Scientists Cheat - don't they?

John Hewitt john.hewitt1 at virign.net
Sat Oct 2 07:25:31 EST 1999


Continuing the discussion about scientific cheating, as described on my
internet site http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/. "A Habit of Lies -
How Scientists Cheat."

I had hoped for a little more response, so perhaps I should better explain
the kind of thing I am looking for from the cell biology community.

The field at issue is capping, particle movement and cell motility.  The
point at issue is the claim that two theories had been advanced, when, in
fact three had been published.  I find the reporting of this field very
difficult to understand and, I think many people would agree, with me, that
it is cheating to report three as two.

The only way I can make sense of such reporting is as an implicit claim that
the third theory is wrong, that it is being rejected.  Because the rejection
of the alternative is implicit, it has not been explicated. I think, the
rejection of an alternative theory without explanation is, itself, cheating.
I also think it is cheating to refuse to give such explanations when asked.

In these circumstances, what I would like from the cell biology community is
some answers to the following -

1.  Am I wrong?  Is there a published explanation for the rejection of the
wave model, as described on my site, chapter7?  If so, where is it?

2.  Is there anyone out there, who knows this field, or whose colleagues
know this field, and can deliver the missing explication?  If so, would you
be kind enough to that?  But, in doing so, be aware that I may quote you!

It seems to me that, if a field is to escape accusations of cheating,
matters like this need to be meaningfully addressed and  I look forward to
that.


Sincerely


John Hewitt





More information about the Cellbiol mailing list