Making mistakes in the pursuit of truth

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Anyone searching for truth is bound to make mistakes before he or she discovers something that satisfies his or her criteria of "truth". Why? Perhaps because, as Georges Duhammel said in Le Notaire Du Havre (1933),"... error is the rule, truth is the accident of error".

There is a big difference, however, between ordinary mistakes, i.e. mistakes that can be forgiven, and mistakes that are unforgivable. In science, this unforgivable mistake is called "fraud" or "misconduct with the intent to deceive". According to physicist David Goodstein of the California Institute of Technology, "Intent to deceive is the very antithesis of ethical behavior in science." In ordinary language "fraud" is defined as "a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unlawful gain; a cheat".

Is plagiarism a forgivable mistake or an unforgivable fraud? In general, scientific communities consider plagiarism an unforgivable act but it is, in the strictest sense of the word, not fraud. According to David Goodstein, who is an expert in detecting scientific fraud, real fraud occurs only "if the procedures needed to replicate the results of the work or the results themselves are in some way knowingly misrepresented". In other words, fraud occurs in science whenever procedures and results are not honestly reported. In plagiarism the mistake is not dishonestly reporting the procedures and the results of the study, but in "stealing" or "borrowing without permission" data and ideas. Plagiarism, therefore, together with falsification of data and misappropriation of ideas are considered "scientific serious misconduct", and are unforgivable.

What kind of mistakes then can be forgiven in science? This is what is called "lesser forms of scientific misconduct" which include "false steps, blind alleys, and outright mistakes". In many scientific investigations these kinds of mistakes are usually omitted from the final report. In most research reports, for instance, the account on methodology usually consists not of descriptions how the study was actually carried out, but how it should ideally be carried out.

According to David Goodstein again, even the reporting of participating researchers is, in many cases, not accurately completed. It is seldom clear who labored as the principal investigator, who acted as secondary investigator and who was, in reality, just a nominal participant. If I am not mistaken, in Indonesia the custom has been that the most influential member of a research unit is always reported as a participating investigator. This person receives the credit even if he or she has done nothing at all, except examine the research proposal and approve it. Also absent from these reports are indications concerning the way the praise or the blame for whatever was written in the report should be shared among the investigators mentioned in the report.

These are examples of lesser scientific misconduct, mistakes that can be forgiven, because they do not constitute deliberate attempts to inject falsehood into the body of scientific knowledge.

Guarding against the intrusion of fraud and other forms of serious misconduct into science is very important. Not only for the sake of scientific development itself but also for the spiritual welfare of society in general. This is especially important for Indonesia, where those perceived by the public as "scientists", "academics", or "scholars" exert such a great influence over the formation of public opinion and attitude. Thus any wrong conclusion drawn in a study purported to be scientific, if remaining uncorrected, may unintentionally excite an undesired attitude or behavior in society.

Even though science is self-correcting -- meaning that any falsehood planted in the body of scientific knowledge will eventually be discovered and rejected -- it still needs positive measures to protect it from outright lies or other attempts to distort the truth. We still need to develop measures to enable Indonesian scientists to contribute to the development of new knowledge, the promotion of truth, and the protection of science from nonscientific manipulation.

How often do fraud and serious misconduct take place in science? In the view of scientists who are actively engaged in research, fraud is very rare. David Goodstein cited a study done by sociologist Pat Woolf which stated that between 1980 and 1986 there were 26 cases of "scientific misconduct". Out of these, 21 (80.8 percent) came from biomedical and related sciences, two (7.7 percent) came from chemistry and biochemistry, one (3.8 percent) from physiology, and the remainder from psychology.

Goodstein says that in his experience, fraud never occurred in fields like physics or astronomy or geology -- which is different from mining, in case you are thinking of the Busang affair -- although other kinds of misconduct do occur.

How great has the role of Indonesian scientists been in promoting scientific truth and in guarding their academic field against falsehood?

It is impossible, I think, to give a general answer to this question. My impression is that the situation in this case differs widely from one field to another. And I think that it will be better to treat this matter as a long-term challenge rather than as a question that should be answered immediately.

The public usually has unrealistically high expectations of those they consider "scientists", "academics", or "scholars". They have often been portrayed as disinterested truth seekers who are more honest than ordinary people and are immune to most common human failings such as pride or personal ambitions. Goodstein calls this view "the Myth of the Noble Scientist".

We should realize that such people do not exist. Scientists are ordinary human beings who outside their main field of interest behave like ordinary people. They can be jealous, they can be unfair. Goodstein advised us to make clear distinction between "serious scientific misconduct" and "common human conduct of scientists." The main thing is that we support them in their search for truth.

No matter how big the obstacles may be at the moment that hinder the development of certain branches of our academic endeavor, we must firmly believe that somehow "Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again; / The eternal years of God are hers; / But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, / And dies among his worshipers." (William Cullen Bryant, The Battle Field, 1837).

Dr. Mochtar Buchori, who resides in Jakarta, is an observer of social affairs.