Anthonares

Though undoubtedly you have read headlines such as this already, today the New York Times published an article in its Science Times section stating that not only was some of the data faked in Hwang’s research on stem cells, it probably all was. The South Korean researcher claimed to have produced 11 new stem cell lines using only 11 donated eggs, a feat of efficiency and skill unattainable elsewhere in the world. But, it turned out that this claim was false, and almost all the data had been faked. A previous paper that suggested such a feat was even possible was shown to use falsified data upon investigation as well.

This is not the only high profile data fabrication scandal in recent years. You may recall that in 2002, a Bell Labs scientist was fired for faking results related to the development of molecular electronics. Also, that same year, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories fired Victor Ninov who was responsible for data analysis on experiments that claimed the discovery of synthesized elements numbered 116 and 118, the heaviest ever created.

Data fabrication is nothing new in science, but with constant media attention and endless pressure to invent, patent, and publish, scientists are pressured into unethical behavior like never before. Worldwide media has also made the scandals that much more public. But, do these scandals mean that science is somehow broken, that its internal mechanisms of peer-review do not function as they should?

Science and Nature, the two most prominent international journals of multi-disciplinary publishing have become embroiled in these scandals as much as have the researchers themselves. After all, how can these and other journals claim to be reputable when they willingly publish falsified data. In particular, Science published identical photos side-by-side that Hwang claimed were of two different germ lines. The peer-review process, particularly in cases where scientists are publishing results previously thought impossible or extremely unlikely, needs to be strengthened.

However, while it is true that journal editors bear a degree of responsibility in these scandals, there is a limit to which journals must be held responsible in these instances. An analogy can be made to the case of the New York Times and rogue reporter Jason Blair. His stories were fabricated, and should have been checked by the editor, yes. But, the desire to achieve success and fame will always lead some researchers or journalists over the edge of ethical decency. No matter how hard editors and fact-checkers work, some will slip through the cracks.

The fact that these scandals came to light is evidence of the healthy function of the peer-review process as well. Science is a systematic means to purge the false and elevate the true. Adding a rabid international 24-hour media to this process may even help. Bloggers, too, can play a role here with their thousands of additional eyes and ears. This additional scrutiny will only help to improve the system, but to do so more journalists and bloggers need to read the results that are actually published. Science should not be accessible only to those in the disciplines, and modern communications and systems need to make open journal access a reality.