When Scientists Sin, And Leonard Cassuto s Paper

A key mechanism of societal function is money. Whether manifested as the cash needed to buy groceries or as the funds required to wage war or make investments, money is an essential element of what drives the developed world. This concept has an immense impact on scientific research, and it is found to be especially prevalent within both Michael Shermer’s article â€Å"When Scientists Sin† and Leonard Cassuto’s paper â€Å"Big Trouble in the World of ‘Big Physics,’† chiefly through an emphasis on the pressure for scientists and the scientific community to provide results. While this is not surprising, the extent to which it is able to negatively affect the reputability and quality of science is, and this is quite disturbing. Much of Shermer’s†¦show more content†¦This is only reinforced by Cassuto’s work, as it discusses at length the â€Å"publish or perish† (Cassuto, 228) nature of scientific research. In an environment where highly visible success—the type of success that Schà ¶n embodied before his fraudulence was revealed—is needed in order to sustain a career, it seems that the system which dictates success should have nearly impassable safeguards against fraudulent achievement of that success. However, despite all that is both fiscally and less tangibly—chiefly by way of reputation and public trust—at stake, that may not be the case. Much of the discussion surrounding Schà ¶n’s scandal within Cassuto’s paper was centered on disappointment with the scientific community and the process that allowed Schà ¶n to gain his fame with falsified research results, in addition to disappointment with Schà ¶n for his fraudulence. Failures within the former are perhaps more severe than the transgressions of the latter, however, as a lack of competency within the review process can afford for the perpetuation of fraud, while Schà ¶n’s disregard for adequately performed science is, in and of itself, an isolated case. This process, peer review, is supposed â€Å"to weed out substandard work,† (Cassuto, 232) and—perhaps just as, or even more, importantly—it â€Å"governs external funding,† (Cassuto, 232). As peer review determines what is