Federico Di Trocchi.
The lies of science. Why and how scientists deceive us?
( Le Bugie della scienza. Perché e come gli scienziati imbrogliano ).
Constance V. Translation Meyer.
Year: 1993.
Edition: Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2003 (2 nd ed., 2 nd reprint).
469 pp.
The lies of science. Why and how scientists deceive us?
( Le Bugie della scienza. Perché e come gli scienziati imbrogliano ).
Constance V. Translation Meyer.
Year: 1993.
Edition: Alianza Editorial, Madrid, 2003 (2 nd ed., 2 nd reprint).
469 pp.
The author is Professor of History of Science in the University of Rome "La Sapienza", Secretary of the Società Italiana di Storia della Scienza and member of the Académie Internationale d'Histoire des Sciences . He has also served as editor of the weekly L'Espresso.
Di Trocchi deals primarily with the structural problems scientific activity, and is the author of several books on an informative around this issue, including that ; us is a good example.
The theme of the book is the fraud in scientific research (referred to areas such as biology, physics, chemistry, psychology, Paleontology understood as distortions ,...) research results, ownership work of others, intentional irregularities in testing procedures ...
To develop this theme, the text is divided into two types content to be exposing way interleaved:
; An analysis of the phenomenon in their mechanisms, motivations and other aspects (Preface and Chapters III and IX).
The story of fraud occurred in different moments in the history of science, many of them carried out by scientists and prestigious value (including some part of the history of science or Nobel prizes.) This account illustrates and support the thesis that the author explains in his analysis of the phenomenon (chapters I, II and IV to VIII ).
Di Trocchi distinguishes two types of fraud scientific according to their motives and consequences: conducted with intentioned to defend an idea of \u200b\u200bthe the scientist is sincerely convinced and motivated by personal interests extrascientific (profit, search of prestige or professional position, etc.).
The first, exemplified in cases such as those of Galileo, Newton, Freud and Mendel are defended by Di Trocchi as hoaxes positive and even necessary, as performed in interest of science and demands of their own nature of scientific research. So serve as a resource for good ideas to save that have been rejected if researchers have simply used the media regarded as legitimate (because, for example , deficiencies of devices theoretical calculation or measurement instruments or experimental available ; time.) This author's position regarding this type of deception is part of a theoretical approach includes references to both the Popperian falsifiability as the epistemological anarchism of Feyerabend (which widely discussed in Chapter IX).
In the case of fraud included in the second category of those listed above are objectionable, according to Di Trocchi, because they respond to spurious interests: with them is not intended to benefit the science, as in the case of previous type, but the scientist himself so personal. Hoaxes that, unlike the first not bring any contribution the advancement of science and useful lead any technical practice. To explain why and how they are produced, Di Trocchi exposed (Chapter III) the evolution of scientific activity throughout history, comparing their current situation and conditions, ; born in the U.S. and then extended to Western world since the mid twentieth century , with the characteristic of earlier stages history of science. While so far scientist working in a purely vocational circumstances that made that his only motivation was sincere search for truth, the full professionalization and mass of scientific research and academia and business which falls within the contemporary , involving a total dependence this work in relation to political and economic power, encouraging these fraud (very common, according to the author) and causes them of complicity with official scientific establishment, both corporatism to avoid economic and disassembly social surrounding scientific research.
"(...) at the time that researchers and scientists competed to obtain financing and career possibilities committed deception when they did, only in name and function of an idea he firmly believed. Their fraud scams seem noble, but are always scams. This allows to evaluate the gap between nineteenth century scientists of today, and understand the difference between a scientist by vocation and a profession. The first one is willing to risk his career and his honor for an idea, the second is willing to sacrifice their own ideas for the race. "(Pp. 335-336)
Other points of interest are treated by the author the following:
On the technical and bureaucratic used to carry out fraud in science from the second half of the twentieth century.
On the destruction of romantic image of the scientist ("objective, altruistic (...) slave of desire to know") through ; the complaint of his ambition, competitiveness and ruthlessness when conduct their work. This point builds on narrated by James Watson in his book The Double Helix (1968), which reveals the murky vicissitudes surrounding the discovery of the structure of DNA who won the Nobel, confession caused great scandal in the time of publication the above work.
On the structural crisis that has gripped the Western scientific system the transfer of scientific activity to developing countries as possible solution to this problem. In line with this, argues against the common idea ethnocentric science and technology are genuinely cultural products West.
Among the most prominent cases of fraud narrated in the book, among many others, we found the following :
- The kidnapping of the astronomical observations of Hipparchus conducted by Claudio Pt olomeo (p. 16).
- dynamic experiments feigned by Galileo (p. 19).
This case is particularly striking, given we speak of the introducer experimental method, which raises some methodological requirements the same breach Galileo (Galileo argued that it was not really important carry out [the experiments], "" It useless to the experiment, if I tell you you must believe me. " Clearly this approach does not correspond at all with the idea experimental method taught us in school much less with the ideal of moral discipline and methodology of scientific ).
- The distortion of mathematical calculations that Newton incurred in order to adjust their laws (including gravitation) to phenomena (p. 29).
- Nobel Gallo's attempt to steal the discovery of HIV (pág.76).
- The phenomenon of cold fusion, even without been able to prove experimentally affirmed by the scientific sector ( p. 175).
- The invention by Mendel experimental results to support his laws of genetics (p. 268).
- Freud and his distortion of clinical cases ( p. 283).
- The "discovery" of N rays nonexistent (p. 319).
- False Piltdown Man fossils (p. 346).
- A recent case occurred in our own country: discovery of cave paintings in the cave of Zubialde (Álava) by the student of ancient history Serafin Ruiz (p. 403) . Case
open at the time of writing the book (which is 1993, after the event happened finding in the 90), Di Trocchi expresses his suspicions that is a fraud. Indeed, so discover later: the paintings have been by Ruiz himself. In addition to the evidence pointing in that direction Di Trocchi, the ultimate test of this would be the discovery of some remains of domestic pad attached to the paintings.
open at the time of writing the book (which is 1993, after the event happened finding in the 90), Di Trocchi expresses his suspicions that is a fraud. Indeed, so discover later: the paintings have been by Ruiz himself. In addition to the evidence pointing in that direction Di Trocchi, the ultimate test of this would be the discovery of some remains of domestic pad attached to the paintings.
In conclusion, it is a curious story well documented that reflects an aspect of the scientific world poorly treated, which gives this work value. Apart from discovering little or no data usually aired on some of the most important scientists, set out herein prompted numerous reflections on the background task scientific research, while Alert us about need to maintain a critical attitude at , even to those areas of knowledge and disciplines initially less susceptibles de sospecha.
