A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat!

John Hewitt john.hewitt1 at virign.net
Mon Jan 3 19:19:51 EST 2000


This posting is to introduce, or reacquaint, readers with my site -
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/  - "A Habit of Lies - How
Scientists Cheat."  It is about cheating and misrepresentation in cell
biology (motility).  To update previous readers and, at the same time,
give
new readers the chance to get to know my work I summarise below a
representative sample of responses.

There have been many comments and the following extracts are by no
means complete, though they cover the range of views.  Readers are
assured
that each response is perfectly genuine, coming from workers who are
personally unknown to me, but I shall not identify the respondents by
name.
Commentaries are enclosed in square brackets [] and each is followed by
my
reaction.

["You have an excellent website."  ....  "your postulate seems very
plausible to me."]
Thank you.

["I have bookmarked your sight and will most certainly be returning to
it
many times."]
Thank you.

["Is it possible for me to receive the chapters not on the internet?"
....... "Congratulations for your courage and perseverance."]
Thank you very much, but not for a while yet I am afraid.

["Therefore we must not be too fast to critisize: very seldom people are
wilfully lying and deceiving" ..... and later, after reading the site
......
"I grant that 3 is not 2"  .....  "Personally, I even regard this
(moral)
obligation as a more fundamental .... one than the (scientific)
obligation"]
Thank you for reading the work, I rather agree.

[What matters is data, put away the politics and gather the data]
Actually this is not a verbatim quote, more a gathering from two or
three
responses in the same vein.  My reaction is sure, I agree, data matters.
But these respondents all lapse into silence in reply to questions like,
"what is inadequate about the data already presented?" or, "what data
should
now be gathered?"  Without such detail, opining that, "data matters," is
an
empty platitude.

["I can't be bothered."]
Then why are you a scientist?

["Weird" ... "whatever substantive claims his paper makes  ......  are
clearly pseudoscientific." .....  and later ...... "His claims are
similar
to those of parapsychologists who find the scientific community
close-minded
because they won't accept ESP."]
Mmm!  Perhaps, but I disagree and so often people use the word
pseudoscience
as just a cheap jibe.  What substantive meaning should I attach to it?
Perhaps readers should review the site for themselves and make up their
own
minds.

Further comments are always welcome, particularly from workers in the
cell
motility field - people willing and able to explain, with detal, why the
laternative ideas should be rejected.  In any event, should anyone post
a
comment, please make sure I see it, by copying it direct to me,
(john.hewitt1 at virgin.net) and indicate the newsgroup to which you have
posted.

Sincerely Yours

John Hewitt


---





More information about the Bionews mailing list