Gross,
>
> Even the most dedicated creationist must view the world
>as if God, when he created the earth, put fossils in the rocks, rings in
the trees, >maybe a navel on Adam, etc. And the creationist must then go
on
>to ask if God is inconsistent -- wouldn't He also create and allow us to
>discover a geology that is entirely consistent with the formation of
>geologic structures over time (though as we learn more our understanding
>may change), astrophysical objects and properties that, when we find
>them,will be consistent with the observations already made (again
allowing
>for change, perhaps radical change), even the biologic traces consistent

>with evolution? And if God is consistent, wouldn't it make sense to
view
>the world AS IF it were formed more or less along the lines of our
>present scientific understanding? And that would be a defensible
position --
>everything created some 6000 years ago, but with every object and
>process as if it had been operating (and evolving) over the millennia.
(I
>don't believe it for a moment, but that position would be almost
>unassailable, and I could respect the creationist who believes it.)

I believe in creation and pretty much along the lines you've just stated.
( I don't like the word creationist since it implies a fundamentalist
christian which is not what I am.)
In my opinion God created the world in FULL BLOWN state. Adam was not a
baby at creation and ,obviously, neither was the universe. I therefore
accept certain theories, such as the Big Bang theory, as legitimate
premises on which to predict future events. I do not, however, believe
that the actual event ever took place. I have never understood the panic
which many religious people go into regarding geology. God created
mountains and rivers and canyons AS IF erosion and plate shifts had been
taking place for millions of years. This is logical! There was decaying
matter in the forests at creation. How else did plants grow?

I don't, however, accept the theory of evolution. Primarily
because it doesn't really fit in with the biblical account. It would
probably be possible to squeeze it in but it would definitely be an
uncomfortable fit. I feel no need to try however as the evidence for
evolution is quite scanty. I don't need "scientific proof" for my belief
in creation because I believe that God personally revealed himself to his
people on Mt. Sinai and identified himself as creator. As far as I'm
concerned then, the burden of proof is on the evolution side since I've
got a perfectly good working premise already.

>I'm a bit tired of creationists who do not understand science and who
>do not listen enough to understand the scientists' point of view.

Frankly, I find them to be somewhat embarrassing.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:34:57 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <19960718.204957.3646.0.dalaze@juno.com>

Yes, the view that everything was created exactly as if it were old is
utterly beyond any kind of refutation.

On the other hand, why stop there? Why could we not all have been created
a fraction of a second ago, with all our memories intact. I never started
writing this message. All but the last word or two was created at the
same time I was.

You did not begin reading this message. Your memories of doing so were
created with you. etc etc.

What this shows, simply, is that one of the basic assumptions of science
- that there is a coherent reality, and we can make sense of it - is not
trivial. Leave out that assumption and science doesn't work.

Martin Bridgstock
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 21:52:05 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Creation

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:34:57 +1000 Martin Bridgstock
<M.Bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au> writes:
>Yes, the view that everything was created exactly as if it were old is
>utterly beyond any kind of refutation.
>
>On the other hand, why stop there? Why could we not all have been
created
>a fraction of a second ago, with all our memories intact.
>
>What this shows, simply, is that one of the basic assumptions of
science
>- that there is a coherent reality, and we can make sense of it - is
not
>trivial. Leave out that assumption and science doesn't work.
>
>Martin Bridgstock

Creation is not a contradiction to coherent reality nor does it mean that
we can't make sense of the world. It is only an assumption about the
inherent nature of reality. We can only make assumptions about that
anyway as you basically said. It does not affect our approach towards
scientific understanding. Logically speaking it is possible that we were
created seconds ago, however, there is no reason for anyone to believe
this. Creation in the traditional sense however is a tradition which was
assumed to be historical fact until not long ago. There is also no
recorded human history which can be shown to contradict it.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:33:08 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

Just a thought that occurs to me: David Baltimore may be rich, powerful,
brilliant, aggressive, domineering, ruthless etc etc. (I am sure that we
all have people around us who could give us negative references).

But the point is that, even if he is, he is still entitled to what we call
in Australia, a "fair go".

The issue is not "Is he a bastard who got what he deserved." It is "Was he
guilty?"

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 22:59:27 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Mail Delivery Failure.

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 17:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
from: daniel laure hailey <eagledan@copland.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>

On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

> Evolution IS a "proven fact," or better, a set of brute facts
> about the history of this planet and the course of change in its
> biosphere. The only argument going is about the MECHANISM of
> change in the biota; within biology it is about how much of the
> change is due to plain old natural selection and how much due to
> other -- vaguely defined -- processes. That selection is at
> least a large part of it nobody who knows those brute facts ande
> is honest disputes. The other legitimate argument is religious
> and quasi-philosophical: it is called "intelligent design," and
> it didn't work very well for St. Thomas or William Paley (1802);
> but it's getting a bit of a ride again these days. It remains
> "legitimate" only because there is not a solid theory of the
> origin of life on this planet, a few billion years ago. So it is
> NOT fraud for a textbook to suggest that evolution happened.
> It's just a fact.
>
> PRG
>
Evolution is NOT a proven fact! You can't duplicate it or show me one
fossil of something that evolved. As far as the mechanism goes, natural
selection only changes the genes being used in a particular organism. It
does not add new ones. Mutatated genes are debilitating if they survive.
The problem is perceptual. You look at a group of genetically similar
organisms and see progression (but without transition). I see design.
If I were in a development of similar houses I would percieve that the same
builder had been there. I imagine you might think one house evolved from
the previous one. Sound ridiculous? That's what I think when someone
tells me evolution is a proven fact and offers no evidence. To date no
one has offered any verifiable proven evidence and therfore I conclude
that evolution is a theory not a fact.


\\\|||///
=== === dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
{ O O }
| > | People who know how work for people who know why.




Al Higgins



Al Higgins
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:07:27 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: An Editorial

An Editorial

Here is the editorial from the 12 July 1996 edition of
Science. It's by Kenneth J. Ryan, the embattled chairman of the
Commission on Research Integrity. The report of that Commission
has been widely criticized by those who want to continue an
oversight system whose time has come.

The editorial is reproduced in its entirety.

++++++++++

\Ryan, Kenneth J. Editorial, "Scientific Imagination
and Integrity,"Science 273 (12 July 1996), p. 163.\

The Commission on Research Integrity (CRI) was created
in 1993 by Congress to attack problems that neither the
government nor the scientific community had dealt with
effectively during the prior decade. These problems are
not limited to an occasional high-profile case of
research misconduct but stem from the failure of many
institutions receiving federal research funding to deal
adequately with misconduct when it occurs. Moreover,
the scientific community has been reluctant to
discourage misconduct or sloppy research by developing
guidelines for data handling, responsible authorship,
and supervision of students or fellows in a research
project. Even the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
has indicated that such standards should be strictly
voluntary.*

The current research environment seems to foster
cynicism about simple virtues such as honesty and
fairness, and it clearly fosters hostility toward
anyone who makes claims about misconduct. Although NAS
and a few other professional societies have issued
reports and recommendations about research misconduct,
there has been no widespread action on or interest
about the subject. Perhaps the controversy generated by
the 1995 CRI report Integrity and Misconduct in
Research will stimulate the sort of wide-ranging
discussion of integrity and misconduct that has been
lacking in the scientific community for so long.

The report's recommendations to Congress and the
secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services include a new definition of misconduct that is
based on the principle that scientists be truthful and
fair in the conduct of research and the dissemination
of its results, a requirement that institutions provide
educational programs about sound research practices, a
bill of rights for whistleblowers, administrative
changes to improve institutional and governmental
handling of misconduct, and an exhortation to
professional societies to develop and disseminate codes
of ethics for their disciplines. A recent editorial in
Science by Frederick Grinnell** claims that CRl's
recommended definition of misconduct will inhibit
scientific creativity and does not account for the
ambiguity inherent in the practice of science. The risk
of inhibiting that creativity would be a serious
problem if it were real, but there is little evidence
or likelihood that asking scientists to be honest and
fair will constrain them. Furthermore, CRI knows of no
case in which an agency attempted to treat novel
research as misconduct. In "On the Art of Scientific
Imagination," the author Gerald Holten argues that
science is an artistic as well as a logical process.***
He affirms that "it would also be wrong if one were to
neglect the ever-present, complementary set of skills -
- logical reasoning, craftsmanship, and other
disciplined expertise -- that must be learned and can
be shared." It is these skills that I believe are being
neglected in the arguments over ambiguity and the
setting of guidelines for sound research practices.

Although CRI decided on truth and fairness as
fundamenta principles, "in framing its definition, the
Commission chose to describe legally enforceable
language." A definition hat is ultimately put into
regulatory language must be specific, and the examples
provided by CRI under the category of misappropriation,
interference, and misrepresentation (MIM) are not
easily confused with honest error or the ambiguities of
scientific practice. Moreover, the definition of MIM
reflects the types of problems that actually arose in
misconduct cases that were brought to the attention of
CRI over 15 months of open public hearings.

CRI believes that "research integrity is best
fostered by developing and disseminating clear
standards of behavior in science (whether by
professional organizations or by research institutions
or both), and reinforcing those standards through
education and example at all stages of scientific
development and at all levels of research
administration." Regardless of the response to its
recommendations, if the CRI report encourages
constructive discussion and new educational programs in
the scientific community on the issues of research
integrity and misconduct, it will have achieved an
important objective.


Thee author is Kate Macy Ladd Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Emeritus, at
Harvard Medical School, and was chairman of CRI.

References

* Responsible Science (National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 1992), vol. 1. Integrity and Misconduct
Research (Report of the Commission on Research
Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Washington, DC, 1995). **Science 272, 333
(1996). ***Daedalus 125, 183 (1996).


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:15:38 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <19960718.215211.10998.0.dalaze@juno.com>

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Da Laze wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:34:57 +1000 Martin Bridgstock

> Creation is not a contradiction to coherent reality nor does it mean that
> we can't make sense of the world.

Eh? Doesn't the belief that mountains were created already eroded, and
fossils already in the rocks imply that we can scientifically study
_recent_ eroded mountains but not old ones, and _recent_ remains in the
rocks, but not old ones? Even if they look similar? And isn't that a
contradiction to coherent reality?

> Logically speaking it is possible that we were
> created seconds ago, however, there is no reason for anyone to believe
> this.

Oh, but there is! A thoroughgoing scientist will argue that everything we
can observe can be scientifically investigated, throughout all
space, all phenomena and all time. My utterly consistent theory
means that nothing can be investigated, as it was all just
created. Either perspective is consistent and coherent. A halfway house
lacks either sort of consistency and coherence as outlined above.

Martin Bridgstock
Griffith University
Queensland
Australia
(Goodness, I haven't argued like this since I was a student!)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:36:47 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: john lauritsen <jlaurits@capecod.net>
Subject: AIDS Criticism Resources

AGAINST THE HIV-CAUSES-AIDS HYPOTHESIS:
BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND OTHER RESOURCES
July 1996

Compiled by John Lauritsen
jlaurits@capecod.net


There is great disparity between the political and the
scientific strength of the HIV-Causes-AIDS hypothesis.
Politically it prevails, through censorship revolving around the
interests of the multi-billion dollar AIDS Industry.
Scientifically, it was refuted decisively by molecular biologist
Peter Duesberg years ago. A rapidly growing number of scientists
are now convinced that the HIV-Causes-AIDS hypothesis is wrong,
and that it was bizarre and foolish from the very beginning.
The obvious parallel is Lysenkoism. For many years in the
Soviet Union no one publicly expressed disbelief in Lysenko's
crackpot theories that acquired characteristics can be inherited.
No one dared mention the principles of modern genetics, for to do
so would have meant risking one's career and even one's life.
There are topics on which reasonable and knowledgeable
people can disagree. The HIV-Causes-AIDS hypothesis is not one of
them. Here there are basically two camps: those who have done
their homework and know that the hypothesis is both false and
absurd, and those who are HIV-believers through ignorance.
For those who are open-minded, I have prepared a brief
reading list. My objective was to include only the strongest and
most readily available works.
Neville Hodgkinson's new book, AIDS: THE FAILURE OF
CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE, is the best AIDS history to date. It
presents comprehensive and objective analyses of all sides in the
various controversies -- "dissidents" as well as defenders of the
prevailing orthodoxies. Beginning in 1985 Hodgkinson wrote on
AIDS for the Sunday Times (London) as their medical correspondent,
and then later as their science correspondent.
INFECTIOUS AIDS: HAVE WE BEEN MISLED? (1996) presents all
of the major AIDS articles of Peter Duesberg -- articles which
were previously available only in scientific journals. These
articles are essential reading for an understanding of the AIDS
Phenomenon. Someday they will be required reading in History of
Science courses.
Duesberg's brilliant new book from Regnery, INVENTING THE
AIDS VIRUS, provides a relatively non-technical introduction to
AIDS-criticism. Also suitable for intelligent, general readers
are the 1994 REASON article and my own book, THE AIDS WAR.
The article by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et al., "Is a
Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?", provides a devastating
critique of the commonly used "HIV-antibody" tests, the Elisa and
the Western Blot. Neither of these tests has ever been validated
against the only meaningful standard, actual isolation of the
retrovirus HIV. In addition to being highly unreliable, these
tests react to many things that have nothing whatever to do with
HIV, such as malaria, leprosy, influenza, and many different
drugs. Nevertheless, these tests are the basis for an assumption
of "HIV infection" and for treatment with highly toxic nucleoside
analogue drugs (AZT, ddI, ddC, d4T, etc.) -- drugs which
reliably cause the death of the patient, even though he might be
perfectly healthy prior to treatment.
Ian Young's book, THE STONEWALL EXPERIMENT, is not primarily
about "AIDS". However, it provides a profound and beautifully
written portrait of the particular subset of gay men who are
becoming sick in ways that are diagnosed as "AIDS" -- the
psychological and toxicological health risks in their lives.
CONTINUUM Magazine has been publishing critical AIDS
articles since 1992. 172 Foundling Court, Brunswick Centre,
London WC1N 1QE, England. Tel.: {+44} (01) 171 713-7071.
Several Internet web sites contain critical AIDS articles.
The largest is the AIDS Information Bulletin Board System (AIB),
whose vast archives can be accessed:

By gopher: gopher://itsa.ucsf.edu:70/00/.i/.q/.d/
By ftp: ftp ftp://itsa/ucsf/edu:70/00/.i/.q/.d/
By web: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~beng/aidsbbs.html

In addition there is an impressive new Rethinking AIDS web site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido/

And the Sumeria site, "exploring alternative ideas in health,
science, and spirituality", has featured AIDS-dissident material for
some time (including the articles listed below):

http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/

* * * * * * *

Peter H. Duesberg (editor).
AIDS; VIRUS OR DRUG INDUCED? (book).
Articles by E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., P.H. Duesberg, V.L.
Koliadin, M. Craddock, M.D. Zaretsky, D.T. Chiu, R.S.
Root-Bernstein, H.W. Haverkos, D.P. Drotman, B.J. Ellison,
A.B. Downey, G.T. Stewart, K.B. Mullis, S. Harris, S. Lang,
N. Hodgkinson, P. Johnson, T. Bethell, J. Lauritsen, and C.
Farber.
Kluwer Academics Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1996).

Peter H. Duesberg.
INFECTIOUS AIDS: HAVE WE BEEN MISLED? (book).
A collection of thirteen articles originally published in
scientific journals.
North Atlantic Books (1996)
P.O. Box 12327
Berkeley, CA 94712
For orders: 1 800 337-2665

Peter H. Duesberg.
INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS (book).
Regnery Publishing, Inc. (1996)
P.O. Box 39
Federalsburg, MD 21632-0039
For orders: 1 800 955-5493

Neville Hodgkinson.
AIDS: THE FAILURE OF CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE (book).
Fourth Estate (1996).
6 Salem Road
London W2 4BU
England.
{+44} (0171) 727-8995 fax: {+44} (0171) 792-3176
Can be ordered from Book Services by Post Ltd:
via e-mail: bookshop@enterprise.net
via fax: {+44} 1624 670923
via Internet web site: www.bookpost.co.uk (secure server)

John Lauritsen.
THE AIDS WAR: PROPAGANDA, PROFITEERING AND GENOCIDE FROM THE
MEDICAL-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (book).
Asklepios (1993).
Box 1902, Provincetown, MA 02657-0245.
For ordering information contact jlaurits@capecod.net
or call (508) 487-8369.

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner. and John M.
Papadimitriou.
"Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?".
BIO/TECHNOLOGY, June 1993, pp. 696-707.

Charles A. Thomas Jr., Kary B. Mullis, and Phillip E. Johnson.
"What Causes AIDS: It's an Open Question".
REASON, June 1994. (The December 1994 issue of REASON has 10
pages devoted to correspondence and authors' replies
concerning the June article.)

Ian Young.
THE STONEWALL EXPERIMENT: A GAY PSYCHOHISTORY (book).
Cassell.
London and New York 1995.
For orders: 1 800 243-0138 (hours: 8:30-17:30 CST)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:25:34 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Scientific Misconduct?

All,
I have been reading this string, and I am completely unqualified to
comment, but there is one thing I would like to say. Dewey wrote:

>>Do attempts to block publication of opposing scientific viewpoints
constitute a form of scientific misconduct (in spite of current
definitons)?<<

I believe there should be a legitimate scientific publication which would
be willing to publish maverick or dubious articles. BUT, it should be in a
format where the report has been circulated among experts who are capable of
evaluating it well, then include their responses in the same issue.
My reasons for this are:
First, it puts science in a good light...open debate, freedom to make
a claim, and obligation to have it scrutinized.
Second, those who feel overlooked or persecuted for their ideas will
no longer be able to appeal to sympathy.
Third, those same claimants will be considerably less credible if they
rush to the popular press with their ideas. Velikofsky, Mack, and others
would have had their views criticized along with their original publication,
leaving little justification for their need to publish in the popular media.
Fourth, many issues could be settled once and for all instead of
lingering and festering for years.

Does such a publication exist in any scientific journals? Couldn't
"Science" or "Nature" have a special section dedicated specifically to these
kinds of research?

Brant
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:48:54 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

To Prof Wm. Grey:

Most efforts to make language "more inclusive" have the opposite
effect, since the devices become codes for (politically or
socially) correct usage. evolutionary change is one thing; and
there are a thousand Just So stories about it, some of them true.
Dictated change is quite another. One must ask who is doing the
dictating and for what purposes. The process is nothing like as
benign as you present it.

PRG
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 21:55:35 PDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: barry roth <barryr@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation

I have been on the Internet long enough to recognize a troll when I see one,
and I sincerely believe dan hailey is giving his summer high school class an
object lesson by posting mainline creationist dogma to see what responses it
calls up. (And, like bona fide creationists, he posts it over and over, even
after it has been utterly dissected and laid bare for the fraud {ah, there's
the relevance} that it is.) Welcome, brother Educator!

And I'm proud to be a participant in a List that generates such intelligent,
patient responses as we've seen here. When dan's type of posting appears on
many of our finer Usenet groups, for instance, responders often treat it
like something to be scraped off one's shoes. Even though my own opinions
often run to that more visceral type, I prefer the company here.

Regards to all,

Barry Roth
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:52:13 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win

Mr. Hailey:

For Pete's sake, go and read a book. I'll make it easy for you,
for a start toward honesty: David Young, THE DISCOVERY OF
EVOLUTION (CAmbridge University Press, 1992).

PRG
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:59:05 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: The Roots of Baltimorism II.

On July 18, 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:

>Leon Mintz:
>
>Does your quotation of that drivel from The Boston Phoenix (et
>al.) mean that you don't think HIV causes AIDS or that you are
>associating D. Baltimore with those hegemnonic heavies Duesberg
>is accuses of scientific fraud because they're rich?
>
>PRG

1) The information that I posted was unknown to me before and I found it
interesting. I believe that this information was unknown to many other
Scifraud readers and could be interesting to them also. Readers of Scifraud
can make their own conclusions.

After I notified Al Higgins, he posted The Wall Street Journal editorial
defending David Baltimore. Four days ago, I posted Henry Miller's letter to
the editor from the WSJ. This letter strongly supported Baltimore and
blasted John Dingell. Why didn't Paul Gross ask: what did I mean by posting
Henry Miller's "drivel" on Scifraud?

2) Supporters of Baltimorism are trying to gag their opponents before
"scientific" debate. Duesberg was called "the founder of retrovirology, he
"has superlative scientific credentials." NIH gave tens of millions of
dollars to charlatans without any credentials. Why there was no money for
Duesberg to study effects of nitrite inhalants on rats?

In physics, the more reverend and accepted the theory is, the more
experimental tests are conducted to debunk (or confirm) this theory. What
is wrong with biology? I was trying to bring on Scifraud interesting
information from different sources. Baltimorists don't understand such
approach. Anderson's article ends with a quote from Kary Mullis: "This
debate is in part about two questions," he says. "What do you call a
scientist, and how do you distinguish the scientist from a theologian?"

3) As was mentioned before, in all such disputes it is very important to
protect due process. A prompt disclosure of a significant financial
interest in the outcome of the dispute is a very important part of due
process. It is one the most important questions for the scientists
interested in ethics to consider.

Leon Mintz July 19, 1996
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:59:04 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

>Just a thought that occurs to me: David Baltimore may be rich, powerful,
>brilliant, aggressive, domineering, ruthless etc etc. (I am sure that we
>all have people around us who could give us negative references).
>
>But the point is that, even if he is, he is still entitled to what we call
>in Australia, a "fair go".
>
>The issue is not "Is he a bastard who got what he deserved." It is "Was he
>guilty?"
>
>jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)

/From The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 18, 1989, p. 19
"Some at Rockefeller U. Ask Biologist to Refuse Presidency"
By David L. Wheeler /

"Some Rockefeller University faculty members have asserted that because Mr.
Baltimore did not write a prompt letter of correction to the journal in
which the paper was published, he might not handle problems in a
straightforward manner if he were to become Rockefeller's president.
Anthony Cerami, dean of graduate and postgraduate studies at the university,
and some other prominent faculty members have told the trustees they do not
want Mr. Baltimore to be president."

According to the ORI report and to the Research Integrity
Adjudications Panel report, David Baltimore was guilty as charged.

David Baltimore also used his power, aggressiveness, ruthlessness,
etc., etc. to lynch Margot O'Toole who dared to request these corrections.

Leon Mintz July 18, 1996
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:14:25 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: inclusive language

>To Prof Wm. Grey:
>
>Most efforts to make language "more inclusive" have the opposite
>effect, since the devices become codes for (politically or
>socially) correct usage. evolutionary change is one thing; and
>there are a thousand Just So stories about it, some of them true.
>Dictated change is quite another. One must ask who is doing the
>dictating and for what purposes. The process is nothing like as
>benign as you present it.
>
>PRG


I have known a woman complain bitterly about the use (not by me) of the
term "girls", and had to remind her that she used the expression herself
constantly. I wrote an article recently with a female colleague and it was
*her* who put the generic term "man" in the piece. I constantly hear women
refer to other women as "girls". My wife complains about the use of
forced-sounding inclusive language in books she is reading.

There is a constant analogy drawn between "girls" for "women" and "boys"
for African-Americans. However, I would never say "boys" because this can
only be insulting whereas "girls" in my mind is an informal usage for
"young women". One must look at the intention.

You may say, why use the PC "African-Americans"? My answer would be
because it is accurate.

My wife sometimes describes her male colleagues as "boys". I get called a
"boy" occasionally, at 41.

The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies. I agree with Dr Gross'
point which I take to be that the whole thing needs to evolve, not be fixed
by Diktat.



jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 00:04:50 EDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leslie baker <st403291@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: About volcanoes.

Leon Mintz has directed the following questions to Dewey McLean, and I
know Dewey is going to answer them, but I thought I'd butt in anyway.
Who can resist a question about their research?

>
>What is the possibility of a giant volcano eruption? Is it possible that
>for the kind of eruption that happened 60 million years ago to happen now?
>Did Earth changed for the past 60 million years?
>
Flood basalt eruptions happen periodically but not very frequently: say,
tens to hundreds of millions of years between events (they are not regular).
One could happen tomorrow, but I wouldn't sit up nights worrying.

(deletia)
>
>There is a huge historical record of the disasters caused by volcanoes. The
>whole cities and civilizations had been wiped out. How many catastrophic
>eruptions did we have in the past 120 years? How many more huge eruptions
>did not result in large catastrophes because they happened in wilderness
>(Mt. St. Helens) or because people had been evacuated (Mt. Penatubo)?
>
>How many volcanic eruptions during recorded human history resulted in world
>wide climate changes: cold winters and "years without summer?"
>
This is true to a point, but you are mixing up types of volcanic eruption,
as well as the scale on which they are capable of causing devastation.
Explosive eruptions like those at Pinatubo or St. Helens can indeed be
very violent and destructive. They can kill thousands of people and can
release sulfur gases which cause global cooling. But they are more or
less instantaneous on a geologic time scale: the eruptions last no more
than a few days, and the climate effects dissipate within a few years.
They are very bad, but they go away relatively quickly.

The flood basalt eruptions that Dewey and others relate to mass extinction
are quite different. Instead of exploding, they ooze -- think of Hawaii or
Iceland, with lava fountains erupting from fissures. Only a flood basalt
province is much larger (imagine a Hawaii the size of Colorado), and it
can keep erupting for a very long time - months, perhaps years. It will
wax and wane, but it will erupt on and off for several million years.

This means that, as lava is continually pumped out, so are the gases that
can cause climate change. Because they are continuously replenished, any
climate change that results can last for a very long time, not just a few
years as after an explosive eruption. So anything living at the time a
flood basalt went off would have to adapt to a whole new environment with
a wildly fluctuating climate.

There are, I believe, flood basalt provinces correlated with most of the
major extinction events. Impact proponents have occasionally feebly
suggested that flood basalt eruptions are _caused_ by impact events,
but this idea is an absurd attempt to explain away the pesky volcanoes.
It doesn't stand up to the evidence in the rocks. I once asked a
proponent of this idea whether he had considered that evidence; his
answer was a dismissive "No."

I will be happy to explain/clarify/defend my unjustified assertions, but
it will have to wait until I return to town at the end of the month.
Meanwhile, I'm certain Dewey will have some insightful comments to add.

Leslie Baker
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:26:00 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

>>Just a thought that occurs to me: David Baltimore may be rich, powerful,
>>brilliant, aggressive, domineering, ruthless etc etc. (I am sure that we
>>all have people around us who could give us negative references).
>>
>>But the point is that, even if he is, he is still entitled to what we call
>>in Australia, a "fair go".
>>
>>The issue is not "Is he a bastard who got what he deserved." It is "Was he
>>guilty?"
>>
>>jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
>
>/From The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 18, 1989, p. 19
> "Some at Rockefeller U. Ask Biologist to Refuse Presidency"
> By David L. Wheeler /
>
>"Some Rockefeller University faculty members have asserted that because Mr.
>Baltimore did not write a prompt letter of correction to the journal in
>which the paper was published, he might not handle problems in a
>straightforward manner if he were to become Rockefeller's president.
>Anthony Cerami, dean of graduate and postgraduate studies at the university,
>and some other prominent faculty members have told the trustees they do not
>want Mr. Baltimore to be president."
>
> According to the ORI report and to the Research Integrity
>Adjudications Panel report, David Baltimore was guilty as charged.
>
> David Baltimore also used his power, aggressiveness, ruthlessness,
>etc., etc. to lynch Margot O'Toole who dared to request these corrections.
>
>Leon Mintz July 18, 1996


If he *is* guilty then - OK, he is guilty (although I thought they had
decided that he wasn't after all). But this does not affect my basic
point. It is a man's actions, not his personality, which should be on
trial.

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:15:46 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: julian o'dea <jodea@mailhost.dpie.gov.au>
Subject: Re: Scientific Misconduct?

>All,
> I have been reading this string, and I am completely unqualified to
>comment, but there is one thing I would like to say. Dewey wrote:
>
>>>Do attempts to block publication of opposing scientific viewpoints
>constitute a form of scientific misconduct (in spite of current
>definitons)?<<
>
> I believe there should be a legitimate scientific publication which would
>be willing to publish maverick or dubious articles. BUT, it should be in a
>format where the report has been circulated among experts who are capable of
>evaluating it well, then include their responses in the same issue.
<snip>
>
> Does such a publication exist in any scientific journals? Couldn't
>"Science" or "Nature" have a special section dedicated specifically to these
>kinds of research?
>
> Brant

Yes. Such a publication does now exist. It is called the Internet.

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 04:17:22 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Jim,
In all fairness, was the context of the feminist claim fairly represented?
(I've missed some of this.) What was their purpose in making the statement
about logic...what prompted it?

I'm no philosopher, but I seem to remember a statement to the fact that
demonstration by socratic logic, while giving the appearance of drawing a
conclusion from certain premeses, is really nothing more than a way of giving
credibility to a conclusion which was already established. In other words,
it's a rigged deck. No new knowledge or information can really be derived
from such a method. Throughout history, people have used such syllogisms to
justify all kinds of social standards which we would consider unjust. Racism
and sexism have been "legitimized" using such reasoning. This is a fact that
I'm sure we can both agree on. Do you suppose the feminist's remarks were
intended in this context?

Brant
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 04:19:07 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

In a message dated 96-07-15 11:11:50 EDT, you write:

<< In just over forty years of combined research and science, I have made no
more than half a dozen contributions that I would describe as major. >>

John,
I know somebody who would give anything to have had just ONE.
Brant
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 04:19:02 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: brant watson <brantw3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: name inflation

Dewey,
I feel bad that I put you in a not-so-cheerful mood. Some explanation is
necessary.

>What are you trying to state, or imply, in this message? That you
caved in to parental pressure, and GAVE a mediocre student an "A" grade?<

I was threatened and intimidated by these people. Despite what I value as
a strong sense of integrity, I was going to give the girl an A. I have a
family to support. I mentioned that story to point out that I was prepared to
fudge the grade for my own self-preservation and that the existence of
conditions which would actually favor the parent in this situation, should
not exist. It has become so common for parents to browbeat teachers, with the
support of their local school boards, that most teachers wouldn't dare to
challenge the system by setting standards which would make them stick out
like a sore thumb.
When I first started teaching, I heard a principal challenging a teacher
because his students got almost all A's and B's in his classes. About ten
years later, I heard a principal criticize a teacher for giving too many D's
in a gifted and talented class. This was the consequence of parental
pressure. Times had changed quickly. Two years ago, I asked the principal why
a legal absence is given to a student who took four days extra vacation and
didn't even have the required note prior to the absence. He responded by
telling me the absence was legal because he said so. These things happen
constantly. When students start their summer vacations two or three days
before the end of the school year, we are specifically instructed to
calculate the student's grade on the basis of the work possible as of the
time of the student's departure. No extra work has to be submitted.
So yes, as a matter of confession, and one of which I am not proud, I was
afraid to give the student anything but an A when the parents threatened to
have my job. For two years, our principal published grade stats by
department, making sure to commend those with the highest grades for being
the most successful teachers. He announced at a parent back-to-school meeting
that the goal for the year was "success for all students at all times." I was
probably the only teacher who really listened to this and I was extremely
stressed out at the implications of how such a thing could be achieved.
My story was not to support the notion of grade inflation. I was, in a
self-effacing way, pointing out how I, as a teacher, have been a victim of
the trend. Furthermore, I know that the principal has the authority to order
me to change a grade or suffer disciplinary action for insubordination,
ultimately ending with his authority to change the grade anyway. (BTW, this
wasn't a high schooler, it was a sixth grader in Technology Education,
formerly Industrial Arts.) What I didn't say is that the student's B was
largely due to the fact that she had not completed a major project. After I
got roasted and was clearing out the room after students had left for the
summer, I found the part of the girl's project which had been missing. She
had put it in the wrong place. One simple step now, and the project was
finished. The missing part was an assembly which constituted most of the
work. Fortunately, I didn't have to lie about her grade, but I am pretty sure
I would have.

>And that their current difficulties must be the fault of the
university professor--because they KNOW that they are "A" students. Because
their high school teachers said so.<

The girl was an excellent student. She had always made straight A's. I
know this doesn't mean as much as some would like it to. I also know that my
subject can often be inconsistent with other grades, either to the student's
advantage OR disadvantage. Most parents realize how different my subject is,
especially for 6th graders, and usually accept that as an explanation for an
unexpected grade. Some students are successful in school, not so much because
of their raw intellectual ability, but more because of their ability to
conform and anticipate. The methods and activities in my subject do not
follow the format to which many of these children have become accustomed.
Some weaker students benefit from this and some stronger students have
trouble making the adaptation. She was one of the latter.

All I can do is apologize for being tempted to lower the standards, but I
do so in the context of a complaint that conditions demand it. That's why I
want to get out of teaching.

Finally, you stated:
>On another point, any high school teacher who claims that evolution
is fraud needs to become at least minimally educated before he tries to
educate others. I have spent a big chunk of my professional career trying
to isolate the primordial driving sources of evolution on this planet.
Evolution is as close to fact as scientists are able to come.<

I'm not sure what you were referring to. I have made very much the same
statement to others as you made here. When I was about twelve, my father put
a marvelous thing into my hands, even though I didn't realize it at the time.
It was a large Life book called "The Wonders of Life on Earth." Therein I
first experienced the true wonder of life and first learned of Darwin and
evolution. Before closing it for the first time, I had forever abandoned the
bible principles which I had been taught in Sunday School. Since then I have
learned what I could about evolution, have defended it almost militantly, and
have a strong sense of disgust for attempts to beat us into teaching
creationism in school. When I did teach high school science for a couple of
years, I went out of my way to illustrate the unifying principles of science
with evolution as my model. Twice I was brought before the principal for
espousing views which were contradictory to religious beliefs of some
students. Twice I had to confront fundamentalist type parents in his office.
I was criticized for straying from the content. (A unit of the course was
on marine biology. Because it was only glossed over in the text, I felt the
concept of evolution should be prominent in any study of biology. So, I was
not really off-topic. This was just a dodge to put me on the defensive.)

Even as a Technology Education teacher, when I teach my 7th graders about
the principles and process of graphic design, I describe the process as
design evolution...selection and revision, selection and revision. I even got
into some hot water for that, because I compared it to natural evolution
once.

Check out my member profile and I think you will be able to see my favorite
on-line statement. I have used it many times in arguments with creationists,
paranormalists, etc. "The world is more wonderful than most will ever know,
less miraculous than most will ever believe." This pretty much sums up my
position.

Finally, in case you are wondering, my position on evolution will never be
negotiable. Nor will any political/religious trend, no matter how strong,
make me give up that view or ascribe to any other. If I were a science
teacher and was ordered, upon pain of dismissal, to teach creationism as even
an alternative theory, I would go loudly and proudly to my doom. If I were
asked to state that evolution is not really a good scientific theory, I'd
cheerfully say they'd better get a strong rope to hang me with. I want a
bumper sticker that reads, "You'll take my Origin of Species out of my cold,
dead hands." Perhaps you misunderstood my position on this, or were
responding to someone else's post.

I hope that cheers you up a little.
Brant
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 06:44:16 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: lingua franca <edit@netcom.com>
Subject: private to moderator
in-reply-to: <960719041901_364621411@emout17.mail.aol.com>

Please send instruction on unsubscribing.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:13:02 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: anyone could win

Brant -- It may be that my "major" would not meet the standards of their
"major".
John


>In a message dated 96-07-15 11:11:50 EDT, you write:
>
><< In just over forty years of combined research and science, I have made no
> more than half a dozen contributions that I would describe as major. >>
>
>John,
> I know somebody who would give anything to have had just ONE.
> Brant

John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago
5841 S. Maryland Ave. MC-2007
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453
Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:20:52 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientific Misconduct?

To Brant Watson:


> I believe there should be a legitimate scientific publication which would
>be willing to publish maverick or dubious articles.

The issue in question is on CAUSE of the K-T extinctions. Please
indicate which theory--the asteroid, or the volcano--that you consider to
be maverick or dubious.

And what do you mean by "maverick"? One Webster definition is "an
independent individual who refuses to conform with his group." Another is
"an unbranded range animal."

The journal you visualize should be easy enough to establish. You
provide the start up, and maintenence, money--and a great salary for a
competent editor that everyone would trust.


>BUT, it should be in a
>format where the report has been circulated among experts who are capable of
>evaluating it well, then include their responses in the same issue.

Most scientists are so busy with their own work that they don't
have the time to review too many manuscripts. Re inclusion of their
responses, fine if they sign them. Arthur Schopenhauer, one of my favorite
philosophers, states that "An anonymous review has no more authority than
an anonymous letter; and one should be received with the same mistrust as
the other." Good luck finding very many reviewers who will sign their
reviews. That takes all the fun out of driving a wooden stake through
someone else's brain.

>My reasons for this are:
>First, it puts science in a good light...open debate, freedom to make
>a claim, and obligation to have it scrutinized.

Brant, what planet did you say you live on? Sounds idealistic. How
do I get there? Have you never read Voltaire's "we shall leave this world
as foolish and as wicked as we found it on our arrival"?

> Second, those who feel overlooked or persecuted for their ideas will
>no longer be able to appeal to sympathy.

Well, now HOW do I interpret this one? I'll do my best and let the
chips fall where they may. You raised the point--don't complain if you get
a few splinters in your ass.

Re "overlooked," I never felt that way. Up until the mid 1980s,
when I got ill and largely stopped giving interviews, the press was quite
generous to me. I've given many, many, interviews. In fact, I'm still being
sought out for interviews, and will give several within the next few weeks.
Most journalists I've met are good and fair and caring people.

Re "persecuted," if I've given that impression on Scifraud, it's an
incorrect one. For my approach on Scifraud, in part, I wanted to provide a
window into the inner workings of science that most outsiders never have
access to. Also, I was laying foundations for something a lot more fun.

Along the K-T way, I had to deal with some hard people. This old
warrior has his battle scars, sonny, and I'm proud of every goddam one of
them because I got them on the battlefield of life. I never shrunk back
from any situation, or anyone, along the way. For me, my work is the same
as my religion. If you are a student of the Bhagavad Gita, and have read,
"Think thou also of thy duty and do not waver. There is no greater good for
a warrior than to fight in a righteous war." you get a little feeling of
what I am really about.

For your "appeal to sympathy" bullshit, let me make it plain that I
do not consider myself a "whistle blower." I am a legitimate scientist who
developed one of the top two popular theories on the K-T. I speak out as a
citizen who is repelled by by the crap that goes on in science. I have a
civic and moral responsibility to speak out publicly. Me, a whistle blower
looking for sympathy?

That's no whistle, that's an Exocet missle.

>Third, those same claimants will be considerably less credible if they
>rush to the popular press with their ideas. Velikofsky, Mack, and others
>would have had their views criticized along with their original publication,
>leaving little justification for their need to publish in the popular media.

>Fourth, many issues could be settled once and for all instead of
>lingering and festering for years.

>Does such a publication exist in any scientific journals? Couldn't
>"Science" or "Nature" have a special section dedicated specifically to these
>kinds of research?

Brant, I could spend all day trying to write responses to this
naive AOL chatroom-type stuff.

Brant, you have blundered naively onto an intellectual battlefield.
And I don't want to take advantage of you. But please allow me to raise
some of my own legitimate points.

One of my complaints on the K-T is that many high school
teachers--in their naivety and gullibility--have brainwashed a generation
of their students. Those poor kids then come to the university already
"true believers" in the asteroid theory. Many are already as set in their
ways just as much as others who have been indoctrinated in Creationism.
Most have never even heard that the Deccan Traps accounts for most of the
K-T phenomena. TV videos, and some science magazines are soooo pretty and
convincing....

Brant, as a high school teacher, did you present both the asteroid
and volcano theories to your students? Or, did you help to brainwash a
generation along the way?

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:17:38 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Creation

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:15:38 +1000 Martin Bridgstock
<M.Bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au> writes:
>>On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Da Laze wrote:
>>
>> Creation is not a contradiction to coherent reality nor does it mean
that
> >we can't make sense of the world.
>
>Eh? Doesn't the belief that mountains were created already eroded, and
>fossils already in the rocks imply that we can scientifically study
>_recent_ eroded mountains but not old ones, and _recent_ remains in
>the rocks, but not old ones? Even if they look similar?
>
No, it does not. Any objects created as if they were aged would be
PRECISELY the same as if they HAD aged. This would be true at all
levels, including the atomic. Obviously, the creator would be capable of
doing this. Therefore one could scientifically study ANY object.

>> Logically speaking it is possible that we were
>> created seconds ago, however, there is no reason for anyone to
>>believe this.
>
>Oh, but there is! A thoroughgoing scientist will argue that everything
we
>can observe can be scientifically investigated, throughout all
>space, all phenomena and all time. My utterly consistent theory
>means that nothing can be investigated, as it was all just
>created. Either perspective is consistent and coherent. A halfway
>house lacks either sort of consistency and coherence as outlined above.

I'm afraid I don't quite get your point. You have not given a reason to
assume that everything was created seconds ago. You have only said that
it is coherent. Logically it is. The scientist would still be correct
however because any being capable of creating a universe would also be
capable of creating everything as if it was aged. If the goal of science
is to gain knowledge in order to understand and control the world around
this then this purpose would be served quite well.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:34:21 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation

To Brant Watson:


>I mentioned that story to point out that I was prepared to
>fudge the grade for my own self-preservation

>If I were a science
>teacher and was ordered, upon pain of dismissal, to teach creationism as even
>an alternative theory, I would go loudly and proudly to my doom.



Brant, you seem inconsistent to me.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html



Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:43:19 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: AIDS Criticism Resources
in-reply-to: john lauritsen <jlaurits@capecod.net> "aids criticism resources"
(Jul 18, 11:36pm)

> There are topics on which reasonable and knowledgeable
> people can disagree. The HIV-Causes-AIDS hypothesis is not one of
> them. Here there are basically two camps: those who have done
> their homework and know that the hypothesis is both false and
> absurd, and those who are HIV-believers through ignorance.


If you are going to be this insulting, you will not be able to find anyone to
pay attention to you.


--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:55:41 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "w. r. gibbons" <gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: name inflation
in-reply-to: <pine.ult.3.91.960719064129.27240e-100000@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, William Grey wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jul 1996, Paul R. Gross wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to re-learn grammar so as to write such memos as
> > begin "Any student wishing to substitute a term paper for the final exam
> > should hand in THEIR proposal by May 15th..."
>
> I agree that these constructions grate, but familiarity will soften their
> impact. After all the singular pronouns "thou" and "thee" have also gone
> the way of triceratops and have been replaced by plural counterparts.

What are you suggesting--that words disappear because of asteroid
impacts? Seems improbable; I'd prefer to believe that global warming is
responsible. I wouldn't mind if a smallish asteroid were to wipe out
some of the modern constructions intended to be inclusive, however.

Don't mind me, I sort of snapped when the faculty spent 2 hours debating
whether "freshman" should be replaced with "first year student" in all
university publications (it was). Besides, it's Friday.

Ray Gibbons Dept. of Molecular Physiology & Biophysics
Univ. of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT
gibbons@northpole.med.uvm.edu (802) 656-8910
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:05:00 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: mike miller <mbmiller@sirronald.wustl.edu>
Subject: DEA chemist falsified tests, jeopardizing hundreds of drug cases

DEA chemist falsified tests, jeopardizing hundreds of drug cases

Copyright ) 1996 Nando.net
Copyright ) 1996 San Antonio Express-News

SAN ANTONIO (Jul 19, 1996 00:05 a.m. EDT) -- Hundreds of federal drug
cases in a seven-state region could be affected by revelations that a Drug
Enforcement Administration chemist in Dallas reported results on drug
evidence without conducting the required tests.

Anne Castillo, a veteran DEA chemist, was suspended last month after
reportedly being confronted and acknowledging she had been filing false
reports since February of this year.

"It's a very disturbing situation, one that is unique in my experience. I
don't know what else I can say beyond that," Howard Schlesinger, director
of the DEA laboratory in Dallas, said Thursday.

It was unclear Thursday how many drug cases in South Texas may be involved
or may be affected by the disclosures.

Schlesinger said Castillo did the full range of controlled-substance
testing at the laboratory on hundreds of pieces of evidence.

"If you're talking about what happened since February, it's hundreds of
cases, but she's been an employee here for many years and we don't know
the possible extent. No one knows what happened before," he said by
telephone.

The lab tests evidence from Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona,
Louisiana and Mississippi, primarily for federal agencies.

Johnny Phelps, head of the Dallas DEA office, said the matter is being
investigated by DEA's Office of Professional Responsibility and declined
to discuss it.

"I'm aware of the situation, but there is an internal investigation
underway which precludes me from commenting," Phelps said.

He referred inquiries to Bill Simpkins of the Office of Professional
Responsibility in Washington. Simpkins likewise declined to comment.

Since the problem became known, federal prosecutors have begun informing
defense attorneys whose clients may have been convicted in part by
evidence tested and certified by Castillo.

One South Texas defense lawyer said he received written notice last week
that one of his clients, who is awaiting sentencing on a drug conviction,
may be affected.

Lawyer Robert Berg of Corpus Christi, Texas learned of the situation in a
motion filed with the court by Assistant U.S. Attorney Janice Ellington
that described Castillo's admissions of false certifications.

It also said "the DEA laboratory has been unable to distinguish the
samples which were tested from those which were not."

Ellington, who is based in Corpus Christi, declined comment on her motion.

Berg said he was told that 15 cases in Corpus Christi alone are involved.

"I think it's got the potential of tainting an awful lot of cases,
especially where there was a trial and she testified as an expert witness
for the government," said Berg, a former federal prosecutor, of Castillo.

He said, however, the revelations may present difficult decisions to
defendants who entered negotiated guilty pleas in drug cases.

"It's a difficult decision for everyone involved on the defense side. If a
person went to trial and was convicted, he could probably get a retrial,
and have another shot at it," said Berg.

"But if an individual entered a plea of guilty and now decides to withdraw
that plea and go to trial, they would lose the benefit of the plea
agreement. So it's a gamble," he continued.

It could not be learned how many other cases in Texas may be affected.

"We're assessing it now. We're waiting on more information to come from
the DEA. We'll be handling it on a case-by-case basis," said Gaynelle
Jones, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas in Houston.

Jones referred inquiries to the U.S. Justice Department in Washington.

John Russell, a spokesman there, said: "We're not going to make any
comment at all about this matter because it is an open investigation. We
are analyzing all of her exhibits and will take the proper steps to notify
anyone that we think should be notified."

Bill Blagg, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District in San Antonio,
could not be reached for comment.
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
It is also unclear if Castillo's testing lapses are correctable.

In some cases, the disputed evidence is intact and may be retested by
other chemists, but if discrepancies turn up in older cases, the evidence
may no longer exist, according to lab director Schlesinger.

"She's worked here for many years. Some of the evidence samples are here,
and some are not. We're doing everything we can," he said.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:30:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: School days, school days

Jim Shea and Gregory Hennessey asked what the 14-point description of
"scientific method" is. First of all, let me say that it is not mine. I
have come across it in two venues.

For Christmas's and birthdays, I do some of my gift shopping for my boys
from Edmunds Scientific (things like charts of the electromagnetic spectrum
and the periodic table, microscopes, stethoscopes, etc.) Those arrive along
with a "free" printed pedagogical brochure about the scientific method. As
I recall, it uses 14 points. I could not find a copy last night, but will
try to get another one from the company. I will be happy to summarize the
contents.

Although I have not seen a 14-point description of scientific method in
textbooks, my wife has. She is a PhD statistician who has been a judge at
many school scientific fairs. She does not have a specific text at hand
containing the material.

Would one of the educators on this list please comment further. John
Gardenier
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:55:20 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: daniel luchtel <dluchtel@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientific Misconduct?
in-reply-to: <960719002533_240931065@emout16.mail.aol.com>

There is such a "maverick" print journal in the medical area. It is:

"Medical Hypotheses" published by Churchill Livingstone, NY. Vol. 1 was
published in 1975, currently vol. 46 in 1996. Linus Pauling was one of its
co-editors until his death.

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Brant Watson wrote:

> All,
> I have been reading this string, and I am completely unqualified to
> comment, but there is one thing I would like to say. Dewey wrote:
>
> >>Do attempts to block publication of opposing scientific viewpoints
> constitute a form of scientific misconduct (in spite of current
> definitons)?<<
>
> I believe there should be a legitimate scientific publication which would
> be willing to publish maverick or dubious articles. BUT, it should be in a
> format where the report has been circulated among experts who are capable of
> evaluating it well, then include their responses in the same issue.
> My reasons for this are:
> First, it puts science in a good light...open debate, freedom to make
> a claim, and obligation to have it scrutinized.
> Second, those who feel overlooked or persecuted for their ideas will
> no longer be able to appeal to sympathy.
> Third, those same claimants will be considerably less credible if they
> rush to the popular press with their ideas. Velikofsky, Mack, and others
> would have had their views criticized along with their original publication,
> leaving little justification for their need to publish in the popular media.
> Fourth, many issues could be settled once and for all instead of
> lingering and festering for years.
>
> Does such a publication exist in any scientific journals? Couldn't
> "Science" or "Nature" have a special section dedicated specifically to these
> kinds of research?
>
> Brant
>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:46:20 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: School days, school days
in-reply-to: <31ef3a9a@smtpout.em.cdc.gov>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Gardenier, John S. wrote:

> Jim Shea and Gregory Hennessey asked what the 14-point description of
> "scientific method" is. First of all, let me say that it is not mine. I
> have come across it in two venues.
>
> For Christmas's and birthdays, I do some of my gift shopping for my boys
> from Edmunds Scientific (things like charts of the electromagnetic spectrum
> and the periodic table, microscopes, stethoscopes, etc.) Those arrive along
> with a "free" printed pedagogical brochure about the scientific method. As
> I recall, it uses 14 points. I could not find a copy last night, but will
> try to get another one from the company. I will be happy to summarize the
> contents.
>
> Although I have not seen a 14-point description of scientific method in
> textbooks, my wife has. She is a PhD statistician who has been a judge at
> many school scientific fairs. She does not have a specific text at hand
> containing the material.
>
> Would one of the educators on this list please comment further. John
> Gardenier
>

I know the book of which you speak, and have one around here somewhere. I
suspect Edmund supplies them in quantity free to schools. I recall it was
quite simplistic.

From the point of view of philosophy of science, any attempts to codify
scientific method, and make rules for carrying out science, are
wrongheaded and futile. They are bound to be incomplete, partly wrong, and
to have exceptions. They trivialize the process. Descartes tried it, and
failed. So did John Stuart Mill (his Canons of Discovery). It's about as
silly as writing rules for producing a great work of art, or a novel, or a
symphony. One physicist said that the scientific method is "Doing one's
damndest with one's mind."

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:53:54 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientific Misconduct?
in-reply-to: <pine.a32.3.92a.960719085026.13424a-100000@homer04.u.washington.edu>

> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Brant Watson wrote:
>
> > All,
> > I believe there should be a legitimate scientific publication which would
> > be willing to publish maverick or dubious articles. BUT, it should be in a
> > format where the report has been circulated among experts who are capable of
> > evaluating it well, then include their responses in the same issue.

If you could look at my 'nut' file of unsolicited mailings from folks
trying to get their ideas heard, you'd realize how difficult it would be
to find reviewers willing to take the time to dispassionately respond to
such things. This, alone, would force a 'selection' process, so those
printed would be those which could find responders. Marcello Truzzi tried
such a journal some years back, called the "Zetetic Scholar", but it died
after about 12 issues. In my view, it died because it was tedious and
boring, with endless nit-picking of what seemed to me irrelevant issues.
I think it had about 100 subscribers, and I've just given my complete set
to James Randi's new research library. So don't ask.

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:13:25 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ralph alpher <alpherr@gar.union.edu>
Subject: Halley

I suggest that a high school teacher of science named Halley did not exist
until a few days ago, and that he has attacked this net in order to
stimulate discussion. I cannot believe he could be teaching high school
kids. If he is, may the Force help us.

Ralph A. Alpher
Union College and Dudley Observatory
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:12:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

Re: the Mintz-O'Dea thread on David Baltimore:

Julian, I feel that the issue is far more pervasive and fundamental than
whether David Baltimore is a nice guy OR whether he is guilty in the ORI
case. It involves Ken Ryan, the NAS, the Commission on Research Integrity,
and the general understanding and acceptance of what is OK versus misconduct
in science.

According to Leon's postings from the DHHS Adjudication Panel and other
sources, there is little or no dispute on the following allegations
regarding Prof. Baltimore:

1. The research he supervised, which was reported in the Cell paper, was
conducted sloppily.
2. The paper contained a number of factual errors which should have been
caught by the authors prior to submitting it for publication.
3. The allegations of Margaret O'Toole were not dealt with by fact-finding
and considered scientific judgment, but were ignored or dismissed out of
hand.
4. When significant errors in the Cell paper were known, Dr. Baltimore
declined to make corrections for an extended period.
5. Dr. Baltimore used his influence to damage Dr. O'Toole's career not
because she was not a competent scientist, but because she had questioned
the quality of research he supervised.

Under definitions of misconduct currently in use, those recommended by the
National Academy of Science, and the position of the FASEB, none of the
above - nor all of them taken together - constitute research misconduct.
The Commission on Research Integrity definition would make some, but not
all of them, wrong. Leon Mintz appears outraged by some or all of this
behavior. Should we be surprised? The scientific community at large
appears to condone or excuse it - perhaps as aberrant exceptions to an
otherwise honorable and distinguished career. Or perhaps because the
research findings ultimately proved to be essentially sound and therefore it
does not matter how the research was done or reported.

My questions are:

1. If the points above are true, do they not damage the cause of science
generally? Ought not scientists object to such patterns of behavior?

2. If not, why not? What are the countervailing benefits which are achieved
by overlooking such practices?

3. Even if the research results in this case were valuable, do not such
practices create an unacceptable risk of poor scientific work? Might not
poor scientific work, backed by a prominent scientist, wastefully absorb
funds and other resources which would then not be available to other
researchers using better practices?

4. Does the widely condemned investigative methodology of ORI and
Congressman Dingle in this case mean that the issues involved can be
dismissed?

5. Does the vindication of Drs. Baltimore and Immanishi-Kiri excuse the
apparently deliberate harm done to Margaret O'Toole and others?

In short, I feel the more important issue is whether this case is useful in
examining the adequacy of currently accepted practices in science and in
revising: standards of research practice, professional society codes of
ethics, and investigative protocols when allegations of research misconduct
are made.

John Gardenier


from: julian o'dea
To: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.
Date: Friday, July 19, 1996 3:26PM
--
>>Just a thought that occurs to me: David Baltimore may be rich, powerful,
>>brilliant, aggressive, domineering, ruthless etc etc. (I am sure that we
>>all have people around us who could give us negative references).
>>
>>But the point is that, even if he is, he is still entitled to what we call
>>in Australia, a "fair go".
>>
>>The issue is not "Is he a bastard who got what he deserved." It is "Was
he
>>guilty?"
>>
>>jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
>
>/From The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 18, 1989, p. 19
> "Some at Rockefeller U. Ask Biologist to Refuse Presidency"
> By David L. Wheeler /
>
>"Some Rockefeller University faculty members have asserted that because Mr.
>Baltimore did not write a prompt letter of correction to the journal in
>which the paper was published, he might not handle problems in a
>straightforward manner if he were to become Rockefeller's president.
>Anthony Cerami, dean of graduate and postgraduate studies at the
university,
>and some other prominent faculty members have told the trustees they do not
>want Mr. Baltimore to be president."
>
> According to the ORI report and to the Research Integrity
>Adjudications Panel report, David Baltimore was guilty as charged.
>
> David Baltimore also used his power, aggressiveness, ruthlessness,
>etc., etc. to lynch Margot O'Toole who dared to request these corrections.
>
>Leon Mintz July 18, 1996


If he *is* guilty then - OK, he is guilty (although I thought they had
decided that he wasn't after all). But this does not affect my basic
point. It is a man's actions, not his personality, which should be on
trial.

jodea@dpie.gov.au (Julian O'Dea)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:23:08 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: john lauritsen <jlaurits@capecod.net>
Subject: Re: AIDS Criticism Resources

Gregory Hennessy wrote:
>
> > There are topics on which reasonable and knowledgeable
> > people can disagree. The HIV-Causes-AIDS hypothesis is not one of
> > them. Here there are basically two camps: those who have done
> > their homework and know that the hypothesis is both false and
> > absurd, and those who are HIV-believers through ignorance.
>
> If you are going to be this insulting, you will not be able to find anyone to
> pay attention to you.

I was sharply critical of a hypothesis. But this is not
quite the same as being "insulting". The main weakness of the passage
quoted by Gregory Hennessy is that I left out a third camp: those who
know perfectly well that the hypothesis is false, but who support it for
venal reasons.

My resources list is intended to introduce intelligent and
open-minded people to the ideas of AIDS criticism. Hennessy has already
amply demonstrated through previous posts that he does not qualify.
Now, I suppose that this comment really is an "insult", but it is not a
gratuitous insult, as Hennessy's insults directed to me have been.

Unlike Hennessy, I believe that people should be allowed to know
all sides of a debate, and should be allowed to make up their own minds.


John Lauritsen, author: The AIDS War
jlaurits@capecod.net
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:22:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: Creation

Martin Bridgstock
(Goodness, I haven't argued like this since I was a student!)

Let's face it, gang. This is a pretty sophomoric thread. Of course, one
can justify any argument or position if one dismisses the possibility of
empirical evidence having any bearing on it. But, then, we are not
discussing science at all, are we?

Anyone care to bring in solipsism? That's another logically consistent
position for you.

John Gardenier
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:31:16 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: AIDS Criticism Resources
in-reply-to: john lauritsen <jlaurits@capecod.net> "re: aids criticism
Resources" (Jul 19, 12:23pm)

> I was sharply critical of a hypothesis. But this is not
> quite the same as being "insulting".

When you say that people who are opposed to your idea are not reasonable and
are not knowledgeable you are being insulting.

> My resources list is intended to introduce intelligent and
> open-minded people to the ideas of AIDS criticism. Hennessy has already
> amply demonstrated through previous posts that he does not qualify.

You now say that I am unintelligent and closed minded. More ad hominems. Why
did you never reply to my comments on your earlier post?

> Now, I suppose that this comment really is an "insult", but it is not a
> gratuitous insult, as Hennessy's insults directed to me have been.

I am honestly unaware of anything I have said to you that is an insult. If you
can provide the list with something that you thought was an insult to you, I
will apologize.


--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:16:27 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <v01510101ae1564313f38@{149.106.36.14}>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ralph Alpher wrote:

> I suggest that a high school teacher of science named Halley did not exist
> until a few days ago, and that he has attacked this net in order to
> stimulate discussion. I cannot believe he could be teaching high school
> kids. If he is, may the Force help us.
>
> Ralph A. Alpher
> Union College and Dudley Observatory
>

Wake up and smell the real world. I saw a study recently which indicated
a large fraction of teachers of biiology do not accept the theory of
evolution. I wish I could remember the figures, but am sure it was over a
third. Textbook publishers, running scared of the marketplace, put the
evolution material in chapters where it can be easily omitted by the
teacher. Many teachers have run into trouble with their school boards in
small towns, for teaching evolution. Check out the National Center for
Science Education web site for leads on this serious issue in the
schools. It should concern everyone who cares about the integrity of
science and the way it's taught.

Of course this reflects badly on the colleges, who graduated and certified
those teachers. I've known students doing their student teaching have
encountered supervising teachers who quietly inform them that "We don't
teach that evolution stuff here."

Try:

http://WWW.NatCenSciEd.org National Center for Science Education.
In the frontlines of the battle to oppose attacks on evlolution in
the schools.

http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/
Talk.origins Archive Home Page
Excellent, detailed documents on evolution.

Also, there are several documents on this issue by Bob Schadewald,
archived on my home page.

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:32:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: School days, school days

Donald E. Simanek answered my request for corroboration of the existence of
a 14-point description of scientific method, saying in part:

From the point of view of philosophy of science, any attempts to codify
scientific method, and make rules for carrying out science, are
wrongheaded and futile. They are bound to be incomplete, partly wrong, and
to have exceptions. They trivialize the process. Descartes tried it, and
failed. So did John Stuart Mill (his Canons of Discovery). It's about as
silly as writing rules for producing a great work of art, or a novel, or a
symphony. One physicist said that the scientific method is "Doing one's
damndest with one's mind."

---
Gosh, Donald, I hope you don't expect me to disagree. Of course, you are
right.

Please remember that my context, however, was not what members of this list
do or should use for themselves. I was talking about introducing grammar
school children to science and guiding them through their initial science
projects. My point was that I preferred a school using this method to one
which pontificated positions or "facts" rather than attempting to get the
students to think scientifically for themselves.

Later education should be more sophisticated.

Within that context, I hope you will agree with my position. :-) John
Gardenier
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:47:50 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: AIDS Criticism Resources

To Gregory Hennessy:


>>There are topics on which reasonable and knowledgeable
>> people can disagree. The HIV-Causes-AIDS hypothesis is not one of
>> them. Here there are basically two camps: those who have done
>> their homework and know that the hypothesis is both false and
>> absurd, and those who are HIV-believers through ignorance.
>
>
>If you are going to be this insulting, you will not be able to find anyone to
>pay attention to you.


The most brutal and insulting scientists I ever met got the most
attention--and rewards, and awards.

Cheers,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:56:30 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: School days, school days

Donald wrote:

>From the point of view of philosophy of science, any attempts to codify
>scientific method, and make rules for carrying out science, are
>wrongheaded and futile. They are bound to be incomplete, partly wrong, and
>to have exceptions. They trivialize the process. Descartes tried it, and
>failed. So did John Stuart Mill (his Canons of Discovery). It's about as
>silly as writing rules for producing a great work of art, or a novel, or a
>symphony. One physicist said that the scientific method is "Doing one's
>damndest with one's mind."


Splendidly said. I talked with several scientist friends from
several fields about a 14 point method. They never heard of it.

It's no wonder some scientists worry about what's going on in high
schools today.

Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:00:36 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Creation

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:22:00 EST "Gardenier, John S."
<jsg6@NCH11A.EM.CDC.GOV> writes:
> Of course, onecan justify any argument or position if one dismisses the
possibility
>of empirical evidence having any bearing on it.

Granted there is no empirical evidence (i.e. evidence capable of being
proven or disproven by observation or experiment) for creation. There is
none against creation either. ( There is precious little in support of
evolution either for that matter.) The only place you might find a
potential problem is in the biblical account of creation but in the
priniciple of creation there are no real problems. Remember that the
revelation at Sinai was considered a historical event until recently.
An event which was publicly experienced by an entire nation. If one
considers this account as reliable then the remaining questions become
largely academic.

>Anyone care to bring in solipsism? That's another logically
>consistent position for you.

But there is no reason to take on such a position. There is no evidence
of ANY kind for solipsism.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:14:03 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: linda sweeting <sweeting@midget.towson.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <01i787nlwtji8y4x0b@cnsvax.albany.edu>

To all the people who have been arguing about evolution, especially those
responsible for suggesting that the fossil record is not there, I have
one comment:

ALL FORMS ARE TRANSITIONAL

Those looking for finer gradations in transitions will never be
satisfied, I expect. In fact, individuals within homo sapiens differ
enough from one another that if they were laid side-by-side they would
not be close enough to be considered transitional, let alone the same
species.

I would not muddle students by calling evolution FACT - it is a VERY WELL
established scientific theory, as well-established as atomic theory
(almost). People who teach this stuff are sloppy in their use of terms
and often make the Darwinian theory sound Lamarkian. It's hard to
swallow if you are religious and haven't seen the evidence and impossible
to deny once you have seen the evidence. I know - that's what turned me
around when I was a student.


Dr. Linda M. Sweeting
Department of Chemistry
Towson State University
Baltimore, MD 21204

sweeting@midget.towson.edu
(410)-830-3113


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:18:17 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "david a. boyles" <dboyles@silver.sdsmt.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation

Personally, I once "believed" (because I was 'held captive' to the
literalist discourse of a church) in creationism, and "disbelieved"
evolution.

But then, that was in my younger days when it had never occurred to me
(because I was uninformed) that just as languages have evolved over
time and did not spring fully formed upon the face of the earth,
so too might chemicals combine and recombine to effect the changes
reflected over time in life forms.

David A. Boyles
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
Rapid City, SD 57701
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:17:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Feminist Images of Science
comments: to: *noretta koertge <koertge@indiana.edu>

Brant Watson wrote, in part:

Jim,
In all fairness, was the context of the feminist claim fairly represented?
(I've missed some of this.) What was their purpose in making the statement
about logic...what prompted it?

Those who would like to know more about this problem should contact

Noretta Koertge, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

E-mail: KOERTGE@indiana.edu

I heard her paper "Feminist Images of Science and the Problem of Scientific
Literacy" at the AAAS Meeting in Baltimore this past February and was
impressed. The paper may have been published by now. Even if not, she may
be willing to share it with those of you interested.

John Gardenier
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:18:56 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Halley

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:16:27 -0400 "Donald E. Simanek"
<dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu> writes:

> I saw a study recently which indicated a large fraction of teachers of
biiology do not >accept the theory of evolution. I wish I could remember
the figures, but am sure it was >over a third.
>Of course this reflects badly on the colleges, who graduated and
certified
>those teachers.

Assuming that these teachers filled any requirements for graduation and
certification, it does not reflect badly on the colleges at all. What would you do? Have a
requirement of belief in order to graduate? It is no
more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to require
belief in creation.
Of course, a school can refuse to hire a teacher who's belief's
don't conform with the school's goals in education.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:25:23 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: da laze <dalaze@juno.com> "re: halley" (jul 19, 1:18pm)

> It is no
> more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to require
> belief in creation.

Evolution is generally accepted as adhering to the standard standards of peer
reviewed science. Creationism is not.


--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:28:55 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: About volcanoes.

Response to Leslie Baker's 7/19/96 "About volcanoes" posting.

Dear Colleagues:

Every once in a while I meet someone who has a wonderful grasp of a
topic, and who can describe it well to others. Leslie is such an
individual.

Leslie, you didn't butt in. You are an expert in the field; I
enjoyed having your good comments. Please do join in anytime.

And thanks for doing the hard work by laying groundwork that I can
build upon.

Cordially,
Dewey

>Leon Mintz has directed the following questions to Dewey McLean, and I
>know Dewey is going to answer them, but I thought I'd butt in anyway.
>Who can resist a question about their research?
>
>>
>>What is the possibility of a giant volcano eruption? Is it possible that
>>for the kind of eruption that happened 60 million years ago to happen now?
>>Did Earth changed for the past 60 million years?
>>
>Flood basalt eruptions happen periodically but not very frequently: say,
>tens to hundreds of millions of years between events (they are not regular).
>One could happen tomorrow, but I wouldn't sit up nights worrying.
>
>(deletia)
>>
>>There is a huge historical record of the disasters caused by volcanoes. The
>>whole cities and civilizations had been wiped out. How many catastrophic
>>eruptions did we have in the past 120 years? How many more huge eruptions
>>did not result in large catastrophes because they happened in wilderness
>>(Mt. St. Helens) or because people had been evacuated (Mt. Penatubo)?
>>
>>How many volcanic eruptions during recorded human history resulted in world
>>wide climate changes: cold winters and "years without summer?"
>>
>This is true to a point, but you are mixing up types of volcanic eruption,
>as well as the scale on which they are capable of causing devastation.
>Explosive eruptions like those at Pinatubo or St. Helens can indeed be
>very violent and destructive. They can kill thousands of people and can
>release sulfur gases which cause global cooling. But they are more or
>less instantaneous on a geologic time scale: the eruptions last no more
>than a few days, and the climate effects dissipate within a few years.
>They are very bad, but they go away relatively quickly.
>
>The flood basalt eruptions that Dewey and others relate to mass extinction
>are quite different. Instead of exploding, they ooze -- think of Hawaii or
>Iceland, with lava fountains erupting from fissures. Only a flood basalt
>province is much larger (imagine a Hawaii the size of Colorado), and it
>can keep erupting for a very long time - months, perhaps years. It will
>wax and wane, but it will erupt on and off for several million years.
>
>This means that, as lava is continually pumped out, so are the gases that
>can cause climate change. Because they are continuously replenished, any
>climate change that results can last for a very long time, not just a few
>years as after an explosive eruption. So anything living at the time a
>flood basalt went off would have to adapt to a whole new environment with
>a wildly fluctuating climate.
>
>There are, I believe, flood basalt provinces correlated with most of the
>major extinction events. Impact proponents have occasionally feebly
>suggested that flood basalt eruptions are _caused_ by impact events,
>but this idea is an absurd attempt to explain away the pesky volcanoes.
>It doesn't stand up to the evidence in the rocks. I once asked a
>proponent of this idea whether he had considered that evidence; his
>answer was a dismissive "No."
>
>I will be happy to explain/clarify/defend my unjustified assertions, but
>it will have to wait until I return to town at the end of the month.
>Meanwhile, I'm certain Dewey will have some insightful comments to add.
>
>Leslie Baker


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:48:41 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:14:03 -0400 Linda Sweeting
<sweeting@midget.towson.edu> writes:
> In fact, individuals within homo sapiens differ
>enough from one another that if they were laid side-by-side they would
>not be close enough to be considered transitional, let alone the same
>species.
>

That is a very strange statement. No one assumes that all individuals
within a species are identical. Species are defined by being potentially
capable of interbreeding. Thus it would seem that a transitional form
would have to be capable of interbreeding with two groups which are not
capable of breeding with each other.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:02:59 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

To Da Laze:


>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:14:03 -0400 Linda Sweeting
><sweeting@midget.towson.edu> writes:
>> In fact, individuals within homo sapiens differ
>>enough from one another that if they were laid side-by-side they would
>>not be close enough to be considered transitional, let alone the same
>>species.
>>
>
>That is a very strange statement. No one assumes that all individuals
>within a species are identical. Species are defined by being potentially
>capable of interbreeding. Thus it would seem that a transitional form
>would have to be capable of interbreeding with two groups which are not
>capable of breeding with each other.


Have you never heard of introgressive hybridization whereby
individuals from separate genera can breed, and have viable offspring that
can then breed among themselves, or with individuals from each parental
group?

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html



Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:58:49 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Demanding belief

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:25:23 -0400 Gregory Hennessy
<gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil> writes:
>> It is no
>> more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to require
>> belief in creation.
>
>Evolution is generally accepted as adhering to the standard standards of
peer
>reviewed science. Creationism is not.
>

That isn't a justification. Ultimately you are still saying that you have
the right to control someone else's opinion based on your ( or a group's)
set of beliefs. Students have the right to believe what they wish. The
only thing that a college can demand is that they fulfill the academic
requirements.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:11:07 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Demanding belief
in-reply-to: da laze <dalaze@juno.com> "re: demanding belief" (jul 19, 1:58pm)

> That isn't a justification. Ultimately you are still saying that you have
> the right to control someone else's opinion based on your ( or a group's)
> set of beliefs. Students have the right to believe what they wish. The
> only thing that a college can demand is that they fulfill the academic
> requirements.

It is certainly a justification to demand that what is taught as science
conforms to current scientific thinking. While you are correct that students do
belive what they wish, I see no reason to coddle desires to remain ignorant by
ignoring proper scientific standards when teaching biolology.




--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:28:52 PDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: barry roth <barryr@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

At 01:48 PM 7/19/96 PST, Da Laze <dalaze@JUNO.COM> wrote:
>
>{...} No one assumes that all individuals
>within a species are identical. Species are defined by being potentially
>capable of interbreeding.

Not true, unless by this you mean that the individuals that are actually or
potentially capable of breeding with each other constitute a species, which
is close to one operational definition of species.

> Thus it would seem that a transitional form
>would have to be capable of interbreeding with two groups which are not
>capable of breeding with each other.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't confuse relationships in space with relationships in time. There are
in fact instances where individuals of a population can breed with (slightly
different) individuals of a population in, for example, the next valley, but
the individuals at one end of the species' range cannot breed with those
from the other end. One famous case involves a genus of salamanders in
California. But in terms of transition from one form to another over time
(which is generally what organic evolution implies), all that is necessary
is than an individual need to breed with the (perhaps slightly different)
individual next to it and produce another generation. Accumulated
differences sometimes lead to reproductive incompatibility after
generations, at which point we have a different species.

Barry Roth
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:23:17 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:02:59 -0500 "Dewey M. McLean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
writes:
>To Da Laze:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:14:03 -0400 Linda Sweeting

>><sweeting@midget.towson.edu> writes:
>>> In fact, individuals within homo sapiens differ
>>>enough from one another that if they were laid side-by-side they
would
>>>not be close enough to be considered transitional, let alone the same
>>>species.
>>>
>>
>>That is a very strange statement. No one assumes that all individuals
>>within a species are identical. Species are defined by being
potentially
>>capable of interbreeding. Thus it would seem that a transitional form
>>would have to be capable of interbreeding with two groups which are
>>not capable of breeding with each other.
>
>
> Have you never heard of introgressive hybridization whereby
>individuals from separate genera can breed, and have viable offspring
that
>can then breed among themselves, or with individuals from each
>parental group?
>

No, I haven't. Under what circumstances does it occur? Does it take place
in higher animals? Does it occur naturally?

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:35:07 PDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: barry roth <barryr@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Demanding belief

At 02:11 PM 7/19/96 -0400, Gregory Hennessy wrote:

>It is certainly a justification to demand that what is taught as science
>conforms to current scientific thinking. While you are correct that students do
>belive what they wish, I see no reason to coddle desires to remain ignorant by
>ignoring proper scientific standards when teaching biolology.

This is well and accurately stated. The agenda of those who are attacking
science education in the schools involves nothing less than an ignorant
population who will look to a self-anointed priesthood to tell them what to
think, what to do.

Barry Roth
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 07:54:31 -0700
Reply-To: satori@scn.org
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "ronald i. sato" <satori@scn.org>
Subject: Re: The Economist on Fraud in Science

The inabiliity to replicate experiments maybe extended by the in-
creased difficulty of reproducing work on the cutting edge by less
skilled investigators and the hectic pace of current science which
does permit one much time for such exercises ( nor perhaps funding )
ron sato
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:15:37 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) You are right!


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:51:38 -0400
from: daniel hailey <dhailey@den.k12.de.us>
Subject: You are right!
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Cc: multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>
Organization: Delcastle High School



John Gardenier, Martin Bridgstock, Leon Mintz, Donald E. Simanek and
Dewey McClean as well as others I have responded to I apologize. I now
accept evolution as fact. You have convinced me without a doubt of the
errors of my ways. All of that overwhelming evidence you presented for
evolution makes me wonder where my head was.

I was told that if I actually challenged "real" scientists about their
beliefs in evolution I would be attacked personally and that no "serious"
scientist would ever stoop to present evidence for the theory because
everyone should know that evolution is fact.

Dewey wrote "any high
school teacher who claims that evolution is fraud needs to become at
least minimally educated before he tries to educate others." This is the
same man who wrote to me in private communication and said " I wish I
could have had some teachers like you when I was in high school."
He said this when I expressed an interest in his
own pet theory. (I would like to present his theory and that of the Alverez asteroid to
my students and have a debate based on their research)
But it seems, Dewey, that as soon as I express my own
thoughts you are so ready to attack. Are you the same man who spends so
much of your time crying about all the collusion you experienced because
no one believes your own theory?

John states that "I cannot in good
conscience allow my children to attend public school" and the inference
is because of teachers like me. Yet he goes on to say his children are
taught both evolution and religion which I assume means creation.
Apparently he has no problem with this yet attacks me because I do not
believe the evolution doctrine. Seems contradictory to me but I'm just
an uneducated high school teacher who takes 38% of his sick days on
Fridays, Mondays and days next to holidays.(Since these days constitute >40% of the
days eligible for sick days does this actually mean I should get sick more often on
Fridays, Mondays and days pre and post to holidays? He also wonders why high
schools have abandoned the teaching of virtues to teenagers. John, whose
virtues would you like me to teach? All virtues have their roots in
religion, which religion would you like me to choose? I thought I was
supposed to separate religion out of the public schools. But you want me
to put them back in because presumably your students don't have any virtue.
I don't want teachers teaching my children virtues. I view that as my
job. You are typical of the American public who refuses to accept responsibility
for their own offspring and want to blame some teacher who has 30 or more children
to teach. You send your own to a religious school then turn around stick your nose up
at a public school and help make policy that public schools can't mention religion.
Where I went to school (public - definitely) we were taught what hypocrisy is. Seems
you wallow in it.
Donald E Simanek states "any teacher who doesn't understand how science works
shouldn't be in the classroom". This is in reference to "the faults of evolution".
Donald,
I understand how science works. What I do not understand is how Professors like you
work. I never once mentioned religion yet you turned me into a religious zealot. The
example you used with the sun is so typical of the professors I've encountered. When a
student asks you a question of how you know what you say you know, you look at them
with disdain and wonder aloud how stupid a question that is. You are not even worthy to
be called an educator. In Galileo's day 99% of the physicists believed the sun orbited
the
earth. Did that make them right? Where did your biology colleagues come up with 99%
anyway? If your biology colleagues can distinguish the facts of evolution from the
theory
why do they write textbooks as if the theory were the fact?
Leon proceeded to educate me in vocabulary and stated that "I am surely glad that Dan
Hailey is not teaching my children. Leon, do you teach your children the way you
"taught me"? Do you avoid the question with a lot of b.s. trying to sound intelligent
and
then attack the person who asks the question or makes a statement? Look up the
definition of theory, Leon. If you can't see why some people observe the evidence and
explain what they see in terms of a creation I've got to conclude you are blinded to the
forrest for the trees. For you to say that creationism can't be considered a theory is
ludicrous.
And finally Martin, who also makes the assumption I advocate creation science. I too
"get fed up" with "self righteous people who seem more concerned about scoring cheap
points than actually discussing the issue". Speaking of cheap points, does it matter
that
my signature file is in lower case? It was created by one of my students who told me
lower case was "cool". It didn't bother me one way or the other. Why does it bother
you
or is it your way of "scoring cheap points"? At any rate I fail to see why Science's
great
strength is that it cannot prove any of it's theories. Maybe you could enlighten me on
that one. I too did a lengthy analysis of the claims of creationists and evolutionists.
I too
found monumental amounts of fraud, misrepresentation, misquotes, and grossly selective
use of evidence. It seems to me that the people on both sides of the issue interpret
the
same evidence according to their own preconceived theories. To just name a few, the
piltdown man is obvious as is the claims of human prints inside of dinosaur prints. But
when I examine the claims made of Lucy and how she supposedly stood erect I am
amazed at the great leaps of faith evolutionists make. Lucy has part of one knee
constructed of 20 or so fragments (the other is totally missing) and yet I am told
without a
doubt in our science texts that lucy stood erect. Creationists tell me light was
created in
process yet offer little reasoning. You see when I made my original post I stated that
the
fraud in science is that evolution is taught as fact. I did not say there were no
evidence
that evolution took place. My argument remains that it is a theory that is man's best
attempt to explain what he observes without delving into the supernatural. It is not
fact!
I teach my students to separate fact from opinion. I want them to think critically. I
am
not afraid to offer to them two opposing theories. You scientists (and I wonder if you
really should be called that lofty of a title) seem to be afraid to offer evidence for
your
theory but rather try to bully everyone by personal attacks and tell me 99% of all
biologists believe this.

The man who gave me the idea to post my original message about evolutionary fraud is
an atheist who does not believe this theory either. But I suppose if he posted the same
message you would label him a religious zealot as well. It seems your ( and I mean
evolutionary scientists) only response to one who challenges your precious religion is
to
call him religious. How hypocritical!

Proudly,

dan hailey




Al Higgins
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:26:31 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Halley
Comments: To: jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:21:55 -0500 (CDT) Jim Whitehead
<jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu> writes:
>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Da Laze wrote:
>> Assuming that these teachers filled any requirements for graduation
and
>> certification, it does not reflect badly on the colleges at all.
>>What would you do? Have a requirement of belief in order to graduate?
>>It is no more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to
>>require belief in creation.
>> Of course, a school can refuse to hire a teacher who's belief's
>> don't conform with the school's goals in education.
>>
>> Lazer A.
>
>As a British expatriate I may be ignorant and/or naive about
>constitutional interpretation -- so someone please help me...
>...Isn't belief irrelevant in this case because of the rules on
>separation of church and state? Thus, isn't it technically illegal for
a
>public school teacher to disavow a scientific theory on religious
grounds
>(and worse, teach a religious dogma as a "theory") in the classroom?
>
>Jim W.
>
First of all let me stress that my point is regarding graduating
and certifying potential teachers. I was not talking about behavior in
the classroom.
Secondly, regarding whether it is illegal to disavow a
scientific theory on religious grounds in the classroom, my opinion is that it should not be
provided the teacher clarifies that his belief is
also not accepted by many. True or not, both evolution and creation are
powerful influences in our society and it would be negligent to ignore either. ( Unless your goal
is indoctrination.)
Teaching religious dogma as "theory" is largely a play on
semantics. Creation is not a theory to those who believe it but it is an
alternative explanation for life which has NOT been disproven. So long as
it is made clear to students that the belief in creation is based in
religion there should be no real problem. Otherwise we would have to all
religious teachers to hide their beliefs in order to teach. I'm not a fan
of the multiculturalism fad but I think most students will have enough
teachers in their school experience to balance out the affect of any one
in particular.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:26:27 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) You are right!

To Daniel Haley:


>Dewey wrote "any high
>school teacher who claims that evolution is fraud needs to become at
>least minimally educated before he tries to educate others." This is the
>same man who wrote to me in private communication and said " I wish I
>could have had some teachers like you when I was in high school."
>He said this when I expressed an interest in his
>own pet theory. (I would like to present his theory and that of the
>Alverez asteroid to
>my students and have a debate based on their research)

When you first contacted me--BEFORE you joined Scifraud--you asked
the meaning of "K-T," and told me how you wanted to have your students do a
dinosaur extinction debate. You also stated something to the effect that
you were trying to teach your students to think critically. I recall saying
something to the effect that I wish that I had had some teachers who taught
me to think critically.

So, your moniker is "Lazer A." I thought that I had heard that name
before. I recall an e-mail message a couple months ago from a creationist
trying to bait me into argument over my WWW K-T home page--on evolution!

I discussed this on my 5/29/96 Scifraud posting titled
"Value-neutrality in science" which contains "Recently, I got an e-mail
message from a creationist stating, "Dear sir, I have read your web page
and information that you have posted, and I disagree with you
completely..."

And, if I recall correctly, the creationist signed off "Lazer A."

Cute game, danny.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:34:03 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Demanding belief

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:35:07 PDT Barry Roth <barryr@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU>
writes:
>At 02:11 PM 7/19/96 -0400, Gregory Hennessy wrote:
>
>>It is certainly a justification to demand that what is taught as
science
>>conforms to current scientific thinking. While you are correct that
students do
>>belive what they wish, I see no reason to coddle desires to remain
ignorant by
>>ignoring proper scientific standards when teaching biolology.
>
>This is well and accurately stated. The agenda of those who are
attacking
>science education in the schools involves nothing less than an ignorant
>population who will look to a self-anointed priesthood to tell them what
to
>think, what to do.
>

The ignorant population is equally ignorant regarding evolution and could
also be said to look towards a self-appointed "scientific" community to tell them what to think.
Neither side is innocent of attempting to foist
it's opinions on an ignorant public.

Lazer A.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:01:27 PST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:28:52 PDT Barry Roth <barryr@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU>
writes:
>At 01:48 PM 7/19/96 PST, Da Laze <dalaze@JUNO.COM> wrote:
>>
>>{...} No one assumes that all
>individuals
>>within a species are identical. Species are defined by being
>potentially
>>capable of interbreeding.
>
>Not true, unless by this you mean that the individuals that are
>actually or
>potentially capable of breeding with each other constitute a species,
>which
>is close to one operational definition of species.
>

That is what I meant. The dictionary (Webster's New Collegiate) defines
species as " a category of biological classification ranking
immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or
populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by
a binomial etc. "
If there are any other definitions of species please inform me.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:40:43 -0800
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "douglas c. hintz" <dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Demanding belief

Barry Roth wrote on 7/19/96:

>At 02:11 PM 7/19/96 -0400, Gregory Hennessy wrote:
>
>>It is certainly a justification to demand that what is taught as science
>>conforms to current scientific thinking. While you are correct that
students do
>>belive what they wish, I see no reason to coddle desires to remain ignorant by
>>ignoring proper scientific standards when teaching biolology.
>
>This is well and accurately stated. The agenda of those who are attacking
>science education in the schools involves nothing less than an ignorant
>population who will look to a self-anointed priesthood to tell them what to
>think, what to do.
>
>Barry Roth
>

They will have a powerful new weapon to attack with (here in the US) if
Senate Bill 984, the Parental Rights and Responsibility Act, is passed and
signed into law. Under the provisions of this bill, anybody can sue and
force the government, i.e., school districts, to
"demonstrate, by appropriate evidence, that the interference or
usurpation {of the parental right to direct the education of their children}
is essential to
accomplish a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn or
applied in a manner
that is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling
interest."

In other words, any parent can sue and force a school district to
demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest that evolution,
for example, should be taught in biology classes. See:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.984:
for the full text of the bill.

Doug Hintz

Douglas C. Hintz 68 PLC Hall
Mathematics Instructor University of Oregon
Academic Learning Services Eugene, Oregon 97403
dchintz@oregon.uoregon.edu phone:541-346-3226
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:58:12 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation

Lazer A. asserts that "there is precious little {evidence} in
support of evolution either." Not wishing to add to the outbreak
of puerile argument and insult that seems recently to have
afflicted this list (and of course I exclude from that the always
sensible contributions of Phillipson, Simanenek, and half a dozen
others), I will not say what I REALLY think of that assertion;
but I will ask this: Is it not possible, somehow, for the
listowner, or a group of listees appointed by him, to come down
hard, on this wonderfully democratic medium, upon contributors
who say such utterly counterfactual things? To be sure, we deal
on the net with opinion, not scholarship; and that's fine and a
boon to voices unable to be heard elsewhere. But creationist
lies like that ARE heard elsewhere, AD NAUSEAM. Anybody with an
elementary education OUGHT to know that whatever you make of
mechanisms, purposes, origins, and the like of the biosphere on
Earth, the evidence that it has evolved is about as good as the
evidence for anything we know about the physical world.

PRG
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:34:15 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <9607191325.zm10501@libra.usno.navy.mil>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Gregory Hennessy wrote:

> > It is no
> > more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to require
> > belief in creation.
>
> Evolution is generally accepted as adhering to the standard standards of peer
> reviewed science. Creationism is not.
> --
> Gregory Hennessy
> Astrometry Department
> US Naval Observatory
> 3450 Mass Ave NW
> Washington DC 20392

There's at least two meanings of belief commonly used in these
discussions.

1. The religious-strength belief, which is held as an absolute truth,
without requiring specifically supportive evidence, and often
held in the face of contrary evidence.

2. The scientists' "provisional acceptance" of a well-tested law or
theory, subject to the qualification that because it is based on finite
and limited evidence, it may have limited scope, and it can be expected
to be improved or modified as new information comes in.

In my view, #1 is never appropriate for a scientist to hold on any
scientific question. Certainly no such belief should be required of a
scientist. And a scientist who uses belief#1 in scientific work or
discussion, may be suspected of failure to understand what science is all
about.

The creationists are motivated by belief#1 in their literal
interpretation of the Bible. Any scientific fact, law or theory which
they think contradicts the Bible, must, in their view, be wrong.

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:23:44 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <19960719.131912.4678.1.dalaze@juno.com>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Da Laze wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:16:27 -0400 "Donald E. Simanek"
> <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu> writes:
>
> > I saw a study recently which indicated a large fraction of teachers of
> biiology do not >accept the theory of evolution. I wish I could remember
> the figures, but am sure it was >over a third.
> >Of course this reflects badly on the colleges, who graduated and
> certified those teachers.
>
> Assuming that these teachers filled any requirements for graduation and
> certification, it does not reflect badly on the colleges at all. What would you do? Have a
requirement of belief in order to graduate? It is no
> more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to require
> belief in creation.
> Of course, a school can refuse to hire a teacher who's belief's
> don't conform with the school's goals in education.
>
> Lazer A.
>

That wasn't my point at all. If these teachers had really learned biology,
including evolution, and understood the methodology of science, and the
evidences and arguments for interpretation of what we observe about life
on earth and the evidences of past natural history, they should be
less likely to be taken in by bogus pseudoscience proposed by creationists
and pseudoscientists. Even the teachers who teach evolution and are
supportive of it, sometimes find their science backgrounds insufficient to
engage in a discussion of the question or to expose the flaws of
creationist arguments. Most physics teachers would be in a similarly
awkward position in defending their discipline against someone who argues
that perpetual motion is possible, or that relativity theory is wrong, or
that there are two co-mingled ethers filling space, etc. etc. Most
teacher training produces just that: trained technicians of the classroom,
not educated and knowledgable persons.

But, you raise an interesting possiblity about whether teachers should
police themselves. A lawyer once explained to me that teaching is not a
profession, like medicine and law. To be a profession, according to the
legal meaning, a group must set its own standards of practice and
police them, and have the right to disbarr anyone who doesn't meet these
standards. Teachers do not. The standards are set by others, and the
policing is done by others. Perhaps teaching should be a profession, and
have the ability to eject those who don't understand what they are
teaching. If, say, a chemistry teacher decided to abandon the chemist's
periodic chart and atomic/molecular theory and return to teaching
Aristotle's four-element theory, with perhaps a little alchemy in lab,
shouldn't that be sufficient grounds to deny that person the right to
teach in the public schools? I submit that the teaching of creationism
isn't that much different.

My example could be made a bit tighter. Such a chemistry teacher might
*know* traditional chemistry sufficiently well to get a teaching degree in
it (that doesn't require much), but still not *accept it*, for religious
or philosophical reasons. Such a teacher might be fully capable of
teaching a traditional chemistry course, but feel in his heart that it's
all bogus, that atoms don't *really* exist (has anyone ever *seen* one?),
and that the true chemical art lies in alchemy.

-- Donald
Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:38:22 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

To La Daze:


>>Have you never heard of introgressive hybridization whereby
>>individuals from separate genera can breed, and have viable offspring
>that
>>can then breed among themselves, or with individuals from each
>>parental group?
>>
>
>No, I haven't. Under what circumstances does it occur? Does it take place
>in higher animals? Does it occur naturally?



I gave you a concept. Go look it up for yourself. You might learn
something in the process.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:21:55 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: jim whitehead <jwhitehe@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
comments: to: da laze <dalaze@juno.com>
in-reply-to: <19960719.131912.4678.1.dalaze@juno.com>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Da Laze wrote:
> Assuming that these teachers filled any requirements for graduation and
> certification, it does not reflect badly on the colleges at all. What would you do? Have a
requirement of belief in order to graduate? It is no
> more justifiable to require belief in evolution than it is to require
> belief in creation.
> Of course, a school can refuse to hire a teacher who's belief's
> don't conform with the school's goals in education.
>
> Lazer A.

As a British expatriate I may be ignorant and/or naive about
constitutional interpretation -- so someone please help me...
...Isn't belief irrelevant in this case because of the rules on
separation of church and state? Thus, isn't it technically illegal for a
public school teacher to disavow a scientific theory on religious grounds
(and worse, teach a religious dogma as a "theory") in the classroom?

Jim W.
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:53:32 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: da laze <dalaze@juno.com> "re: halley" (jul 19, 4:26pm)

> Secondly, regarding whether it is illegal to disavow a
> scientific theory on religious grounds in the classroom, my opinion is that
it should not be provided the teacher clarifies that his belief is
> also not accepted by many.

If it is not accepted as scientific it should not be taught as science.

> Creation is not a theory to those who believe it but it is an
> alternative explanation for life which has NOT been disproven.

Can you name a single prediction that Creationism makes that would allow it to
*be* disproven? I used to frequent the "talk.origins" Usenet group. No
predicition of creationism was ever offered.

> So long as
> it is made clear to students that the belief in creation is based in
> religion there should be no real problem.

Why should religion be introduced in science classes? Would astrology or
numerology be also introduced?



--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:57:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Hailey's Comet

Well, Dan, you have certainly made us, in the words of the President, "feel
your pain." :-)

Perhaps you will allow me to clarify.

>John states that "I cannot in good conscience allow my children to attend
public school"
>and the inference is because of teachers like me.

Not really; my explicit statement was an objection to grading "on the curve"
and to failure to teach grammar school children "the basics" adequately -
referring to reading, writing, and arithmetic. Still, I unrepentantly do
reject a "science teacher" claiming that any theory as well established,
critically reviewed, and dynamically adapting to new evidence and evolving
theoretical revision, as evolution - is "fraud." In my opinion, your
comments show a basic lack of science literacy, which is a common and
eminently curable malady. As Paul Gross suggested, read up on it. You are
factually wrong about the "lack of evidence."

> Yet he goes on to say his children are taught both evolution and religion
which I assume means >creation. Apparently he has no problem with this yet
attacks me because I do not
>believe the evolution doctrine. Seems contradictory to me but I'm just
>an uneducated high school teacher -

You are darned right I have no problem with it. Creation has to be included
in any religious course of study about Christianity. Personally, I do not
find that in conflict with a scientific course of study that does not
exclude or deny evolution - and, neither, apparently, does the Catholic
school system. Now, if you want to get me riled up, just bring in the term
"creation science." Them's fighting words!!

By the way, you are obviously NOT an UNeducated high school teacher.
Unfortunately, you are UNDEReducated about the philosophy and processes of
science. You will not find us helping you all that much on this list, as
you have noticed. That is not because we do not care. It just takes more
words - and more interaction - than is appropriate here.

>who takes 38% of his sick days on Fridays, Mondays and days next to
holidays.(Since these days >constitute >40% of the days eligible for sick
days does this actually mean I should get sick more
>often on Fridays, Mondays and days pre and post to holidays?

I enjoyed the anecdote and shook my head over the principal who did not
understand what he was saying. At least I am on your side there.

>He also wonders why high schools have abandoned the teaching of virtues to
teenagers. John, whose
>virtues would you like me to teach?

This is a serious misquote. I advocated teaching "values" (not "virtues")
to grammar school children. Unfortunately, I feel that high school is too
late. To clarify - by values, I mean self-discipline, respect for the
persons and property of others, honesty, good manners, the keeping of
promises, and accepting responsibility for one's own actions and statements.

>All virtues have their roots in religion, which religion would you like me
to choose?
>I thought I was supposed to separate religion out of the public schools.
But you want me
>to put them back in because presumably your students don't have any virtue.

Come on! This is explicitly contrary to my posting, which agreed that
public schools cannot teach a particular religion. I see no reason they
cannot promote the values above. There is no religion I know of which
contradicts those. Secondly, to be honest, do you really believe my
children have no "virtue?" They get values at home; I just want those
reinforced in other settings as well -- at school, at the homes of their
friends, in the neighborhood, at church, and in other social settings.
Can't we agree with Mrs. Clinton, and those she borrowed from, that "It
Takes a Village?"

>I don't want teachers teaching my children virtues. I view that as my job.


I am not sure what you mean by virtues. Certainly, Jews, Muslims, Hindus,
or Christians do not want someone else teaching their children religious
principles which violate their faith. You may be reacting in a similar
vein, and I would fully support that. My problems with public grammar
schools are: lack of discipline (such as children freely wandering around
the room during class), lack of standard English both as taught and as
spoken by teachers (Like, you know, what you hear on television is where
it's at.); lack of competence or concern for mathematics (Oh, I never could
really get the hang of long division, hah, hah.); lack of respect for the
children, implicitly teaching them lack of respect for each other (Oh, shut
up, Sarah, you're just a pain in the butt.).

Sure, you want to teach your children values (or virtues), but do you want
the school system to undermine those?

>You are typical of the American public who refuses to accept responsibility
for their own offspring and >want to blame some teacher who has 30 or more
children to teach.

I plead not guilty. Thanks to my wife, myself, AND others in our "village"
I am very proud of my children.

>You send your own to a religious school then turn around stick your nose up
at a public school and help >make policy that public schools can't mention
religion.

Au contraire! I feel that many (not all) public schools misrepresent the
rule of not "establishing" a religion by totally ignoring the role of
religion in history and contemporary society. I started my kids in public
school and tried to promote the ideas above. I only turned to a religious
school when that failed. As a matter of fact, we applied to several
secular, as well as religious, schools in our area. All of them teach more
adequately than the routine public schools (again, there are undoubtedly
exceptional public schools; our kids didn't happen to be in one.) All
competent private schools in our area, religious and secular, are
oversubscribed and have waiting lists. This one opened up first, and we are
satisfied so we have not looked further.

>Where I went to school (public - definitely) we were taught what hypocrisy
>is. Seems you wallow in it.

By the way, I went to public school myself through high school - - quite a
few years ago. We had teachers who taught discipline, manners, respect for
self and others, honesty, and respect for science and (all) religions. They
also taught the basics well. I only wish my children had found the same in
their schools. It can happen. I just visited a friend whose children
recently got the same quality of public education I had. One is now at
Princeton; the other, a high school senior, will unquestionably go to a fine
college also. They speak standard English, know the basics, and are
respectful of both science and religion. More power to them!
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:00:49 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: virginia metze <metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation

>
> Lazer A. asserts that "there is precious little {evidence} in
> support of evolution either." Not wishing to add to the outbreak
> of puerile argument and insult that seems recently to have
> afflicted this list (and of course I exclude from that the always
> sensible contributions of Phillipson, Simanenek, and half a dozen
> others), I will not say what I REALLY think of that assertion;
> but I will ask this: Is it not possible, somehow, for the
> listowner, or a group of listees appointed by him, to come down
> hard, on this wonderfully democratic medium, upon contributors
> who say such utterly counterfactual things? To be sure, we deal
> on the net with opinion, not scholarship; and that's fine and a
> boon to voices unable to be heard elsewhere. But creationist
> lies like that ARE heard elsewhere, AD NAUSEAM. Anybody with an
> elementary education OUGHT to know that whatever you make of
> mechanisms, purposes, origins, and the like of the biosphere on
> Earth, the evidence that it has evolved is about as good as the
> evidence for anything we know about the physical world.
>
> PRG
>
HEAR! HEAR!!

They have repeated these half-truths, bald lies,
and distortions so often that people think there
must be something to them. It is ludicrous to
try to treat the stuff as though they were willing
to discuss their beliefs. They are not. Their
beliefs are non-negotiable. If you think you
have convinced one, you are wrong. They merely
go off to another forum, and come back to the
one you are on to see if there is a chance to
sneak the stuff through again without contradiction.

They play on the fact that the public doesn't
understand scientific method, what science regards
as 'proof,' or indeed what science regards as
'theory.' Then, to make matters even worse,
occasionally they run across a scientist who
actually believes that nothing can ever be
proven and that just plays into their hands;
they don't know and don't care what the scientist
means by that, and where that puts creation science
in the grand scheme of things, etc.

And then we have schools which think that the
only thing that matters is self esteem -- and
not the teacher's self esteem, either...

Ginny Metze
speaking only for herself
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:50:53 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) You are right!
in-reply-to: <01i79ff99b3q8y4x0b@cnsvax.albany.edu>

Dan Hailey wrote:

> Donald,
> I understand how science works. What I do not understand is how
> Professors like you work. I never once mentioned religion yet you turned
> me into a religious zealot.

Read it again, Dan. My response was not primarily to you, but to the
group, pointing out how religiously motivated creationists are
misrepresenting science, and trying to push their religious views into
the classroom. As later posts indicated, some on this group were unaware
of the extent of this threat. I also suggested that if teachers were
better educated in the disciplines they teach, they wouldn't make the
absurd statements such as claiming there's not one fossil in support of
evolution, or implying there was no other evidence for evolution either.

Of course, no one fossil, or even or hundreds of them, can *prove*
evolution, and the much-touted 'gaps' in the fossil record don't
*disprove* it either. And a fraud or two, like Piltdown, don't cause the
entire theory of evolution to come crashing down, for its base of
evidential support is far greater than that.

> The
> example you used with the sun is so typical of the professors
> I've encountered. When a student asks you a question of how you know
> what you say you know, you look at them with disdain and wonder aloud
> how stupid a question that is.

You seem to have missed the point of my example. But if you want it
explained, contact me privately and I'll be happy to do so. I think most
of the folks on this list got it, and would be bored with the explanation.

> You are not even worthy to be called an educator.

Thank you. I value your opinion on these matters.

> In Galileo's day 99% of the physicists believed the sun orbited the
> earth. Did that make them right?

It's not whether they were right or wrong that interests us, but what
evidence and supportive logic they used in support of that position. Even
Galileo's evidence for his heliocentrism was ambiguous, and he used a
blatant argument by analogy (moons of Jupiter), which should carry no
weight. It's still not a simple question to answer.

> Where did your biology colleagues come up with 99%?

First tell me where you came up with the 99% of physicists in Galileo's
day... It's a figure of speech, Dan.

> If your biology colleagues can distinguish the facts of evolution
> from the theory why do they write textbooks as if the theory were the fact?

For the same reasons that physics textbooks write giving the impression
that Newton's gravitational theory is a fact. There is simply no viable
competing theory which works. Ditto for evolution.

Perhaps you would have every statement in every textbook prefaced by
"According to evidence found so far, and with our current understanding,
subject to possible modification as new evidence or insight comes in, we
currently (but tentatively) accept that...."

Or would you rather that statement appear on the spine of every textbook,
like the warning on a pack of cigarettes. Come on, Dan, this goes without
saying. How many times does your textbook actually use the word 'fact' in
reference to a statement of science?

> Leon proceeded to educate me in vocabulary and stated that
>"I am surely glad that Dan Hailey is not teaching my children.
> Leon, do you teach your children the way you "taught me"?

Don't expect *anyone* here to sit down and teach you science methodology
and the very complex and sometimes subtle matters relating to evolutionary
theory. We wouldn't presume to be able to teach you quantum mechanics here
either, or for that matter, the radiation physics of black bodies behind
my example of the temperature of the sun. There are plenty of libraries
and even net resources where you can find the answers you seek. Don't
expect an answer in 50 words or less. However, I do think that the biology
stuff ought to have been a part of your university education. And any
teacher ought to have the base of understanding to comprehend these
resources.

> Do you avoid the question with a lot of b.s. trying to sound intelligent
> and then attack the person who asks the question or makes a statement?
> Look up the definition of theory, Leon. If you can't see why some
> people observe the evidence and explain what they see in terms of a
> creation I've got to conclude you are blinded to the forrest for the
> trees. For you to say that creationism can't be considered a theory is
> ludicrous.

By 'look up' I assume you refer to a dictionary. My small paperback
American Heritage Dictionary gives:

Theory. 1. A systemtaicaly organized knowledge applicable in a relatively
wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted
principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or
otherwise explain a specified set of phenomena.

You don't always get good definitions of technical or philosophical terms
from a standard dictionary, but this one isn't bad. What dictionary are
you using, Dan,

> I did not say there were no
> evidence that evolution took place. My argument remains that it is a
> theory that is man's best attempt to explain what he observes without
> delving into the supernatural. It is not fact!

Back to my dictionary.

Fact: Something having existence supported by evidence.

Not very helpful, I agree, for 'existence' is a tricky word itself. The
value of most science books is not a bit diminished if the word 'fact'
were stricken from them. While we are at it, we ought to strike out, and
never use, the words 'true', 'truth', 'belief', etc. They just cause
misunderstanding. Science is just as strong without them.

> I teach my students to separate fact from opinion. I want them to
> think critically. I am not afraid to offer to them two opposing theories.
> You scientists (and I wonder if you really should be called that lofty
> of a title) seem to be afraid to offer evidence for
> your theory but rather try to bully everyone by personal attacks
> and tell me 99% of all biologists believe this.

If you feel 'bullied' by that, it's your problem. It's useful to know
that within the community of biologists, the fact of evolution isn't an
issue, for the evidence for it is overwhelming and there simply is no
credible evidence against it. Those who assault evolution from outside of
biology pick at nits of no importance. There simply is no credible
alternative theory which can even come close to accounting for
the evidence!

Of course the 99% was a figure of speech, as you well know. Has anyone
done a poll? If you doubt that professional biologists are overwhelmingly
in support of evolution, why don't you come up with even a dozen names of
research biologists with Ph.D.s who deny evolution.

I applaud teachers who teach critical thinking, and who encourage
students to seek out evidence and to examine supporting logic, rather
than simply bandying about opinions. But the need also to realize that
not all opinions are equally worthy of respect, and one doesn't achieve
balance by simply pitting one opinion against another (as folks in the
news media seem to think).

> The man who gave me the idea to post my original message about
> evolutionary fraud is
> an atheist who does not believe this theory either. But I suppose
> if he posted the same
> message you would label him a religious zealot as well.

I don't "believe" any theory of anything. 'Belief' is not a word one needs
in science. I find the theory of evolution quite well supported by
evidence, has no serious flaws, performs the necessary function of a
theory (unifying a lot of individual facts), and there's simply no
competing theory of equal power and comprehensiveness. Without evolution,
biology is, as Huxley said, "mere butterfly collecting." One doesn't have to
use the word 'believe' in reference to any scientific theory.

I've been paying attention to this thread, and I saw no one label you
a religious zealot. Perhaps my server was down then, or it was a private
message to you.

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:22:32 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: leon mintz <lmintz@tiac.net>
Subject: Religion in science classes.

>
>Why should religion be introduced in science classes? Would astrology or
>numerology be also introduced?
>--
>Gregory Hennessy
>
How should we call this class?
Should we call it Scientific Atheism or Christian Science?

Leon Mintz July 19, 1996
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:24:45 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: william grey <w.grey@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Re: inclusive language
in-reply-to: <v01510107ae155305b326@{152.91.160.84}>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Julian O'Dea wrote:

> >To Prof Wm. Grey:
>
> The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies. I agree with Dr Gross'
> point which I take to be that the whole thing needs to evolve, not be fixed
> by Diktat.


I agree completely. I think that the singular use of "they" is precisely
such a process of evolution. I think the challenge is to avoid awkward
constructions which grate on the ear and I think that in time the impact
of this one will soften. I don't like "he or she" or "she or he" or
grotesqueries like "he/she" or "s/he". Sexual politics, and legitimate
aspirations, have left us with one big grammatical headache. I don't
think we should be too pedantic about the grammatical niceties of an
earlier epoch. Let's not have any Diktats, but let's also not stand in
the way of linguistic evolution. It happens all the time anyway.


William Grey email: pdwgrey@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Department of Philosophy Tel: + 61 7 336 52099
University of Queensland Fax: + 61 7 336 51968
Brisbane QLD 4072, AUSTRALIA http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:47:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Listserve screening

Paul Gross wrote, in part:

> Is it not possible, somehow, for the listowner, or a group of listees
appointed by him, to come down
>hard, on this wonderfully democratic medium, upon contributors who say such
utterly counterfactual >things?

Gee, Paul, I thought we were doing that already - without direction. Now
you've gone and made me refer the to ACLU, which is not the habitat my
habit's at.

It is highly offensive speech which must be protected; agreeable speech is
not endangered. Granted that misstatement of science abounds in other
venues. Still, I feel we benefit from the practice of countering it and
also seeing how our colleagues counter it.

John Gardenier
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:53:21 CST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: virginia metze <metze@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Listserve screening

>
> Paul Gross wrote, in part:
>
> > Is it not possible, somehow, for the listowner, or a group of listees
> appointed by him, to come down
> >hard, on this wonderfully democratic medium, upon contributors who say such
> utterly counterfactual >things?
>
> Gee, Paul, I thought we were doing that already - without direction. Now
> you've gone and made me refer the to ACLU, which is not the habitat my
> habit's at.
>
> It is highly offensive speech which must be protected; agreeable speech is
> not endangered. Granted that misstatement of science abounds in other
> venues. Still, I feel we benefit from the practice of countering it and
> also seeing how our colleagues counter it.
>
If a lie is protected speech it should not be. I seriously
doubt, even if it is, that fraud is protected.

I do not mind OPINION being stated as such. I mind
religious opinions being passed off as scientific
opinions.

Fraud is NOT protected speech. Just as child porn is
not protected speech, or crying fire in a crowded theatre.
Even though the gun lobbyists believe that constitutional
rights can't be regulated, there is not a constitutional
right I know of that isn't....

Ginny
speaking only for herself

> John Gardenier
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 19:11:00 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley

Response to Ralph Alpher's 7/19/96 "Halley" posting.

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

Ralph Alpher seems to have seen through a creationist ploy to
disrupt Scifraud.

>I suggest that a high school teacher of science named Halley did not exist
>until a few days ago, and that he has attacked this net in order to
>stimulate discussion.

Whenever you respond to a "Halley" or "Lazer A" you could be
responding to a room full of creationists freaking out over how they are
able to agitate, and disrupt, scientists. They want nothing more than to
bait you into their game. Becoming outraged with them, and calling them
stupid, etc., is exactly what they are after--attention. The more you
respond, the more outrageous they become to keep the pot boiling on and on.


Once you've seen through their game, the only way to deal with them
is to DELETE them, and never respond.

Dewey McLean


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:20:15 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <19960719.101750.3518.0.dalaze@juno.com>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Da Laze wrote:

> Any objects created as if they were aged would be
> PRECISELY the same as if they HAD aged. This would be true at all
> levels, including the atomic. Obviously, the creator would be capable of
> doing this. Therefore one could scientifically study ANY object.

Yes, but where does it say in the Bible that God set up the whole
universe as a gigantic lie? And you can't scientifically study any
subject in this weird hybrid universe, because for a lot of it you will
get false - and intentionally false - answers.

> You have not given a reason to
> assume that everything was created seconds ago. You have only said that
> it is coherent.

Exactly, and that's the reason. It is coherent to regard the whole
universe as amenable to scientific investigation. It is also coherent,
using my theory, to regard none of it as subject to such investigation.
It is incoherent to have an arbitrary hybrid. In addition, it is
astonishing to postulate God as a giant scientific fraud. I suspect that
most Jews and Christians would find that unacceptable, particularly since
we are told not to lie.

Martin Bridgstock
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:24:46 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <31ef4687@smtpout.em.cdc.gov>

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Gardenier, John S. wrote:

> Let's face it, gang. This is a pretty sophomoric thread. (SNIP)

Agreed, but look at the discussion it's provoking!

> Anyone care to bring in solipsism? That's another logically consistent
> position for you.
>
> John Gardenier

Oh John, that was going to be my next point!
MB
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:02:13 PDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: barry roth <barryr@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Transitional species

dalaze@juno.com asks about other species concepts. For starts,

Paterson, H.E.H. 1993. Evolution and the recognition concept of species:
collected writings / Hugh E. H. Paterson; edited by Shane F. McEvey.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

But let's take any follow-ups off-list so as not to bother listmembers who
may not be interested in this thread.

Barry Roth
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:10:13 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) You are right!
in-reply-to: <01i79ff99b3q8y4x0b@cnsvax.albany.edu>

Dan Hailey wrote:

(SNIP)

> All of that overwhelming evidence you presented for
> evolution makes me wonder where my head was.

(SNIP)

> I was told that if I actually challenged "real" scientists about their
> beliefs in evolution I would be attacked personally and that no "serious"
> scientist would ever stoop to present evidence for the theory because
> everyone should know that evolution is fact.

Another reason could be, Dan (I assume you're happy with that, see below)
that the internet is not very suitable for the presentaiton of huge
amounts of evidence, and most people do have a lot of other things to
do, particularly when the objections take the form of a few slogans.

As I explained in my earlier reply, I would be prepared to discuss the
issue seriously, but my attempts to do so with other anti-evolutionists
exposed me to a good deal of denigration and abuse. From your reply, I
assume that you don't want to discuss things seriously. OK, let's not, but
remember who offered and who refused.


> And finally Martin, who also makes the assumption I advocate creation
> science.

Yes, and I explained why I thought that: the slogans come from there.

> I too "get fed up" with "self righteous people who seem more
> concerned about scoring cheap points than actually discussing the
> issue". Speaking of cheap points, does it matter that
> my signature file is in lower case? It was created by one of my students
> who told me lower case was "cool". It didn't bother me one way or the
> other. Why does it bother you or is it your way of "scoring cheap points"?

Neither. I suggest you re-read my original post. From memory, what I said
was "If Dan Hailey (or, if he prefers, dan hailey) . . ." That's it. No
cheap points involved. The point was simply that I didn't mind.

> At any rate I fail to see why Science's great
> strength is that it cannot prove any of it's theories. Maybe you could
> enlighten me on that one.

Make up your mind Dan. Do you want to talk seriously or not? This tirade
is exactly what I expect from creation scientists.

> I too did a lengthy analysis of the claims of creationists and
> evolutionists. I too
> found monumental amounts of fraud, misrepresentation, misquotes, and grossly selective
> use of evidence. It seems to me that the people on both sides of the issue interpret
> the same evidence according to their own preconceived theories.

Another creation science argument. How many creation science references
did you check, Dan? That is, looking up the originals to see if quotes
were correct, not torn from context etc? I did hundreds of exactly that.
My conclusion was that fully 90% of creation science references were
false: misquotes, misrepresentations etc. That was one of my main reasons
for opposing its importation into the classroom: I don't like teaching
false evidence.

> I am not afraid to offer to them two opposing theories.

Which is, of course, exactly what the creation scientists want.

> You scientists (and I wonder if you
> really should be called that lofty of a title)

I have not descended to personal attacks, Dan. You have.

> How hypocritical!

Exactly. Though I think we're talking about different things.

I don't think you want serious discussion, Dan, and this has taken a fair
bit of time to write. So I won't respond to further posts unless
there's clear evidence of a will to serious discussion as opposed to
ranting.

Martin Bridgstock
Griffith University
Queensland
Australia
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 09:22:02 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Halley

Dear Scifraud Colleagues:

As a follow-up to my 7/19/96 "Halley" posting, I offer these
comments on creationistic tactics.

Whenever creationists "invade" a group of innocent people, one of
their missions is that of proselytization. They know that they can count on
a certain percentage of people who will attempt to communicate with
them--to try to "educate" them.

Once they identify those vulnerable individuals, they will then
become more reasonable, and extend offers of further discussion. The next
thing the victim knows, he is being invited to attend their meetings.
Intelligence and education are not always good defenses against their
insidious tactics.

I have had first hand experience with how creationists can
successfully proselyte others into their fold--and convert them into
radical creationists who further spread their message, and try to proselyte
others into their doctrine.

One of my own graudate students, an intelligent and delightful
person, turned almost overnight into a radical fundamentalist/creationist
who, at every opportunity, would try to entice me into religious
discussions that might become forceful and unpleasant. He made the point
many times that if I did not abide by his teachings, I was "condemned to
hell."

His conversion to creationism was facilitated by the fact that one
of our departmental mineralogy professors is a creationist who is extremely
active among the vulnerable young people of our university. His group
monitored those of us who teach evolution and, I believe, worked to disrupt
our classes. Often, when I would mention the word "evolution," people would
rise from their seats and noisily depart from my classroom, disrupting my
lecture. A number of times, freshmen came to my office telling me that I
should go talk to Dr. ***, and that he would "straighten me out" on
evolution.

Once, some of my freshmen students invited me to a creationistic
picnic with both Dr. ***, and Henry Morris, head of the Creation Science
Research Institute in San Diego, California. The kids told me that "Dr.
Morris would show me the true word on evolution." My own freshmen seemed to
be trying to proselyte me into their doctrine.

Creatonists play by the filthiest tactics. Little is beneath them.
They have already broken down many barriers between church and state. They
will seek out, and hurt, those who stand in their way. One of my young
paleontological colleagues quit this university, in part, because of
creationistic pressures. He was a Harvardite, and one of Stephen J. Gould's
Ph.D.s. He was one of the best teachers at this university, and a brilliant
person with a bright future--and an ardent anit-creationist. By getting him
out of here, the creationists scored a great victory at this university.

Creationistic doctrine is not all about God and special creation.
One thing to keep in mind is that--if they can force scientists to teach
creationism on equal par with evolution--they stand to make huge profits
from their books.

The best defense against this insidious creationistic cancer that
threatens to destroy our educational system is to pressure our national
leaders to strike down any legislation that would further weaken separation
of church and state.

Dewey McLean



Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 00:22:00 AEST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was
retained.
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was
retained.
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was
retained.
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was
retained.
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was
retained.
Comments: RFC822 error: <W> TO field duplicated. Last occurrence was
retained.
from: peter bowditch <peterb@acslink.net.au>
Subject: Brief hiatus
Comments: To: htech-l@sivm.si.edu
Comments: cc: peterb@peg.apc.org

To all my friends on the list:

I will be writing a book over the next two months. As this will take up more
spare time than I have now, I have to postpone from the list for a few
weeks. I will still be available by email if anyone wants to talk to me.

Thanks for your company and conversation. See you in October.

.................................................................
Peter Bowditch Tel: +61-2-6871247
Gebesse Computer Consultants Fax: +61-2-6871248
Parramatta NSW Australia Mobile: +61-419-219659
peterb@acslink.net.au http://www.acslink.net.au/~peterb/
.................................................................
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 12:41:53 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: john chalmers <non12@deltanet.com>
Subject: Creationism, etc.

Textbooks often contain errors of fact; on that both scientists and
creationists can agree, but the most egregious examples of outright
misrepresentation of scientific facts and principles are to be found in
creationist literature. I've seen creationist literature that claimed
that DNA replication was error-free, therefore evolution cannot occur.
Not only are errors naturally made in DNA replication, the error rate
itself is under genetic control and subject to selection.

If Mr. Hailey or Lazer can document comparable examples in the scientific
literature, I'd like to see them. Cases such as the Piltdown Hoax
and the Nebraska Man (an honest error as some pig teeth do resemble
human ones), don't count as they were discovered and corrected by
scientists themselves as part of the self-corrective and cumulative
nature of science, not by creationist critics.

Can one point to any comparable errors or hoaxes caught and corrected by
creationists? The Paluxy River "man tracks" were shown by scientists to
be dinosaur tracks or erosional artifacts. To their credit, the ICR no longer
displays them as creationist evidences, but they did so only after
irrefutable data was collected by evolutionists.


My own experience has been that few creationists are persuaded by
facts, though I know of one who gave up young earth C'ism because
of the natural reactors at Oklo in Gabon. Previously, he had claimed
that there was sufficient primordial tritium to make the earth only
a few thousand years old. I pointed out that because of the short
half-life of 3H, that the whole visible universe would have to have
been composed of tritium for any primordial 3H to be around after
10,000 years. He replied that he meant helium-3, so I asked for a
more detailed model. Several months later he wrote that despite Duane
Gish's claim that the carbonaceous shale surrounding the reactor zones
at Oklo, he was convinced that the reactor zones were truly ancient.

Another interesting thing about these natural reactors is that the
bulk of the fission products seem to be in situ and have not migrated
away from the zones. This might be work pursuing as it might bear on
the problems of nuclear waste storage.

Otherwise, however, debating with C'ists is frustrating. If you point
out that God's giving the appearance of great age to the universe and the
earth is as the critics of "Omphalos" put it, "a monstrous and
superfluous lie," they will reply that the Devil corrupted the world at
the Fall,
that the craters on the moon were caused by battles between good and evil
angels, etc. What their mindset boils down to is neatly encapsulated by
a bumper sticker I saw in Houston, " The Bible Says It, I Believe It,
That Settles It."

Frankly, I'm prepared to write off adult C'ists as lost, and direct efforts
towards the education of the young. Since the majority of non-public
schools that will benefit from voucher funding systems are likely to be
church-affiliated and the majority of those creationist, I'm opposed to
public funding of private education. I do, however, share the concerns
of many Americans over the quality and safety of public education.

BTW, to change the subject, is Ralf A. Alpher the Alpher of the famous
Alpher, Bethe and Gamov paper?

--John
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 08:30:20 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: william grey <w.grey@mailbox.uq.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <pine.sol.3.91.960720091352.7438b-100000@kraken>

The example of the seconds-old universe (mentioned by Martin Bridgstock)
was raised (though not advocated) by Bertrand Russell (as I recall in _The
Analysis of Mind_) where he pointed out that there is no logical
inconsistency in supposing that the world was created five minutes ago,
complete with fictitious memories of a non-existent past. One point of
this is to show that consistency may be a necessary condition for a
satisfactory theory, but it is certainly not sufficient. (Solipsism also
meets the minimal requirement of consistency.) And various others have
pointed out that no one has yet pinned down satisfactory criteria for
scientific method.

Isaac Asimov introduced a useful distinction between endoheresies and
exoheresies in science. Endoheresies are internal squabbles; scientists
typically agree about evidence and standards but dispute the weight and
interpretation. Punctuated equilibrium is an endoheresy. It can be
sensibly debated. Exoheresies on the other hand don't just question
theories by appeal to evidence; they call into question the relevance or
coherence of the evidence itself. Creation science is an exoheresy.
Exoheresies are not empirical disputes, they are philosophical (in the
sense of being a priori; not, I hasten to add, in the sense of being
typically advanced by philosophers).

One of the points on which creationists are sometimes less than
scrupulous is by seizing on endoheresies (such as punctuated equilibrium)
and suggesting that it is really an exoheresy -- as dispute about whether
evolution really occurred at all.

It is important to be clear about whether one is addressing an endoheresy
or an exoheresy, as different standards of argument are called for.

I admire the patience with which members of this list have addressed
creationist claims. It's so easy to overwhelmed with exasperation at the
perversity of their views.

William Grey email: pdwgrey@mailbox.uq.edu.au
Department of Philosophy Tel: + 61 7 336 52099
University of Queensland Fax: + 61 7 336 51968
Brisbane QLD 4072, AUSTRALIA http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:24:50 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) You are right!


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 23:15:30 -0400 (EDT)
from: daniel laure hailey <eagledan@copland.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) You are right!
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU>


I don't know what your problem is dewey, My name is what it says it is.
Try and get past your persecution complex and deal with facts. I knowi it'
hard for you. And I was a member before I contacted you. Check it out
with Al Higgins if you want. I sat and "listened to the threads before I
commented.

\\\|||///
=== === dan hailey Delcastle H.S.
{ O O }
| > | People who know how work for people who know why.




Al Higgins
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:26:33 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) You are right!


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 23:34:45 -0400
from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) You are right!
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>

One more pre-signoff thought, with apologies. This distressing
anti-evolution thread worked itself very smoothly and easily, at
first, into the otherwise legitimate discussions of "scientific
fraud" with which the list is mainly concerned. Not only did it
get nowhere; it convinced nobody. But it generated rather a lot
of ill feeling AND I can guarantee that a naive listener to it
would decide that, well, maybe there IS something to what people
like Hailey or Lazer or whatever say. Of course there is nothing
to it except high-school debating technique, rather crudely
applied. Therefore when the AAAS congratulates itself that 76%
(or whatever) of the America public is supportive of science,
remember that the same "study" showed that something like 6% of
it evinced any understanding, however elementary, of what it is
about. If, therefore, you believe that it has value, overall,
for civilization, despite its creaky and flawed social machinery
(and what institution isn't so flawed?), then maybe you ought to
do two things: (1) stop being nice to nonsense when you recognize
it (as several respondents to Hailey/Lazer did here, eventually),
and (2) fashion your critiques of "science" so that they really
are that, rather than the venting of personal, and perhaps
justifiable, anger or disaffection.

PRG



Al Higgins
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 23:47:33 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Another Review

Another Review

\Numbers, Ronald L. and Rosenberg, Charles E., editors. The
Scientific Enterprise in America: Readings From Isis. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1996.\

In this collection of papers from Isis, two distinguished
former editors of that journal have assembled 16 essays dealing
with science in the U.S. The essays date from 1967 through 1995
with 9 of them written in the 90s, 4 in the 80s, 2 in the 70s,
and 1 in the 60s. These 16 are but 10 percent of the 161
articles identified and listed by these editors as bearing on
American science and published in Isis in the years 1912-1995.
And, as one might expect, those selected bear on topics of
concern at the present time: Margaret Rossiter, "Women's Work in
Science, 1880-1910"; Hugh Richard Slotten, "The Dilemmas of
Science in the United States: Alexander Dallas Bache and the
U.S. Coast Survey," and Larry Owens, "MIT and the Federal
'Angel': Academic R & D and Federal-Private Cooperation before
World War II." Indeed, this collection is a prize in terms of
its organization of the history of American science in the mid-
1990s.

As for fraud, this is a celebration of American science
rather than an expose of fakery. But even here, one finds very
clear evidence of some ploys and gambits in science -- after all,
science is a very human enterprise. Consider Susan E. Lederer's
"Political Animals: The Shaping of Biomedical Research
Literature in Twentieth-Century America," (pp. 228-246)
originally published, 1993:

From the time of his appointment as editor in 1921
through 1946, when the pace of biomedical
experimentation necessitated the appointment of
associate editors, Francis Peyton Rous exercised a form
of scientific "prior restraint," altering the
presentation, description, and illustration of
laboratory procedures and results involving animal
subjects in efforts explicitly undertaken to placate
critics of animal experimentation.
Rous rhetorical strategies, including the
rejection of some manuscripts on the grounds that they
would provoke antivivisectionists and the
implementation of textual revisions that involved
renumbering animal subjects in order to mislead critics
about the total number of animals actually involved in
research, suggest the extent to which external
sociopolitical considerations may modify the
informative content of scientific communications.
Although defenders of unrestricted medical research
generally accused American antivivisectionists of
garbling the scientific information they culled from
specialized research journals, the effort to divert
antivivisectionist criticism through textual revisions
and photographic omission may itself have "scrambled"
the communication of laboratory data, skewing
expectations, replications, and results.
The construction of scientific literature in a
hostile environment has received little attention. (p.
228)

But there was more than bowdlerizing. Animals were awarded
prizes for their "contributions" to medical research:

In the 1940s two medical research advocacy groups
sponsored awards for the dog participants in biomedical
research. The Friends of Medical Research, a voluntary
education group sponsored by the New York Academy of
Medicine, established the Whipple Prize in 1946. Named
for George Hoyt Whipple, who shared the 1934 Nobel
Prize in medicine with George Minot and William Murphy,
the prize was first awarded to two Dalmatians... Josie
and Trixie received the award from the Surgeon-General
of the United States in 1946 "on behalf of their
ancestors who had contributed to the fundamental
research which led to the discovery of the liver
treatment of pernicious anemia." The same year, in
response to the intensification of antivivisectionist
efforts to restrict the use of dogs in research, the
National Society for Medical Research introduced the
Research Dog Hero Award to a surviving (and healthy
looking) dog used in heart surgery studies or cancer
research. Given annually from 1946 through 1964, "the
canine equivalent of the Nobel Prize" recognized the
contributions of dogs to medical science and reaped a
publicity windfall for the defenders of animal
research... (p. 240)

Not only were scientists aware of the political climate
regarding the use of animals for medical research, but there were
human subjects as well:

Concern for the human subject of one experiment led
Rous to take the extraordinary step of severely
reprimanding a physician for unethical conduct. In a
letter rejecting the manuscript, Rous informed a San
Diego physician that his experiment involving the
inoculation of a twelve-month-old infant with herpes
virus was "an abuse of power, an infringement on the
rights of the individual, and not excusable because the
illness which followed had implications for science."
He criticized the physician's disclaimed that the child
had been "offered as a volunteer" as neither meaningful
nor exculpatory. This letter suggests that members of
the medical research community, attuned to
antivivisectionist attacks, informally monitored abused
of human subjects. As a means of protecting human
subjects, the efficacy of this arrangement is
questionable: the physician in question subsequently
published his article in the Journal of Pediatrics,
which presented the report of application of herpes
virus to "S.D., a white girl 12 months old offered as a
volunteer." (pp. 243-244)

The publication of experimental reports in the
biomedical literature is not a purely intellectual
activity, but a process mediated by social,
professional, and epistemological constraints. The
editorial preoccupation with describing the procedures
and results of experiments involving animals at the
Rockefeller Institute reflected the political and
social pressures that antivivisectionists continued to
expert on a critical segment of the medical research
community. Rous and his colleagues adopted preventive
strategies to preclude loss of public support for the
research enterprise. Altering the published
descriptions of procedures on animals facilitated
"objectivity" in medical science: unfortunately for
Rous and his successors, it did not serve to make
animal experimentation less objectional to
antivivisectionists. (pp. 245-246)

But it is with the ploys of one of science's great
administrators, Vannevar Bush, that the reader is given major
insights in the construction of American science. Thus, one of
the major themes of this collection that big science is a
political and politicized enterprise. Thus, in Stanley
Goldberg's "Inventing a Climate of Opinion: Vannevar Bush and
the Decision to Build the Bomb," (pp. 273-296) it is made very
clear that the decision to go all out in the development of the
bomb, the Manhattan Project, was not a consensual decision based
on assessments of technical feasibility but, rather, the work of
behind-the-scenes manipulations by Vannevar Bush. He was a
brilliant tactician in carrying out his decision and just how he
did it, what strings he pulled, what buttons he pushed, are the
substance of the article. It's great in terms of how to
manipulate an organization but it surely isn't "science." And,
perhaps most important:

From the point of view of decision-making processes in
bureaucratic structures, the decision to build the
atomic bomb is nothing exceptional. The fact that this
case involves a technical problem associated with
research in scientific laboratories should not distract
us from the fact that, as with all such bureaucratic
processes, the decision was a political one. Behind
the facade of committees and consensus behavior are the
contests of will and guile and the forces of individual
charisma that drive any political process, be it the
decision to hire this or that faculty member, to back
this or that candidate, to develop or use this or that
weapon, or to fund this or that program. In the end
all such decisions, regardless of the form of
government under which they are made, are political.
(p. 296)

It's very clear: decisions made in big science contexts are
not, then, something special but, as in all other organizations,
acts of sociological interest which take place in political
contexts. Physical scientists have no special grasp, no special
intellectual gifts with which to deal with the social context of
action. Bush was a great manipulator who knew how to work the
system but that did not result from his studies in engineering.

Then, the very next case study, of Bush and the NSF,
underscores that same idea. The article by Daniel J. Kevles,
"The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar
Research Policy, 1942-1945," (pp. 297-319) concludes that
"Science--The Endless Frontier" was a "political document, a
textual weapon for the political battles of 1945-1950 over the
shape, purpose, and choice of federal policy for scientific
research and the development in the postwar era." (p. 319) In
fact, the establishment of the National Science Foundation was
"largely a triumph for Bush." (p. 518)

No question, this "czar of science" was a political
craftsman who achieved his "conservative Republican ends" by
doing battle with the "liberal" forces of his day. That
achievement, however, cannot be considered "science" or
"scientific" but must be viewed as political. Again, it is
fraudulent to claim that the big science fashioned by Bush and
his staff is the only possible structure for science, or indeed,
the is the best structure for science. The organization
constructed in the mid-1940s was and remains an elitist
institution which favors a fortunate few whose monopolistic
interests have succeeded over these years beyond their wildest
dreams.

It's interesting to note Bush's use of power: at one point
in the construction of "Science -- The Endless Frontier" Bush had
appointed elite scientists to four committees which were to deal
with various issues. On the most sensitive of those committees,
Bush was careful: "Eager to have an unimpeachably balanced
panel, Bush appointed seventeen men to committee 3, nine of them
academics, mainly administrators, who were divided almost evenly
between public and private institutions. He included two
representatives of big business, Robert E. Wilson, the chairman
of the board of Standard Oil of Indiana, and Oliver E. Buckley,
the president of Bell Telephone Laboratories. He also appointed
two small businessmen, Bradley H. Land, the president and
director of research of the remarkably successful young firm, the
Polaroid Corporation. The chairman of committee 3 was the high-
ranking member of the National Academy of Science and president
of The Johns Hopkins University, Isaih Bowman." (p. 313) So, it
is very clear that Bush has picked the elite of academia and
business to advise him in the preparation of the report. But a
few pages later: "Long before the reports were in, Bush had
decided to top them all off with an overall interpretive
statement of his own. He worked on the statement through the
spring of 1945, with considerable help from Oscar Ruebhausen,
Carroll L. Wilson, his chief assistant, and Bethuel M. Webster, a
New York lawyer and able writer who was engaged to draw up the
preliminary draft." (p. 313) Thus, on important issues, one does
not rely on the recommendations of even elite committees but,
rather, one has "his own version of a National Science Foundation
to recommend." (p. 315) Thus, "...Bush insisted that his
foundation had to be governed by citizens selected only on the
basis of their interest in and capacity to support the work of
the agency. While (the liberals) aimed to fund socially and
economically useful research primarily in federal laboratories,
Bush's foundation was to support pure science in nonprofit
research institutions, mainly universities." (p. 315) It is
reported here, that while the committee work was, to some extent,
mere window dressing, his report was found to be acceptable to
all the committees. That university and corporate presidents
could be used as "window dressing" by Bush is suggestive of the
power the man had and the ways in which he used it: his science
became Big Science.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that what Bush fostered
and created was his idea of the best science possible. But, as a
conservative and an elitist, one can disagree with the structure
and function of his creation. One can easily offer alternatives
(geographical, educational and functional) to the organization
created in the 1950s which we now identify as big science. The
world does not need to be shaped as it is by that model and it
would be fraud to claim that it did. (As several have done.)

In all, an excellent collection of papers which clearly
display the organization and history of big science in the United
States. This collection provides a excellent telling of how big
science got to be the way it is, ploys and all.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:37:59 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: Reply to Dan Hailey

At 09:52 18-07-1996 -0900,Jim Shea wrote:
>Dan Hailey:
>
> Jonathan Weiner's book, "The Beak of the Finch" is a marvelous
>description of a the work of a number of scientists who are finding that
>evolution due to natural selection takes place much faster and is more
>common than had previously been believed. Mr. Hailey should read it.

And to add my 2 bits worth.... Some of us have evidence of clear evolutionary
changes being brought about by a single season of altered climatic
conditions (in migrant bird species particularly). By "some of us" I
mean basically myself and our tea lady, but I'm working on Jim Whitehead
and Dewey McLean in the hope of doubling the numbers!

Ted Gerrard.
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 08:19:23 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <pine.sol.3.91.960720091352.7438b-100000@kraken>

The following message is posted, with the author's permission, from a
discussion group of high school physics teachers, PHYSHARE. I think it
has a lot worth considering about the issue of how to teach biology in
the shools, and to deflect the attacks of militant creationists, related
to our recent trhead.

-- Donald

From jgiglio@NOVA.UMUC.EDUSun Jul 21 08:15:17 1996
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:02:07 -0400
from: jim giglio <jgiglio@nova.umuc.edu>
Reply to: Sharing resources for high school physics <PHYSHARE@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
to: multiple recipients of list physhare <physhare@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Probably off-topic

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, a list member wrote:

> ... I taught biology in a school where religious fundamentalism is
> rampant.

So did I, about 30 years ago now. It was in Atlanta, and the largest
church in the area was Baptist and fundamentalist. I decided, during my
third year of teaching, that biology wasn't really biology without Darwin,
so I decided to tackle the E-word.

I deliberately placed the unit at the end of the year, so that there would
be an information background to draw on. I actually read Darwin, and used
his explanation as the organizing structure of the unit. There were some
good films available from AIBS, and I used them.

The most important thing I did was in devising an approach to the religion
thing. I told the students up front that I was fully aware of the fact
that large numbers of people had religious objections to Darwin, and that
some of them were sitting in the classroom as I spoke. I then pointed out
the plain fact that most scientists agree with Darwin, but that I had
neither the right nor the obligation, _as a science teacher_, to require
that my students also agree. But I _did_, as a science teacher, have the
right to require that they understand the nature of the evidence that
convinced Darwin and three generations of scientists that the theory of
natural selection is correct.

That intro pretty much disarmed the objectors. Since I did not require
agreement, only comprehension, there were no significant disputes. At the
end of the unit, once the students knew something of the arguments that
Darwin used in convincing the scientific community, and of the
overwhelming success of those arguments, we revisited the topic of the
religious controversy around evolution and natural selection.

In this reprise, I pointed out that most major denominations -- those with
fairly centralized doctrinal decision-making -- had simply revised their
interpretations of Genesis a bit and thereby managed to accommodate
themselves to Darwin without much trouble. That left the highly
decentralized denominations: while many individual adherents of these had
made similar accommodations, others were unwilling to do so.

I then addressed myself to any in the class who might be in the latter
group, suggesting that if the information they had picked up in the last
few weeks presented them with religious conflicts, they should consult
their ministers; just as I had no obligation to require them to agree with
Darwin and the scientists, I also had no obligation to resolve religious
dilemmas.

One small but important detail was the writing of test items:

"Fossil X is found in a rock layer below a layer containing fossil Y; what
would a geologist say about the age of X?" (Not "How old is fossil X?").

"Despite their differences, rats, mice and squirrels are all classified as
rodents. Draw a diagram showing how Darwin would have explained these
differences and similarities in terms of descent from common ancestors."
(Not "Diagram their common ancestry.")

The whole thing worked out quite well; even those students who held out
firmly in the creationist camp remained on good terms with me, and did
well on the tests. I've often wondered how this kind of approach might
work today, with today's brand of more strident creationists.

| SCULLY - MULDER '96 |
| Trust No One Else |
jgiglio@nova.umuc.edu
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:40:35 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: Scifraud case

At 15:54 16-07-1996 -0500, Dewey McLean wrote:
>Hi Ted:
>
> It's been a while since I've seen any postings on Scifraud
>concerning your scifraud case. How's your case coming along?

Plus some encouraging and somewhat flattering comments that
Dewey intended to be "off list".

However, while the Baltimore/O'Toole case is currently being
discussed and to answer Dewey, this is how my case is coming
along....... It isn't.

After 24 years of gradually increasing frustration I have changed
from a simple amateur ornithologist who "discovered" an explanation
for a previously inexplicable event into a world expert on whistleblowing.

Like O'Toole I wish I had never started. Unlike her, NOT ONE SINGLE
person in authority in my field will even consider examining my case/s.

I have also changed from a beliver in scientific truth and honesty into
an agressive skeptic who's finances and marriage are continually under
strain. I am calling a halt, pro-tem, before I too start making mistakes
and am tempted to "cook the books" to prove my points.

My only consolation is that those I have accused of scientific fraud, know
they have been exposed through my postings on SciFraud.

I shall be "off-line" for a week whilst this Museum undergoes its annual
fumigation against white ant. If only a dozen or so animal behaviour
"experts" could be shut in at the same time, some of my worries would
be over.

Ted Gerrard.



E.C.Gerrard
Ornithology Section
Museu Municipal do Funchal (Historia Natural)
Rua da Mouraria, 31
9000 FUNCHAL, MADEIRA, PORTUGAL
Tel.: +351-91-792591 Fax.: +351-91-225180
e-mail egerrard@tethys.uma.pt
WWW page: http://www.mmf.uma.pt/~egerrard/
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:40:33 GMT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: ted gerrard <egerrard@tethys.uma.pt>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

At 12:33 19-07-1996 +1000,Julian O'Dea wrote:
>Just a thought that occurs to me: David Baltimore may be rich, powerful,
>brilliant, aggressive, domineering, ruthless etc etc. (I am sure that we
>all have people around us who could give us negative references).
>
>But the point is that, even if he is, he is still entitled to what we call
>in Australia, a "fair go".
>
>The issue is not "Is he a bastard who got what he deserved." It is "Was he
>guilty?"
>
But what about the "whistleblower"? Has she received
a "fair go" or does she wish she had kept her mouth shut?

Ted Gerrard.
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:04:21 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) You are right!

To Paul:

You and I have had fun jousting with one another. And, it was fun.
I adore people with a wicked sense of wit, and you (and Donald, and some
others) certainly have it. I suspect we both wrote our responses to one
another with chuckles in our hearts.

But your qualities that most impressed me are your solid core of
sensibility, wealth of knowledge, and courage to speak your mind frankly,
and to the point. I respect those qualities.

Your perceptiveness has seen through the creationist's tactics to
gain attention to themselves, and to transform innocent people--like high
school children--into their own perverted kind.

On one last point, I was afraid that God was going to send me back
to the amphibian level to be reeducated by creationists. That is their
intellectual level. But then I learned, from good source, that God detests
creationists and gives bonus points toward Heaven for his good people who
expose them as the Spawns of Satan that they really are.

Cordially,
Dewey the Devine






>


>Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 23:34:45 -0400
>from: "paul r. gross" <prg@faraday.clas.virginia.edu>
>Subject: Re: (Fwd) You are right!
>to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
>
>One more pre-signoff thought, with apologies. This distressing
>anti-evolution thread worked itself very smoothly and easily, at
>first, into the otherwise legitimate discussions of "scientific
>fraud" with which the list is mainly concerned. Not only did it
>get nowhere; it convinced nobody. But it generated rather a lot
>of ill feeling AND I can guarantee that a naive listener to it
>would decide that, well, maybe there IS something to what people
>like Hailey or Lazer or whatever say. Of course there is nothing
>to it except high-school debating technique, rather crudely
>applied. Therefore when the AAAS congratulates itself that 76%
>(or whatever) of the America public is supportive of science,
>remember that the same "study" showed that something like 6% of
>it evinced any understanding, however elementary, of what it is
>about. If, therefore, you believe that it has value, overall,
>for civilization, despite its creaky and flawed social machinery
>(and what institution isn't so flawed?), then maybe you ought to
>do two things: (1) stop being nice to nonsense when you recognize
>it (as several respondents to Hailey/Lazer did here, eventually),
>and (2) fashion your critiques of "science" so that they really
>are that, rather than the venting of personal, and perhaps
>justifiable, anger or disaffection.
>
>PRG
>
>
>
>Al Higgins


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 10:25:34 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: john chalmers <non12@deltanet.com>
Subject: Erratum, Bush, etc.

I'm pleased to hear that it is the same Ralph Alpher.

I apologize for a lacuna in my last post. I hd meant to say
"Several months later he wrote that despite Duane Gish's claim that the
carbonaceous shale surrounding the reactor zones at Oklo was abiogenic,
he was convinced that the reactor zones were truly ancient," but I
accidently omitted the words, "was abiogenic." I trust the sentence makes
better sense and grammar now.


Re Bush: Back in the early 1970's I worked for Merck Sharp & Dohme
and the among the older scientists, the Vannevar Bush era of "big
science"
had the mythic aura of a Golden Age (Bush was on Merck's board at
one time). The massive efforts to produce penicillin on an industrial
scale during WWII were the microbiologists' and pharmaceutical chemists'
version of the Manhattan Project and certainly in the context of
the time, "socially useful."

Frankly, I tend to cringe when I see the words "socially useful" applied
to science." Social utility is in the mind of the ideologist. Funding
basic research in universities rather than in National Labs or farming it
out to corporations was one of the best decisions the US ever made. In
countries where research and teaching are spatially and administratively
separate, teaching suffers. (Germany and Russia come to mind, see recent
discussions in Science).

It may well be that in the present period, a less elitist model for
science policy might be more appropriate, but the burden of proof is
on the proposer given the success of the Bush program. It seems that the
majority of scientific advances come from a minority of laboratories.
Is this an artefact of the big science model or the outcome of a process
intrinsic to science?

--John
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:31:26 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Scifraud case

Response to Ted Gerrard's 7/21/96 "Scifraud case" posting (attached below).

Dear Ted:

That I am fond of you for standing up to scifraud stems from
admiration. You are a rare soul.

Many people delight in digging up old corpses, and exposing their
frauds to the world. Because those old corpses are dead, they are also
"safe."

However, facing up to living, powerful, politically-well-connected,
and vicious people who have big teeth and lawyers--and who will use them on
you--can be dangerous.

And demoralizing--and energy, and spirit, draining--as you begin to
realize that you will never accomplish anything.

Once, a war, or so, ago, I wandered far into a mine field. When I
got to a part of the field where erosion had exposed buried napalm barrels
and anti-personnel mines all about me--all with hidden trip wires to snag
the unwary--a feeling of dread descended over me. Now that I am addressing
scientific misconduct in the K-T debate, I often have that same feeling. I
know that you must have it also.

I would encourage those who deal only with the dead to think also
about the living. All it takes is a working sense of civic and moral
responsibility--and a little courage.

Cordially,
Dewey



>> It's been a while since I've seen any postings on Scifraud
>>concerning your scifraud case. How's your case coming along?
>
>Plus some encouraging and somewhat flattering comments that
>Dewey intended to be "off list".
>
>However, while the Baltimore/O'Toole case is currently being
>discussed and to answer Dewey, this is how my case is coming
>along....... It isn't.
>
>After 24 years of gradually increasing frustration I have changed
>from a simple amateur ornithologist who "discovered" an explanation
>for a previously inexplicable event into a world expert on whistleblowing.
>
>Like O'Toole I wish I had never started. Unlike her, NOT ONE SINGLE
>person in authority in my field will even consider examining my case/s.
>
>I have also changed from a beliver in scientific truth and honesty into
>an agressive skeptic who's finances and marriage are continually under
>strain. I am calling a halt, pro-tem, before I too start making mistakes
>and am tempted to "cook the books" to prove my points.
>
>My only consolation is that those I have accused of scientific fraud, know
>they have been exposed through my postings on SciFraud.
>
>I shall be "off-line" for a week whilst this Museum undergoes its annual
>fumigation against white ant. If only a dozen or so animal behaviour
>"experts" could be shut in at the same time, some of my worries would
>be over.


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:40:58 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: achiggins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Footnote?

Footnote?

Here is an article on the science of the notorious Cell
paper by Thereza Imanishi-Kari and her colleagues, 1986. This is
the paper in which Margot O'Toole thought her boss was making a
mistake and which has resulted in a decade-long furor. Now the
case has been ended with the failure of the ORI to obtain a
conviction.

It's noted here that the disputes of 1986 may, from the
viewpoint of biology, be old hat. As Eliot Marshall puts it:
"the topic on which it was based has slipped from one of the hot
fields of immunology to, at best, a quiet backwater." A decade
is a long time in molecular biology.

But it is a mistake to see the Baltimore affair, as it is
called, simply in terms of biology. Recall, for example, that
the hearings called by Congressman John Dingell focused not on
the science involved but on the possible mistreatment of a
whistleblower. Could it be that big science -- in the person of
a Noble prizewinning biologist -- was unfairly treating a young
postdoc? The treatment of Margot O'Toole is not a "quiet
backwater" at all and big science has yet to deal with the issues
raised by this How postdocs are treated is an issue that is not
going away. The treatment of postdocs should be a matter of
concern to big biology.

+++++++++++


\Marshall, Eliot. "Disputed Results Now Just a
Footnote," Science 273 (12 July 1996), pp. 174-175.\

Perhaps no paper in biology has been as
intensively analyzed, dissected, and argued over as the
publication by Thereza Imanishi-Kari et al. in the 25
April 1986 issue of the journal Cell. It's been
examined by two university committees, a squad of
federal investigators, a congressional subcommittee,
the Secret Service, a government appeals board, and
countless lawyers -- all of whom have focused on
whether Imanishi-Kari committed scientific misconduct.
Yet, in the decade that this infamous paper has been in
the spotlight, the research topic on which it was based
has slipped from one of the hot fields of immunology
to, at best, a quiet backwater.

Thus, when an appeals board dismissed misconduct
charges against Imanishi-Kari last month with a
withering indictment of the case against her, the
ruling spoke volumes about the way misconduct cases are
handled. For Imanishi-Kari and her co-author, biologist
David Baltimore, the decision ended a decade-long
nightmare and, they said, helped correct an injustice
(Science, 28 June, p. 1864). But many immunologists
contacted by Science said that for the field of
immunology itself, any verdict on the integrity of the
Cell paper has turned out, in strict scientific terms,
to be largely irrelevant.

When the Cell paper came out, says Immunologist
Hugh McDevitt of Stanford University, it demonstrated
an "amazing" and "unexpected" fact: that inserting a
new immune system gene into a mouse triggered changes
in the antibodies expressed by the mouse's endogenous
genes. Since then, he says, other immunologists have
confirmed that the phenomenon is real. But it has come
to seem less than earthshaking, in part because the
theory it seemed to bolster -- the idea that
interacting antibodies form a "network" that regulates
the immune system -- has lost its luster. As one senior
immunologist put it, people have decided "there isn't
any pay dirt" in the concept. Moreover, immunologists
have concluded that there are other ways to explain
Imanishi-Kari's observation without assuming a network.

The network theory was proposed in 1974 by Niels
Jerne, former director of the Basel Institute of
Immunology, and it helped to earn him the 1984 Nobel
Prize. This theory held that as the immune system
develops, the new antibodies it creates (idiotypes)
trigger the creation of complementary antibodies (anti-
idiotypes), which form an interlocking network of
structures that encompass the complete "repertoire" of
the individual's immune system. This ever-adjusting
network, according to the theory, regulates the immune
system. At the time Imanishi-Kari and her colleagues
began their work, the theory lacked solid experimental
support, in part because it was horrendously difficult
to verify.

The Cell paper seemed to give the network
hypothesis its strongest boost to date. The authors'
broad claim was that their evidence "strongly implies"
that immunoglobulin molecules detected in a transgenic
mouse were "selected by idiotype-specific regulation,"
a process stipulated by Jerne's philosophy.

Imanishi-Kari and her colleagues reported that,
after inserting a new gene into an experimental mouse,
the functioning of the animal's endogenous genes were
altered so that they expressed antibodies containing
the idiotype of the new gene. The authors tentatively
concluded that they had evidence of idiotype mimicry
supporting Jerne's idea.

Many immunologists were skeptical at the time
because the science was so murky. Leonore Herzenberg,
another Stanford immunologist, recalls that she was
intrigued by Imanishi-Kari's work when it came out and
tried to replicate it. "I had a major argument with
Thereza about those mice {in the 1986 paper}," she
says. "The work we did . . . basically showed that the
original assumptions about the mice were incorrect."
Later, Herzenberg and her postdoc Alan Stall, now at
Columbia University, found that hybridoma cells upon
which Imanishi-Kari based her data didn't behave as
Imanishi-Kari had assumed: They were abnormal,
producing two, not just one, idiotypes. Imanishi-Kari
challenged this finding; Herzenberg and her colleagues
conducted new experiments confirming that "double-
producer" cells existed, but they also learned that the
cells evolved so rapidly into single producers that
this probably hadn't affected Imanishi-Kari's results.
Now Herzenberg concedes that "everything that
{Imanishi-Kari} said -- with the exception of the
idiotype, which we couldn't check -- everything else
was correct." Herzenberg says, however, that she still
has qualms about the reliability of some of the
reagents Imanishi-Kari used.

But even while some of the Cell paper's findings
have held up, says McDevitt, who sat on a panel
sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
that examined Imanishi-Kari's claims in great detail,
they may amount to no more than an immunological
footnote. "Nobody today or 99% of immunologists don't
believe the network theory, because there are about 10
other ways you can explain" events in the immune system
that "make more sense" than the one Imanishi-Kari
chose, he says.

Herzenberg confirms that "it is absolutely true"
that 99% of immunologists today are not interested in
Jerne's theory or the data in the 1986 Cell paper. But
she thinks McDevitt may be too dismissive. She remains
intrigued by Jerne's theory, which she describes as a
"seminal bit of thinking" and adds that at one time,
"99% of physicists would have told you they were
uninterested in Einstein's theory." Imanishi-Kari
herself says that her peers seem to regard idiotype
mimicry as a "taboo" subject: "People don't like to
talk about it.... Today, in the l990s, we talk about
selection," she says. "It's semantics."

Ronald Germain of NIH says, "Science has trends
just as any aspect of life does," and the terminology
of idiotype networks "doesn't catch people's
imagination" any longer. Instead, the bandwagon has
moved on to genetics -- identifying and cloning genes
of the immune system, which many researchers now assume
are the "predominant structures" that control immune
responses. Imanishi-Kari agrees that the boom in
molecular biology in the '80s attracted "lots of people
who thought that everything was dictated by the
structure of the genes."

Today a few researchers are still exploring the
implications of Jerne's theory. Some -- including Mark
Greene and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania
-- say they have been inspired by Jerne's ideas to
study antibody structures in the hope of designing new
drugs. And John Kearney at the University of Alabama
continues to rely on Jerne's ideas in exploring the
neonatal immune system. But -- in the United States at
least -- they are in the minority.

European immunologists, however, have remained
more enamored of Jerne's general ideas, notes Germain.
"Europeans like models," he says, and Jerne's theory
provides a framework for what is now called
"connectivity" in the immune system. Immunologist
Martin Weigert of Princeton University notes, for
example, that Antonio Coutinho at the Pasteur Institute
is applying a version of Jerne's concept to show how
idiotype interactions may expand the immune system in
newborns. Coutinho and others are developing a "second
generation of network theories," says Weigert: "We are
asking more specific questions, looking at interactions
between antibodies in unique and special
circumstances." In contrast, Germain says, most U.S.
scientists tend to be "pragmatic.... They want to know,
'What does this gene do?'" Because Jerne's model has
yielded few physiological results, Germain says,
Americans have turned away from it.

Indeed, they have turned so far that concepts such
as "idiotypy" and "network regulation," so pivotal 10
years ago, could vanish from the immunologists'
lexicon. Charles Janeway, the Yale University
researcher who co-edits the popular textbook
Immunobiology, says he's losing interest himself. The
first edition of his book had three sections on Jerne's
theory of idiotypes; his second edition had one
section. The third edition, which will come out next
year, Janeway says, "will have nothing." That deletion,
more than any decree from Washington, may convey the
scientific community's judgment on the topic of
idiotypic mimicry. While armies of lawyers in
Washington were poring over the data, scientists simply
lost interest in the science behind them.


+ A. C. Higgins +
+ SS 359 SUNYA Albany, New York 12222 +
+ ACH13@CNSVAX.Albany.edu +
+ Phone: (518) 442 - 4678; FAX: (518) 442 - 4936 +
+ SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.Albany.edu +
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:45:01 +1000
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: martin bridgstock <m.bridgstock@sct.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <v01540b00ae168db2ca82@{128.173.32.180}>

I appreciate Dewey's warning. HIs description of the kind of devious
tricks creationists get up to mirrors the kind of thing I saw here in
Australia. I count myself fairly fortunate as, after a couple of years of
combatting creation science, my detectors are pretty sensitive. I agree
with Dewey that the hardened bigots do not justify the time or effort of
a reply.

On the other hand, there _are_ a lot of people who are not strictly
creationists who might be amenable to a decent argument. I'm referring to
reasonably conservative Christians who could be influenced by bogus
creation science "evidence", but who would back off once it was clear
that strong counter-arguments and refutations existed.

That's why I am prepared to discuss matters with creationists, but under
the conditions I laid out when Dan Hailey came into the discussion.

Martin Bridgstock
Griffith University
Queensland
Australia
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:38:58 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley

Response to Martin Bridgestock's 7/22/96 "Halley" posting.

Martin,

thanks for sharing your thoughts on creationists. Experience with
them does sensitize one's detectors. People with no experience often do not
know how malignant and aggressive they are. They are human counterparts of
melanoma cancer and will kill a system if unchecked.

>I appreciate Dewey's warning. HIs description of the kind of devious
>tricks creationists get up to mirrors the kind of thing I saw here in
>Australia. I count myself fairly fortunate as, after a couple of years of
>combatting creation science, my detectors are pretty sensitive. I agree
>with Dewey that the hardened bigots do not justify the time or effort of
>a reply.

Scientists who teach evolution have no mission to proselytize their
students into evolution doctrine. They teach their courses, and that's
that.

Creationists, on the other hand, are zealots with a mission. Their
stated mission is to reach all "children in the United States with the
scientific teaching of Biblical creationism." They work continually and
aggressively to undermine our educational system and to proselytize our
youth into their doctrine via programs of lectures, books, public debates,
conferences, summer institutes, and workshops, etc.

On our campus, freshmen, being away from home for the first time,
often feel lonely. They are easy victims for unscrupulous creationists
working under the guise of religious counsellors who care about them. I
long observed a creationist crystallographer in our own geology department
operating that way. What goes on here goes on elsewhere.

Creationists network with one another. When you think you are
dealing with one, you may be dealing with an "electronic room" of them. Did
you note how quickly after one creationist "set up" Scifraud with the claim
that evolution is fraud, that another quickly joined in. Given their way,
other creationists would likely have joined in until Scifraud was converted
mostly to discussion of creation "science." Knowledge of how they operate
is the best defense against them.

As pertains to the internet, treat them the way you would any other
computer virus. DELETE them before they have a chance to infect your
system.

This brings to mind a name for the new creationistic computer
virus: "Spawns of Satan."


>On the other hand, there _are_ a lot of people who are not strictly
>creationists who might be amenable to a decent argument. I'm referring to
>reasonably conservative Christians who could be influenced by bogus
>creation science "evidence", but who would back off once it was clear
>that strong counter-arguments and refutations existed.

>That's why I am prepared to discuss matters with creationists, but under
>the conditions I laid out when Dan Hailey came into the discussion.

Martin, you are obviously a caring--and astute--person. When
dealing with creationists, deal with them on your battlefield, and never
allow them to lure you onto their own.

Have you noticed how one Scrifraud creationists has tried to lure
me into discussion with him via insults? I just laugh at him and DELETE
him.

Cordially,
Dewey


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html


Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:21:34 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <199607182302.saa05067@midway.uchicago.edu>

Colleagues:

John Bailar has presented an eloquent explication of what is known
in more general terms as the "omphalos" (that is, "navel" hypothesis). It
was first proposed by a man named Gosse. Gosse expected that his
hypothesis would be greeted warmly by both scientists and "creationists",
but it was rejected vehemently by both.

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:28:32 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win
in-reply-to: <2.2.16.19960718195825.2a5f4928@earthlink.net>

Colleagues (particularly Dan Hailey):

The labyrinthodont amphibians, particularly Ichthyostega, are
beautiful examples of the transition between fish and amphibians. The
list of the similarities between the two is massive.

Archeopterryx is about as beautiful a transitional form (between
reptiles and amphibians) as could be imagined.

And the great apes (particularly the chimpanzees) (although,
strictly speaking NOT a transitional form between humans and the other
primates) illustrate beautifully the transition between the humans and
other primates. I wonder if Dan knows that the DNA and humans are
something like 98% identical. The difference between them is TINY.

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:30:56 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <19960718.204957.3646.0.dalaze@juno.com>

Colleagues:

I wonder if any of the creationists realize that "an hypothesis that
can explain anything or everything really explains nothing."

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:38:14 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientific Misconduct?
in-reply-to: <960719002533_240931065@emout16.mail.aol.com>

Colleagues: (regarding publication of "maverick" ideas)

Scientists who have maverick ideas can usually manage to find a
place to publish them. Scientific journals are not centrally controlled
and individual editors usually have enough authority to publish whatever
they think is worth publishing. And, if the scientist involved has a good
reputation, his crazy ideas can usually find a way into print.

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:53:47 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "donald e. simanek" <dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation
in-reply-to: <pine.pcw.3.91.960722083003.6895c-100000@grnq-105.uwp.edu>

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, James Shea wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
> I wonder if any of the creationists realize that "an hypothesis that
> can explain anything or everything really explains nothing."
>
> Jim Shea
>

Thanks for the reminder of a good quote. I've thought it more to the
point in the form:

"A hypothesis which accounts for anything or everything really explains
nothing.

But either way, does anyone know the source? Unfortunately there's a
truism about quotes, and attributed sources. "Anything worth quoting has
already been said by someone else." -- Anon

-- Donald

Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079
Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@eagle.lhup.edu
Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166
Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:04:49 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john w jacobson, ph.d." <jacobsjw@nysomr.emi.com>
Subject: Creation
Comments: To: "scifraud(a)cnsibm.albany.edu"@missive.WPC.NYSOMR.EMI.COM

>"does anyone want to bring in solipcism....?

Please note that all of the available supply of solipcism has
been depleted in continuing articles in the mental retardation
and developmental disabilities journals on the topic of
facilitated communication.

It is expected that this depletion will be temporary, and
alleviated through the normal process of solipcistic spontaneous
generation within a matter of months.

In the meantime mythology may suffice for this thread.


John Jacobson
JACOBSJW@NYSOMR.EMI.COM
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:44:15 PDT
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: barry roth <barryr@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation

At 09:53 AM 7/22/96 -0400, Donald E. Simanek wrote:

>"A hypothesis which accounts for anything or everything really explains
>nothing.
>
>But either way, does anyone know the source? Unfortunately there's a
>truism about quotes, and attributed sources. "Anything worth quoting has
>already been said by someone else." -- Anon

Also, if it purports to account for anything or everything, can it really be
called a hypothesis?

Barry
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 10:58:40 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: The Roots of Baltimorism.

Ted Girrard wrote, in part,
>But what about the "whistleblower"? Has she received
>a "fair go" or does she wish she had kept her mouth shut?

It is clearly important that whistle-blowers not suffer for honest efforts
to set the record straight, and that a lot of things are stacked against
them.

It sems to me equally important that whistle blowers not be allowed to put
out accusations of misconduct and then use those accusations to protect
themselves from adverse actions deserved for other reasons.

My impression from the general press is that her career was not advancing
much before the flap, but I do not have any real evidence about that, and
would therefore not make a judgment about whether she was or was not
treated fairly. Does anyone here have anything solid on this -- not just
the principals saying "Yes she was" and "No she wasn't"?


John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago
5841 S. Maryland Ave. MC-2007
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453
Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:07:00 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <ach13@ALPHA1.ALBANY.EDU>
from: al higgins <ach13@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Organization: UAlbany Sociology Department
Subject: (Fwd) Re{2}: Creation


Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 08:31:54 -0500 (EST)
from: sheila williams-cline <williash@cts.db.erau.edu>
Subject: Re{2}: Creation
to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>


If more educators followed the methodology that you used in teaching/testing
your biology students we would be alot better off. I lean toward the creationist
viewpoint, however, i am a firm believer in 'freeing the mind' to better
understand the world and those that live with me in it.

Sheila Williams-Cline
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Daytona Beach, FL

Subject: Re: Creation
Author: Discussion of Fraud in Science <SCIFRAUD@CNSIBM.ALBANY.EDU> at
Internet-mail
Date: 7/21/96 8:37 AM


The following message is posted, with the author's permission, from a
discussion group of high school physics teachers, PHYSHARE. I think it
has a lot worth considering about the issue of how to teach biology in
the shools, and to deflect the attacks of militant creationists, related
to our recent trhead.

-- Donald

From jgiglio@NOVA.UMUC.EDUSun Jul 21 08:15:17 1996
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:02:07 -0400
from: jim giglio <jgiglio@nova.umuc.edu>
Reply to: Sharing resources for high school physics <PHYSHARE@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
to: multiple recipients of list physhare <physhare@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Probably off-topic

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, a list member wrote:

> ... I taught biology in a school where religious fundamentalism is
> rampant.

So did I, about 30 years ago now. It was in Atlanta, and the largest
church in the area was Baptist and fundamentalist. I decided, during my
third year of teaching, that biology wasn't really biology without Darwin,
so I decided to tackle the E-word.

I deliberately placed the unit at the end of the year, so that there would
be an information background to draw on. I actually read Darwin, and used
his explanation as the organizing structure of the unit. There were some
good films available from AIBS, and I used them.

The most important thing I did was in devising an approach to the religion
thing. I told the students up front that I was fully aware of the fact that
large numbers of people had religious objections to Darwin, and that some
of them were sitting in the classroom as I spoke. I then pointed out the
plain fact that most scientists agree with Darwin, but that I had neither
the right nor the obligation, _as a science teacher_, to require that my
students also agree. But I _did_, as a science teacher, have the right to
require that they understand the nature of the evidence that convinced
Darwin and three generations of scientists that the theory of natural
selection is correct.

That intro pretty much disarmed the objectors. Since I did not require
agreement, only comprehension, there were no significant disputes. At the
end of the unit, once the students knew something of the arguments that
Darwin used in convincing the scientific community, and of the
overwhelming success of those arguments, we revisited the topic of the
religious controversy around evolution and natural selection.

In this reprise, I pointed out that most major denominations -- those with
fairly centralized doctrinal decision-making -- had simply revised their
interpretations of Genesis a bit and thereby managed to accommodate
themselves to Darwin without much trouble. That left the highly
decentralized denominations: while many individual adherents of these had
made similar accommodations, others were unwilling to do so.

I then addressed myself to any in the class who might be in the latter
group, suggesting that if the information they had picked up in the last
few weeks presented them with religious conflicts, they should consult
their ministers; just as I had no obligation to require them to agree with
Darwin and the scientists, I also had no obligation to resolve religious
dilemmas.

One small but important detail was the writing of test items:

"Fossil X is found in a rock layer below a layer containing fossil Y; what
would a geologist say about the age of X?" (Not "How old is fossil X?").

"Despite their differences, rats, mice and squirrels are all classified as
rodents. Draw a diagram showing how Darwin would have explained these
differences and similarities in terms of descent from common ancestors."
(Not "Diagram their common ancestry.")

The whole thing worked out quite well; even those students who held out
firmly in the creationist camp remained on good terms with me, and did
well on the tests. I've often wondered how this kind of approach might
work today, with today's brand of more strident creationists.

| SCULLY - MULDER '96 |
| Trust No One Else |
jgiglio@nova.umuc.edu
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:07:56 -0700
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: prof vince sarich <sarich@qal.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Gosse/Omphalos/Solipsism

The best commentary on this subject I have ever seen was published some 50
years ago bt, of all people, Dorothy Sayers, in an essay entitled Creative
Mind. I send it along in the hope that some of you will find it equally
interesting.

Vincent Sarich


From Creative Mind by Dorothy Sayers (an essay in Creed or Chaos? Methuen,
London, 1947):

Or take again the case of the word <reality>. No word occasions so much
ill-directed argument. We are now emerging from a period when people were
inclined to use it as though nothing were real unless it could be measured; and
some old-fashioned materialists still use it so. But if you go back behind the
dictionary meanings -- such as "that which has objective existence" -- and
behind its philosophic history to the derivation of the word, you find that
<reality> means "the thing thought." Reality is a concept; and a real object
is that which corresponds to the concept. In ordinary conversation we still
use the word in this way. When we say "those pearls are not real," we do not
mean they cannot be measures; we mean that the measurement of their makeup does
not correspond to the concept <pearl>, that, regarded as pearls, they are
nothing more than an appearance; they are quite actual, but they are not real.
As pearls, in fact, they have no objective existence. Professor Eddington is
much troubled by the words <reality> and <existence>; in his Philosophy of
Physical Science he can find no use or meaning for the word <existence> --
unless, he admits, it is taken to mean "that which is present in the thoughts
of God." That, he thinks, is not the meaning usually given to it. But it is,
in fact, the precise meaning, and the only meaning, given to it by the
theologian.

I have taken up a lot of your time with talk about words -- which may seem
very far removed from the subject of creative mind. But I have two objects in
doing so. The first is to warn you that my use of words will not always be
your use of words, and that the words of the common poet -- the creator in
words -- must never be interpreted absolutely, but only in relation to their
context. They must be considered as fields of force, which disturb and are
disturbed by their environment. Secondly, I want to place before you this
passage from the works of Richard Hard -- an eighteenth-century English divine.

"The source of bad criticism, as universally of bad philosophy, is the abuse
of terms. A poet they say must follow nature; and by nature, we are to
suppose, can only be meant the known and experienced course of affairs in this
world. Whereas the poet has a world of his own, where experience has less to
do than consistent imagination."

It was the Royal Society who announced in 1687 that they "exacted from their
members a close, naked, natural way of speaking ..... bringing all things as
near the mathematical plainness as they can." Words, they imply, are not to be
metaphorical or allusive or charged with incalculable associations -- but to
approximate as closely as possible to mathematical symbols: "one word, one
meaning." And to this Hard retorts in effect that, for the poet, this use of
language is simply not "natural" at all. It is contrary to the nature of
language and to the nature of the poet. The poet does not work by the analysis
and measurement of observables, but by a "consistent imagination."

Poets create, we may say, by building up new images, new intellectual
concepts, new worlds, if you like, to form new consistent wholes, new unities
out of diversity. And I should like to submit to you that this is in fact the
way in which all creative mind works -- in the sciences as every where else --
in divine as well as in human creation, so far as we can observe and understand
divine methods of creation. That is, that within our experience, creation
proceeds by the discovery of new conceptual relations between things so as to
form them into systems having a consistent wholeness corresponding to an image
in the mind, and, consequently, possessing real existence.
..............................

For the next instance of consistent imagination, I will ask you to wander with
me down a very curious, little bypath. It was during the last century that the
great war was fought between churchmen and men of science over the theory of
Evolution. We need not fight afresh every battle in that campaign. The
scientists won their battle chiefly, or at any rate largely, with the help of
the paleontologists and the biologists. It was made clear that the earlier
history of the earth and its inhabitants could be reconstructed from fossil
remains surviving in its present, and from vestigial structures remaining in
the various plants and animals with which it is now peopled. It was scarcely
possible to suppose any longer that God had created each species -- to quote
the text of Paradise Lost -- "perfect forms, limb'd, and full grown," except on
what seemed the extravagant assumption that, when creating the universe, he had
at the same time provided it with the evidence of a purely imaginary past that
had never had any actual existence. Now, the first thing to be said about this
famous quarrel is that the churchmen need never have been perturbed at all
about the method of creation, if they had remembered that the Book of Genesis
was a book of poetical truth, and not intended as a scientific handbook of
geology. They got into their difficulty, to a large extent, through having
unwittingly slipped into accepting the scientistUs concept of the use of
language, and supposing that a thing could not be true unless it was amenable
to quantitative methods of proof. Eventually, and with many slips along the
way, they contrived to clamber out of this false position; and today no
reasonable theologian is at all perturbed by the idea that creation was
effected by evolutionary methods. But, if the theologians had not lost touch
with the nature of language; if they had not insensibly fallen into the
eighteenth-century conception of the universe as a mechanism and God as the
great engineer; if, instead, they had chosen to think of God as a great,
imaginative artist -- then they might have offered a quite different
interpretation of the facts, with rather entertaining consequences. They
might, in fact, have seriously put forward the explanation I mentioned just
now; that God had at some moment or other created the universe complete with
all the vestiges of an imaginary past.

I have said that this seemed an extravagant assumption; so it does, if thinks
of God as a mechanician. But if one thinks of him as working in the same way
as a creative artist, then it no longer seems extravagant, but the most natural
thing in the world. It is the way every novel in the world is written.

Every serious novelist starts with some or all of his characters "in perfect
form and fully grown," complete with their pasts. Their present is conditioned
by a past that exists, not fully on paper, but fully or partially in the
creatorUs imagination. And as he goes on writing the book, he will --
especially if it is a long work, like The Forsyte Saga or the "Peter Wimsey"
series -- plant from time to time in the text of the book allusions to that
unwritten past. If his imagination is consistent, then all those allusions,
all those, so to speak, planted fossils, will tell a story consistent with one
another and consistent with the present and future actions of the characters.
That is to say, that past, existing only in the mind of the maker, produces a
true and measurable effect on the written part of the book, precisely as though
it had, in fact, "taken place" within the work of art itself.

If you have ever amused yourselves by reading some of the works of "spoof"
criticism about Sherlock Holmes (e.g., Baker Street Studies, or
H. W. Bell's Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson), you will see just how far
pseudoscientific method can be used to interpret these fossil remains scattered
about the Sherlock Holmes stories, and what ingenuity can be used to force the
indications into an apparent historical consistency. As regards the past of
his characters, Conan Doyle's imagination was not, in fact, very consistent;
there were lapses and contradictions, as well as lacunae. But let us suppose a
novelist with a perfectly consistent imagination, who had contrived characters
with an absolutely complete and flawless past history; and let us suppose,
further, that the fossil remains were being examined by one of the characters,
who (since his existence is contained wholly within the covers of the book just
as ours is contained wholly within the universe) could not get outside the
written book to communicate with the author. (This, I know, is difficult,
rather like imagining the inhabitant of two-dimensional space, but it can be
done,) Now, such a character would be in precisely the same position as a
scientist examining the evidence that the universe affords of its own past.
The evidence would all be there, it would all point in the same direction, and
its effects would be apparent in the whole action of the story itself (that is,
in what, for him, would be "real" history). There is no conceivable set of
data, no imaginable line of reasoning, by which he could possibly prove whether
or not that past had ever gone through the formality of taking place. On the
evidence -- the fossil remains, the self-consistency of all the data, and the
effects observable in himself and his fellow characters -- he would, I think,
be forced to conclude that it had taken place. And, whether or no, he would be
obliged to go on behaving as if it had taken place. Indeed, he could not by
any means behave otherwise because he had been created by his maker as a person
with those influences in his past.

I think that if the churchmen had chosen to take up that position, the result
would have been entertaining. It would have been a very strong position
because it is one that cannot be upset by scientific proof. Probably, the
theologians would have been deterred by a vague sense that a God who made his
universe like this was not being quite truthful. But that would be because of
a too limited notion of truth. In what sense is the unwritten past of the
characters in a book less true than their behavior in it? Or if a prehistory
that never happened exercises on history an effect indistinguishable from the
effect it would have made by happening, what real difference is there between
happening and not happening? If it is deducible from the evidence,
self-consistent, and recognizable in its effects, it is quite real, whether or
not it was actual.

..............

You will probably be tempted, by your habit of mind, to ask -- what does all
this prove? It does not, in the scientific sense of the word, prove anything.
The function of imaginative speech is not to prove, but to create -- to
discover new similarities and to arrange them to form new unities, to build new
self-consistent worlds out of the universe of undifferentiated mind-stuff.

Every activity has its own technique; the mistake is to suppose that the
technique of one activity is suitable for all purposes. In scientific
reasoning for example, the poetUs technique of metaphor and analogy is
inappropriate and even dangerous -- its use leads to conclusions that are false
to science, that build it new unities out of quantitative likenesses, and
things that are numerically comparable. The error of the Middle Ages, on the
whole, was to use analogical, metaphorical, poetical techniques for the
investigation of scientific questions. But increasingly, since the seventeenth
century, we have tended to the opposite error -- that of using the quantitative
methods of science for the investigation of poetic truth. But to build poetic
systems of truth, the similarities must be, not quantitative, but qualitative,
and the new unity that will emerge will be a world of new values. Here,
metaphor and analogy are both appropriate and necessary -- for both these
processes involve the arranging of things according to some quality that the
dissimilars have in common: thus (to go back to my earlier simile) common
language and an infuriated cat, though in quantitative respects very unlike,
have in common a certain quality of intractability. And thus, too, the
associative values of words, which make them such bad tools for the scientist,
make them the right tools for the poet, for they facilitate the establishment
of similarities between many widely differing concepts, and so make easy the
task of the creative imagination building up its poetic truths.

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:17:00 EST
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "gardenier, john s." <jsg6@nch11a.em.cdc.gov>
Subject: Re: Creation

Thank you, Donald, for an uplifting "take" on the possibilities of
communication in the creation versus evolution debate.

For our non-U. S. colleagues, there is a popular newspaper columnist here
with the nom-de-plume, "Miss Manners." She has made the point that there is
a close tie between ethics and manners. That is, one never has a right to
use preferred manners as a means of beating someone about the head and
shoulders. If you feel someone would benefit from an improvement in
manners, great tact and sensitivity are required in conveying that message.
Any lapse of one's own manners in that process is counter-productive.

I agree both with Miss Manners (on this point) and with Donald's very
instructive example. John


from: donald e. simanek
To: Multiple recipients of list SCIFRAUD
Subject: Re: Creation
Date: Sunday, July 21, 1996 8:19AM
--
The following message is posted, with the author's permission, from a
discussion group of high school physics teachers, PHYSHARE. I think it
has a lot worth considering about the issue of how to teach biology in
the shools, and to deflect the attacks of militant creationists, related
to our recent trhead.

-- Donald

From jgiglio@NOVA.UMUC.EDUSun Jul 21 08:15:17 1996
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:02:07 -0400
from: jim giglio <jgiglio@nova.umuc.edu>
Reply to: Sharing resources for high school physics <PHYSHARE@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
to: multiple recipients of list physhare <physhare@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Probably off-topic

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, a list member wrote:

> ... I taught biology in a school where religious fundamentalism is
> rampant.

<snip>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:37:11 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <pine.a32.3.91.960719120522.32834a-100000@eagle.lhup.edu>

Colleagues:

For many years an avowed creationist was the Science Supervisor for
the Racine (WI) Unified School District. He used his position to actively
promote creationism in the schools.

After he left to join the staff at the Creation Research Society,
his successor stated that biology classes in the district have too many
other topics to deal with and they don't discuss evolution.

Perhaps they teach physics without including Newton.

Jim Shea

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:49:55 -0600
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "john c. bailar iii" <jcbailar@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Re: anyone could win

James Shea wrote as follows.:

> John Bailar has presented an eloquent explication of what is known
>in more general terms as the "omphalos" (that is, "navel" hypothesis). It
>was first proposed by a man named Gosse. Gosse expected that his
>hypothesis would be greeted warmly by both scientists and "creationists",
>but it was rejected vehemently by both.

I did not mean to imply that the idea was new with me. And I know that
both sides (with a few exceptions) do have a very bad reaction to it.
Unfortunate. Seems to me that both religion and science are "closed
systems" that are internally consistent and cannot be successfully refuted
from the outside by logical argument. Choices between them must be made on
other grounds. Hence the utter futility of creationists trying to find
evidence that disproves evolution --- and the equally futile attempts of
scientists to argue with creationists from a scientific base.

So let"s recognize this difficulty and see how much common ground we can
find. Despite the bad reactions from protagonists who want (foolishly and
with no chance of success) to prevail on their own terms, it seems to me
that the "as if" view is a good place to start.


John C. Bailar III
Chair, Department of Health Studies
University of Chicago
5841 S. Maryland Ave. MC-2007
Chicago, IL 60637

Phone 312-702-2453
Fax 312-702-1295
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:28:34 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Demanding belief
in-reply-to: <01i79aqw7uv68zh4l1@oregon.uoregon.edu>

Colleagues:

This "parental rights" bill could be very damaging to education. If
parents have the "right" to reject virtually anything they don't like,
what will be left to teach? Only the pap that offends no one.

Next, it will be the same for the universities. I can see it now; I
will have a committee of parents advising me what I may and may not teach
in my courses.

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:31:54 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <9607191653.zm11123@libra.usno.navy.mil>

Colleagues:

The medical schools are now teaching "alternative medicine".
Frankly, I think the astronomers have had it their way long enough. At
least half of their courses should be devoted to astrology.

And we geologists should stop teaching that the Earth is old. After
all, was anyone around to record when and how it was formed?

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:33:10 -0400
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: gregory hennessy <gsh@libra.usno.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu> "re: halley" (jul 22, 12:31pm)

> The medical schools are now teaching "alternative medicine".
> Frankly, I think the astronomers have had it their way long enough. At
> least half of their courses should be devoted to astrology.

At least alternative medicines have some documented rates of success, unlike
astrology.


--
Gregory Hennessy
Astrometry Department
US Naval Observatory
3450 Mass Ave NW
Washington DC 20392
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:37:46 -0900
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: james shea <shea@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Halley
in-reply-to: <pine.sol.3.91.960719141319.6980a-100000@plains>

Colleagues:

"Jim W." from Great Britain is right, of course. It really is
illegal to teach religious beliefs as science in the public schools, and
the courts
have consistently held this. However, precollege education in the US is
locally controlled and lots can happen (including school prayer) that has
been ruled illegal. And this is just one of the reasons that precollege
education has failed so miserably lately.

Jim Shea
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:53:50 -0500
reply-to: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
sender: discussion of fraud in science <scifraud@cnsibm.albany.edu>
from: "dewey m. mclean" <dmclean@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: Creation

Re John Gardenier's 7/22/96 "Creation" posting (attached below).

Dear John:

I adore you, and if all the good things I think about you could be
printed on newspapers, the stack could be used to wallpaper the entire
Grand Canyon from one end to the other.

But, for your "uplifting 'take' on the possibilities of
communication in the creation versus evolution debate" HOW can I ask you
tactfully--and with great sensitivity--if you have ever had any real
experience with hard-ball creationists? Or, if you are speaking in
idealistic parables based on a "Miss Manners" who seems to address
primarily a high school level mentality?

I kind of like Schopenhauer's "To receive an insult is disgraceful;
to give one, honorable." I would much rather have a Luis Alvarez call me a
"weak sister" in the New York Times than to sicken me to death with "Miss
Manner" niceties. (I enjoy a good belly laugh as much as anyone.)

What's the matter with speaking frankly to others? And having them
speak to you the same way?
Return to 10 Years: Discussion in SciFraud Index.html
Tactfully,
Dewey

>Thank you, Donald, for an uplifting "take" on the possibilities of
>communication in the creation versus evolution debate.
>
>For our non-U. S. colleagues, there is a popular newspaper columnist here
>with the nom-de-plume, "Miss Manners." She has made the point that there is
>a close tie between ethics and manners. That is, one never has a right to
>use preferred manners as a means of beating someone about the head and
>shoulders. If you feel someone would benefit from an improvement in
>manners, great tact and sensitivity are required in conveying that message.
> Any lapse of one's own manners in that process is counter-productive.
>
>I agree both with Miss Manners (on this point) and with Donald's very
>instructive example. John


Dewey M. McLean Telephone: 540-552-8559
Department of Geological Sciences E-mail address: dmclean@vt.edu
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Home Page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/artsci/geology/mclean/
Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/index.html