What is an example of fabrication?

08 Apr.,2024

 

Intentional misrepresentation of research results

In scientific inquiry and academic research, data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research results. As with other forms of scientific misconduct, it is the intent to deceive that marks fabrication as unethical, and thus different from scientists deceiving themselves. There are many ways data can be fabricated. Experimental data can be fabricated by reporting experiments that were never conducted, and accurate data can be manipulated or misrepresented to suit a desired outcome. One of the biggest problems with this form of scientific fraud is that "university investigations into research misconduct are often inadequate, opaque and poorly conducted. They challenge the idea that institutions can police themselves on research integrity."[1]

Sometimes intentional fabrication can be difficult to distinguish from unintentional academic incompetence or malpractice. Examples of this include the failure to account for measurement error, or the failure to adequately control experiments for any parameters being measured.

Fabrication can also occur in the context of undergraduate or graduate studies wherein a student fabricates a laboratory or homework assignment. Such cheating, when discovered, is usually handled within the institution, and does not become a scandal within the larger academic community (as cheating by students seldom has any academic significance).

Consequences

[

edit

]

A finding that a scientist engaged in fabrication will often mean the end to their career as a researcher. Scientific misconduct is grounds for dismissal of tenured faculty, as well as for forfeiture of research grants. Given the tight-knit nature of many academic communities, and the high stakes involved, researchers who are found to have committed fabrication are often effectively (and permanently) blacklisted from the profession, with reputable research organizations and universities refusing to hire them; funding sources refusing to sponsor them or their work, and journals refusing to consider any of their articles for publication. In some cases, however, especially if the researcher is senior and well-established, the academic community can close ranks to prevent injury to the scientist's career.[2]

Fabricators may also have previously earned academic credentials removed. Two cases:

  • In 2004, Jan Hendrik Schön was stripped of his doctorate degree by the University of Konstanz after a committee formed by Bell Labs found him guilty of fabrication related to research done during his employment there. This action was undertaken even though Schön was not accused (in the matter in question) of any fabrication or other misconduct relating to his work which led to or supported the degree—the doctorate was revoked, according to University officials, solely due to Schön behaving "unworthily" in the Bell Labs affair.
  • In 2001, peer reviewers at the academic journal Nutrition raised suspicions about a publication draft submitted by Dr. Ranjit Chandra, a world-renowned Canadian nutrition researcher at Memorial University of Newfoundland. It was confirmed through investigation that Dr. Chandra had published the results of a series of studies, stretching over more than a decade, which reported claims based on incorrectly represented analysis of, in some cases, non-existent data.[3] By that time, Dr. Chandra had already been invited to the Order of Canada, which was subsequently revoked in 2015. Dr. Chandra retired in 2002, and Memorial University established the Marilyn Harvey Award to Recognize the Importance of Research Ethics[4] in honour of the nurse researcher who first raised the alarm about Dr. Chandra's findings in the early 1990s.[5]

Not all alleged fraud is found to be so, and debates are part of the scientific community. An interesting case is the accusation against Dr. Margaret Mead, a world-renowned anthropologist who published field work conducted early in her life, which proclaimed that Samoan culture was more relaxed and harmonious about sexual relations and mores. Her truthfulness and research process were roundly criticized by a later researcher in Samoa, Dr. Derek Freeman. More recently, Dr. Freeman's own research quality has come under scrutiny, with a hint that perhaps his own views on sexuality and his research with Elders in Samoa led him to reject Dr. Mead's findings. Dr. Freeman's allegations harmed Dr. Mead's reputation at a time when few women were scientists[6]

See also

[

edit

]

References

[

edit

]

Further reading

[

edit

]

  • Lewis-Kraus, Gideon, "Big Little Lies: Dan Ariely and Francesca Gino got famous studying dishonesty. Did they fabricate some of their work?", The New Yorker, 9 October 2023, pp. 40-53.

1.4 What are falsification, fabrication, and misrepresentation - and who would do that anyway?

Plagiarism is a form of cheating — it is the act of taking someone else's word or ideas and using them as your own. Other forms of misconduct include cheating on examinations, assignments, reports, or any other work used to evaluate student performance, including copying from another student's work or allowing ones own work to be copied, submitting another person's work as ones own, fabrication of data, consultation with an unauthorized person during an examination, or use of unauthorized aids.

Impersonation, for example, occurs when someone pretends to be you or when you pretend to be someone else for any type of academic evaluation, whether its an exam or participation in an online class or on a discussion board (Hill, 2010, p. 5). UOIT's policy explicitly states that [i]mpersonating another student or allowing oneself to be impersonated for purposes of taking examinations, or carrying out laboratory or other assignments is not allowed. Another form of cheating is the falsification or misrepresentation of data and information. This includes falsifying academic records, including tests and examinations, or submitting false credentials for purpose of gaining admission to a program or course, or for any other purpose.

Falsification is also misrepresenting someone's work or ideas (Hill, 2010, p.5). For example, if you use a study that concludes that smoking has many negative and typically severe health effects, but you use an ambiguous quote from the study to say that the study found that smoking only has minor health consequences, this would be falsifying the information reported in the study. When paraphrasing other people's writing/ideas/research, you must accurately summarize the information and not distort its meaning. Another example is falsifying results of a lab experiment to show what should have been the correct results even though you made a mistake when conducting your experiment. Fabrication, on the other hand, is making up information without any data to support it (Hill, 2010, p.5).

Misrepresentation can refer to the misrepresentation of facts, whether written or oral, which may have an effect on academic evaluation. This includes making fraudulent health claims, obtaining medical or other certificates under false pretenses, or altering certificates for the purposes of misrepresentation. In addition, this type of cheating can also include the misrepresentation of yourself (i.e., impersonating another person or having someone pretend to be you) (Hill, 2010, p.5).

The bottom line is that falsificationfabrication and misrepresentation are cheating and types of academic misconduct. 

That's all interesting, but what is the difference between falsification and fabrication?

The bottom line is that they are both cheating and a type of academic misconduct. Falsification is misrepresenting your own or someone else's work or ideas (Hill, 2010, p.5). For example, if you use an ambiguous quote from a study to make an argument that the study does not actually support, you are falsifying the research. When you paraphrase other people's writing, ideas, or research, people assume that you are doing so accurately and without distorting its meaning. Another example would be that you could falsify the results of an experiment to show what should have been the correct results even though you made a mistake when conducting your experiment. Fabrication is making up information (Hill, 2010, p. 5) or data. In the case of the Wakefield study on the link between MMR vaccine and autism, Wakefield both falsified information and fabricated his results.

If fabrication is making up information and falsification is twisting or lying about information to suit your conclusions, what is misrepresentation?

There are overlaps between the three terms, but there are also some distinctions. Usually, misrepresentation refers to things like making fraudulent health claims, obtaining medical or other certificates under false pretences, or altering certificates like a doctor's note (UOIT Policy p.35). Misrepresentation can also include impersonation (Hill, 2010, p.5), for example, getting a friend to take an exam while pretending to be you.


What is an example of fabrication?

Plagiarism Spectrum