Science prides itself as a field driven by logic and reason, but scientific investigation is regulated by humans, who are flawed, irrational, and prideful. I recently read an article discussing the mitigation of fraud in scientific research, specifically using an algorithm called Statcheck designed by a scientist named Chris Hartgerink. The program identifies data that might be flawed or incorrect in scientific publications, and notifies the author.

The article continued to describe how fraud’s existence plays a role in the scientific community. When fraud is introduced into a field that prides itself in unveiling truth, it is representative of a loss of faith in the credibility of the field itself.

But while science is fundamentally based on seeking truth, it is also made functional by the collaboration and exchange of information within the community. There is a level of trust in the research of others that will drive one’s own scientific design.

Do self-monitoring methods, such as Statcheck, help or hurt the scientific community? On one hand, increasingly vetted data ensures that future studies are using dependable results to further research. This objectivity is crucial to good, truthful science. But this can feel like public shaming for scientists who may be insecure in sharing their findings to such a critical public. Does public shaming using sites such as RetractionWatch promote truthful reporting or threaten collaboration and the sharing of information? Further, does intensified scrutiny bar the way for scientists to ask creative or challenging questions that are inherent to the very nature of science?

Overall, this begs the question of whether this is room for subjectivity and human behavior in science, and in which contexts it is appropriate. Finding ways to downplay the prideful nature of scientists while promoting mutual trust is an important challenge in the midst of new methods of identifying fraudulent data. Would increased competitiveness or increased collaboration be most effective in avoiding the negative impacts of human nature in scientific research?