Poehlman had definitely stepped on some toes and made a name as an aggressive self-promoter, but this was nothing remarkable for a successful researcher.Basically, it's an understatement. If you want to get ahead, you probably need to be a jerk. Here's the nytimes article about this guy and his career of scientific fraud (thanks rs).
2. Non-scientist friends and family are often upset to hear about scientific fraud, surprised that someone would bother to be a scientist without integrity and a commitment to the scientific method. I'm starting to think that academics are especially vulnerable to various abuses of power. Academic science is not a very financially rewarding field; I would argue that, instead, people who go into it often derive their reward from being lauded. They need that, and some will do anything to get and maintain it.
1 comment:
I found that article on Poelhman totally fascinating. I do see how the academic system, with its pressures on publishing (early, often, original) could lead to a lack of integrity. It's particularly bad for scientists who usually have to finance their own way in a way that we humanities types do not (of course, the chances for a lucrative career are seriously diminished for those of us in the humanities).
Post a Comment