What do you think?
Rate this book
Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research
From a journalist and former lab researcher, a penetrating investigation of the explosion in cases of scientific fraud and the factors behind it.
In the 1970s, a scientific scandal about painted mice hit the headlines. A cancer researcher was found to have deliberately falsified his experiments by coloring transplanted mouse skin with ink. This widely publicized case of scientific misconduct marked the beginning of an epidemic of fraud that plagues the scientific community today.
From manipulated results and made-up data to retouched illustrations and plagiarism, cases of scientific fraud have skyrocketed in the past two decades, especially in the biomedical sciences. Fraud in the Lab examines cases of scientific misconduct around the world and asks why this behavior is so pervasive. Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis points to large-scale trends that have led to an environment of heightened competition, extreme self-interest, and emphasis on short-term payoffs. Because of the move toward highly specialized research, fewer experts are qualified to verify experimental findings. And the pace of journal publishing has exacerbated the scientific rewards system―publish or perish holds sway more than ever. Even when instances of misconduct are discovered, researchers often face few consequences, and falsified data may continue to circulate after an article has been retracted.
Sharp and damning, this exposé details the circumstances that have allowed scientific standards to decline. Fraud in the Lab reveals the intense social pressures that lead to fraud, documents the lasting impact it has had on the scientific community, and highlights recent initiatives and proposals to reduce the extent of misconduct in the future.
In the 1970s, a scientific scandal about painted mice hit the headlines. A cancer researcher was found to have deliberately falsified his experiments by coloring transplanted mouse skin with ink. This widely publicized case of scientific misconduct marked the beginning of an epidemic of fraud that plagues the scientific community today.
From manipulated results and made-up data to retouched illustrations and plagiarism, cases of scientific fraud have skyrocketed in the past two decades, especially in the biomedical sciences. Fraud in the Lab examines cases of scientific misconduct around the world and asks why this behavior is so pervasive. Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis points to large-scale trends that have led to an environment of heightened competition, extreme self-interest, and emphasis on short-term payoffs. Because of the move toward highly specialized research, fewer experts are qualified to verify experimental findings. And the pace of journal publishing has exacerbated the scientific rewards system―publish or perish holds sway more than ever. Even when instances of misconduct are discovered, researchers often face few consequences, and falsified data may continue to circulate after an article has been retracted.
Sharp and damning, this exposé details the circumstances that have allowed scientific standards to decline. Fraud in the Lab reveals the intense social pressures that lead to fraud, documents the lasting impact it has had on the scientific community, and highlights recent initiatives and proposals to reduce the extent of misconduct in the future.
- GenresScienceNonfiction
224 pages, Hardcover
Published August 13, 2019
11 people are currently reading
191 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Want to read
August 16, 2019WSJ review: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fraud-in... (paywalled)
Excerpt:
“The scientific literature is deeply tainted,” Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis concludes, but he points to progress as well. For example, the California-based PubPeer Foundation has established an online platform for post-publication peer review. Some journals now require scientists to make their data and computer code publicly available so that others can try to reproduce the findings or catch errors. Researchers can also register their hypotheses on a website sponsored by the National Institutes of Health before starting their study, reducing the chance of hypothesis-shifting later on.
Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis endorses an ethos of transparency (e.g., sharing raw data) and bemoans the pressure to publish, publish, publish, preferring the mantra: “Publish less, publish better.” To “regain its quality,” he writes, “science must slow down.” Even so, no time should be lost confronting the kinds of misconduct outlined in “Fraud in the Lab” and reaffirming the ideals of scientific inquiry.
Excerpt:
“The scientific literature is deeply tainted,” Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis concludes, but he points to progress as well. For example, the California-based PubPeer Foundation has established an online platform for post-publication peer review. Some journals now require scientists to make their data and computer code publicly available so that others can try to reproduce the findings or catch errors. Researchers can also register their hypotheses on a website sponsored by the National Institutes of Health before starting their study, reducing the chance of hypothesis-shifting later on.
Mr. Chevassus-au-Louis endorses an ethos of transparency (e.g., sharing raw data) and bemoans the pressure to publish, publish, publish, preferring the mantra: “Publish less, publish better.” To “regain its quality,” he writes, “science must slow down.” Even so, no time should be lost confronting the kinds of misconduct outlined in “Fraud in the Lab” and reaffirming the ideals of scientific inquiry.
September 8, 2021
A good look at a misunderstood field. It's clear that the processes of the scientific endeavor have become massively distorted in pursuit of personal gain over scientific knowledge. This isn't the fault of individual researchers (though many exploit it), rather it's the natural consequences of the incredibly ruinous infrastructure of science, from university promotions that require good impact factors to journals not really doing the background work to make sure the articles they accept are legit, to the funding agencies' demands for irrelevant metrics. If the system is set up to encourage unethical behavior, then those who act unethically will advance beyond the ethical people, who will then feel compelled to copy their "betters" if they want to advance, or even to hold onto their jobs. Clearly, something is rotten in science.
June 19, 2020
Fraud in the Lab is a shocking and eye-opening exposé of the dark side of science. See my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2020...
Want to read
December 25, 2019Excerpt here: https://quillette.com/2019/12/21/the-...
May 8, 2020
Originally published in French in 2016 and now translated into English, this is a great romp through the world of science fraud, academic culture and the inherent issues in the research world. For anyone who closely follows academic culture topics, not much in here will surprise you, but the examples are great and the way it's pulled together linking everything up is brilliant. Written more for an academic / insider audience, but super readable and the author is hilariously catty - worth the read for his snide..!
March 18, 2021
I found this to be super mediocre and not as exciting as it could’ve been. it spent way too much time recounting specific stories of fraud and not going into the issues it causes. I’m fine with talking about all these specific stories because they are interesting but it looses my interest when the story is recounted in two pages and then quickly moves on to the next one. There are so many stories they all kind of blend together. I also didn’t really learn anything new from this and found a lot of the ideas to be pretty common sense and too straight forward.
July 12, 2021
A look at the ways in which fraudulent results get published, the reasons why researchers engage in fraud, the efforts that are being taken to combat this problem and a criticism of why these efforts are not sufficient. The author is French and you can see a closer familiarity with the institutions and cases of that country, but this does not hinder his ability to present the international situation.
October 30, 2019
Very readable review of all the things that scientists can do wrongly, badly, and unethically in the pursuit of knowledge.
November 23, 2019
This book is a must-read not only for researchers but for any individual that seeks honesty in spreading/receiving accurate information.
Currently reading
January 20, 2022507.2 C5278 2019
May 25, 2022
As an academic researcher, I believe this is an essential book for anyone in research to read. It is thought provoking and brings to light some of the key flaws that occur in the science community, research, and publishing. For example, the pressure to "publish, publish, publish", and the methods of how we as scientists are judged as being "successful" do not always create a healthy atmosphere for generating the best or most creative science.
May 4, 2020
A fascinating accounting. This provides a good summary of the kinds of people who are willing to falsify data: "
"The desperate, whose fear of failure overcame a personal code of conduct; the perfectionist, for whom any failure was a catastrophe; the ethically challenged, who succumbed to temptation; the grandiose, who believed that his or her superior judgement did not require verification; the sociopath, who was totally absent a conscience (fortunately, rare); the non-professional support staff, who were unconstrained by the ethics of science, unaware of the scientific consequences of their actions, and/or tempted by financial rewards"
The only occasions I've witnessed it, have resulted from people with combination of the ethically challenged and the grandiose, and a sprinkling of the lack of conscience.
"The desperate, whose fear of failure overcame a personal code of conduct; the perfectionist, for whom any failure was a catastrophe; the ethically challenged, who succumbed to temptation; the grandiose, who believed that his or her superior judgement did not require verification; the sociopath, who was totally absent a conscience (fortunately, rare); the non-professional support staff, who were unconstrained by the ethics of science, unaware of the scientific consequences of their actions, and/or tempted by financial rewards"
The only occasions I've witnessed it, have resulted from people with combination of the ethically challenged and the grandiose, and a sprinkling of the lack of conscience.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews