Scientists Cheat!

crm centriole at hotmail.com
Sat Oct 2 21:01:34 EST 1999


Dear Dr. Hewitt:
I have perused your web site, especially the appendix where you have presented
your corrospondence, and I "do" understand your frustration in not getting the
recognition you may deserve.  However, my "advice" to you is that if you would
spend as much time and effort on experimentation as you have expended in trying
to coax the scientific establishment into giving you your due, you perhaps would
have already obtained the hard scientific evidence needed to prove or disprove
the validity of the wave hypothesis.  I am not trying to be adversarial, but to
be genuinly supportive.  The realworld truth, however unfortunate, is that
science is big business, and big business is always highly political.  The only
way to overcome the politics of science is to weild the battleaxe of data.  If
you have the proof of data, no one can ignore you.  They may complain about your
interpretation, but the data is the data.  Antidogmatic hypotheses historically
are always shunned.  And this is as it should be.  It "should" be difficult for
new contenders to accepted views to become accepted.  This keeps science
salient.  It has been said that the reception of an original contribution to
knowledge may be divided into three phases:  1) the idea is ridiculed as not
true, impossible, or useless;  2) people will then say that there may be
something to the idea, but it would never be of any use;  3) when the idea has
recieved general recognition, there are always those who say that it was not
original and was expected, or even anticipated by others.  Therefore, I quote
Theobold Smith:  "The joy of research must be found in doing, since every other
harvest is uncertain."  Just remember what Michael Faraday said:  "The real
truth never fails ultimately to appear: and oposing parties, if wrong, are
sooner convinced when replied to forbearingly than when overwhelmed."

Hence, I suggest to you, Dr. Hewitt, that since you cannot at this time
overwhelm your opossition with data, you must take the forebearing approach.  If
your hypthesis is indeed correct, you will ultimately prevail.  You should take
refuge in this knowledge.  Be patient.  Forget the politics and let science take
its course, however circuitous.  Even if your hypthesis is wrong, revel in the
knowledge that you contributed to the process.

Sincerely
Charlie Mantel
Indiana University
cmantel at iupui.edu


John Hewitt wrote:

> This posting offers cell biologists an introduction, an invitation and a
> challenge.
>
> An introduction -
> to my internet site http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/. "A Habit of
> Lies - How Scientists Cheat."  This site is about an influential field in
> cell biology, particularly with respect to studies of cell motility.  I
> believe the practices described are scientific cheating committed by
> well-known scientists working in major institutes.  It is asserted that
> these workers have propagandised demonstrably false ideas as if they were
> true; so successful has their cheating been that these false ideas have
> become widely believed and now are even taught to new generations of
> scientists.
>
> Only this site, not in the scientific literature, offers a balanced
> eview  - broaden your vision and take a look at it.
>
> An invitation -
> to interested figures.  Many scientists seem to find the behaviour described
> on this site acceptable but I am not satisfied - I would like to see
> explanation not closed debate.  My invitation is to anyone prepared to argue
> a rational case - come on - argue the case these workers are not willing to
> put.  Is it not true that alternative ideas have not been suppressed?  Is
> it, perhaps, desirable that alternative ideas should be suppressed?  Can
> anyone sensibly assert that this behaviour is anything other than cheating?
>
> I do not believe you can make that case but I would like to see you try!
>
> A challenge -
> to workers with an interest cell motility and related areas, especially
> those who claim to be experts.  Respond to the arguments presented on this
> site.  Show just how it can be rationally argued that these alternative
> ideas are wrong?
>
> I do not believe you can make that case but I would like to see you try!
>
> I am certainly looking forward to seeing replies and I hope many onlookers
> will also.
>
> John Hewitt




More information about the Cellbiol mailing list