Darwin and fraudulent data

[CBL4]

I read a book review about a book on scientific frauds (I forgot the name and I have recycled the newspaper). It mentioned that several famous scientists appeared to have cooked their data including Pasteur, Mendel and Darwin.

I had heard that Pasteur and Mendel had some very iffy data but I had not heard it about Darwin. Has anyone heard of this?

CBL

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

This is one of those things I just don't get. Why do some scientists even rarely do frauds? They will be found out, that's part of science, it has to be repeatable. Not only that but a scientist's job is to figure out how the world works. Why would they want to mess up their findings with fake data? Oh well, Evolution, pasteurising, and genetics still stand from the repeated experiments.

 

[geni]

This is one of those things I just don't get. Why do some scientists even rarely do frauds? They will be found out, that's part of science, it has to be repeatable. Not only that but a scientist's job is to figure out how the world works. Why would they want to mess up their findings with fake data? Oh well, Evolution, pasteurising, and genetics still stand from the repeated experiments.

Fame, further research grants various others. And the thing is you will not get found out straight away. Scientests have this destressing habit of trusting people so even if others can't repeat your results it is normaly assumed that your results were the result of some kind of fluke.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As for Mendel, Pasteur, and Darwin, they were working long before the present system of rigorous peer review came into existence. They were pioneers of a new fact-based way of doing science. So they did not get all their facts up to 21th century standards? Who is surprised? Does that detract significantly from what they DID achieve?

Hans

 

[CBL4]

Mendel's data was too "perfect" - e.g. he almost always came up with the expected 50/50 tall-short ratio. Apologists for Mendel claim (w/o any evidence) that his helpers were responsible for cleaning up the data. There is also some evidence that when his preconcieve notions were wrong, the data fit his erroneous views not reality.

I have no idea who actually threw away, adjusted or misinterpreted the negative results but it has nothing to do with peer reviews. Someone fudge his data and that is simply fraud. It is likely that peer review would have caught it but the fudger could have simply fudged the data better.

Mendel had a postumous request to destroy his notebooks. This implies that he was aware of the fraud.

He was a great scientist in many respects but it is likely that he also perpetuated fraud.
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm

CBL

 

[pupdog]

I had heard about Mendel's seemingly too-close to expected value ratios. But what might Darwin have done that might have been fraudulent? If he misstated the distribution of species and geological features of South America, that surely would have been made known by the time he published Origin of Species, or soon thereafter.

 

[Mojo]

I read a book review about a book on scientific frauds (I forgot the name and I have recycled the newspaper). It mentioned that several famous scientists appeared to have cooked their data including Pasteur, Mendel and Darwin.

Was the book Fabulous Science by John Waller? I have it sitting in my "books to read next..." pile.

 

[CBL4]

Was the book Fabulous Science by John Waller?

I am not sure. I cannot find that book on the US version of Amazon but I found it on the UK version. The cover is different from what I remember but it sounds like the right book. Waller is have a book published next month (Leaps In The Dark: The Forging Of Scientific Reputations) in the US. Perhaps it is the same book with a different cover and released differently.

The book I saw reviewed had a picture of a crack on its front.

CBL

 

[Soapy Sam]

I rather think Mendel didn't need to cook his data. I think he had already done most of the work and arrived at the answers long before he formally set out his breeding experiments. The characteristics he chose to monitor were all ideal to prove his case.

As for Darwin- I truly doubt it very much. He appears to have been one of the most scrupulously honest men imaginable. He certainly made errors, but anyone who does anything new makes errors.

 

[Yahweh]

I had heard about Mendel's seemingly too-close to expected value ratios. But what might Darwin have done that might have been fraudulent?

Well, for one Darwin didnt study his bible enough to know that he was silly for questioning the Lord's Creation...

 

[Soapy Sam]

Yahweh. I know you are kidding, but in reality it was Darwin's terrible dilemma that he knew very well the effect his work might have on religious credibility. Had it not been for the shock of Wallace's letter, and the urging of Lyell, Huxley and Hooker, he would probably have continued to delay publishing his conclusions until after his own death. This was partly through respect for the beliefs of his wife and family, but that it was also partly intellectual cowardice, he was well aware. He was the contemplative sort who did not relish the prospect of notoriety.

I admire him as much for his moral courage as for his scientific insight and endless diligence.