How Cheating is Sometimes the Responsible Thing to Do
The world of research is very much a cutthroat competition. Just look at doctors Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier in the movie, “And the Band Played On”. In conditions like these, where the pressure to succeed and do so in a timely fashion is so great, we can see where scientists fold and fudge or fabricate data to publish new papers or claim a discovery. And although we don’t support their decisions, we can empathize as to why they were made.
Since we first started playing capture the flag and freeze-tag in kindergarten, we have been taught never to cheat. But is there an appropriate time to cheat? More specifically, is it appropriate to cheat in the world of research science? Looking at two historic examples of the past, I would say yes.
Rewind to 1863, to Gregor Mendel in his pea garden. He had just finished one of the most important papers of the last two centuries. The paper regarded his discovery of what would later be known as genetic inheritance. His data was incredible. Actually, it was a little too good to be true.
Nowadays, with application of statistical analysis, we see that what Mendel pulled off, the exactness of his inheritance ratios, the convenient traits he decided to consider, was incredibly lucky, or a little distorted. This isn’t to say that Mendel completely falsified his results. We have no way of knowing for sure that he did in fact cheat. However, what is most likely is that the data which went again his theoretical outcomes were conveniently put aside, perhaps by him, or even his assistant. Either way, some form of academic dishonesty almost certainly occurred.
But was this a bad thing? Hell no. Mendel made an incredible discovery. Somehow, he had enough evidence to deduce what was going on in those peas, and was able to apply this knowledge in order to weed out evidence to the contrary. He was able to ignore traits which were controlled by multiple genes and stick only with those legendary seven. He knew what was going on—he now needed the world to see it the same way. Less convincing results would mean more likelihood of having his results and theories dismissed. So in order to make one of the greatest modern discoveries known, he most likely skewed the data. And the world is all the better for it.
(more on this http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/19-3/22%20Faraz.pdf)
Flash forward to the late 1970’s when the AIDS epidemic first came to light. The CDC as shown in the film had great suspicions that the AIDS virus was transferred by sexual contact and blood, but had no way of proving it with statistical certainty. (What do we think? What do we know? What can we PROVE?) As a result, the call was made not to shut down the notorious San Francisco bathhouses; the disease was allowed to spread rampantly. How different might the world have been if Don Francis had lied, had stuck to his convictions and said that without a doubt, the disease was spread in such and such a manner? Perhaps the disease could have been contained.
The point of this has not been to encourage cheating. I don’t plan on it—I don’t have the confidence and commitment to risk my integrity and future career to put forth something I know to be true, even is the data is unable to show it. Cheating 98% of the time only ends poorly. But it’s those very few times when cheating can be done for the greater good that cheating should be done.
