Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Fraud, laziness becoming an epidemic in academia

Birte Wolff
Guest Columnist

At San Jose State University, a chemically produced pesticide called DDT was banned because of the inaccurate assessment of data. The adverse effects of DDT such as the thinning of eggshells and the poisoning of fish were investigated and then exaggerated by the media, even though the substance had saved many lives by increasing agricultural production by eliminating pests. Misleading statements from scientists and the media forced politicians to ban the pesticide. This is an example of fraud and can stem from academic dishonesty. The prevention of such must start with education, and schools should be vigilant to set the precedent for proper scientific thinking. Students must learn to want the truth, not just profit and recognition. 

Cheating is easily observed. During chemistry lab, a student asked me, "Did the teacher say your numbers are good?" She then changed her results according to mine. This marks the beginning of the end of science. Scientists must record all data and conduct experiments in the most controlled and fair manner possible. The downfall of science comes when results are made up, and people cannot trust scientists anymore. Scientists currently hold a privileged position as those who present the truth. This position can be easily lost, and if fraud becomes commonplace, its media coverage will increase, along with people's distrust of scientific observations. 

College is where people should be on the lookout for knowledge. However, altering experimental data to fit the scheme of a textbook, a teacher or another student is an eminent crisis. In my survey, 76 science undergraduates were asked the following questions: 1) What is your current status in your major? 2) Have you ever altered laboratory data? 3) Do you find it all right? 

Some 38 students admitted that they had altered data while 38 claimed they had not, and 45 thought it was "all right" to change the data while 31 thought differently. Only few acted contrary to their beliefs. I could find no significant difference between the classifications. 

Most students claim they're pressured to change their results by the professors who evaluate the accuracy of the measurements. Students have learned that they get punished if they have a result that deviates too much from the "right answer." Since students are naturally worried about getting good grades, some have become conditioned by the education system to alter their results to match the ideal found in the book. Positive reinforcement only furthers this conditioned response.

The whole grading system must be reformed. In every lab report, scientists give a discussion about their experiment, where they address possible problems and explanations on the happenings during the experiments. This part of the lab report is the most challenging but is mostly absent in college-level chemistry. The professors simply scan for the correct numbers and slam a grade on the paper, completely missing the point. If students wrote an elaborate discussion, professors could tell between those who really understood and those who just copied. 

Opponents of this grading scheme will argue that students must learn to work precisely in a chemistry lab and that the best way to teach this is to punish inaccuracy. But opponents didn't consider three important factors. First of all, it is impossible to be precise with imprecise measuring devices and natural human error. Many students use the equipment and the substances so, for example, the glassware is not entirely clean and the substances not entirely pure. 

Also, students don't have enough time to do all the experiments three times. Scientists do a significant number of repetitions of the experiment to show that the results are replicable. Time pressures make students nervous, allowing for more mistakes. 

Finally, it is not the goal of the lab to race. In professional advanced science, the scientist has all the time he needs. The question is not whether it is done quickly, but whether it is done accurately and fairly. In a rush, they do what we call "cookbook-chemistry," which is a robotic execution of procedures, which eliminates the need for thinking. This mechanical following of instructions is a waste of valuable learning time. 

The discussion is the best way to treat mistakes. Errors in the laboratories must not be ignored but examined and contemplated. Most teachers fail to remember that mistakes in science have lead to historical breakthroughs. For example, Alexander Fleming was doing an experiment that was accidentally contaminated with mold spores. As a good scientist, Fleming was curious and examined the error. He made a surprising observation and discovered that the mold areas were free of bacteria, thus discovering the antibiotic Penicillin. Although most teachers know about discoveries like these, they don't teach accordingly. 

The loss of curiosity is the result of being rewarded for laziness. Students who obtain the correct data receive the same credit as those who study the lab manual, try to understand the reactions and show effort and engagement to replicate the experiments. Naturally, we are skeptical of something we read until we experience it on our own; however, students don't show this skepticism anymore. It is too arduous with no reward. 

Another excuse for the data manipulation comes from the constant infringing of the boundary to the illegal and wrong. Students know that scientists should not alter data because we need to trust them; however, this value and the bad conscience can be suppressed. Real scientists limit the definition of fraud in order to widen the boundary. They create the impression that some fraud is OK. Students also claim that everyone commits fraud so it's OK. 

The word cheating doesn't do justice to the crisis because many students feel like it is normal. Even if they don't do scientific research one day, they might become professional sports players, lawyers, judges, journalists or history researchers. The word "fraud" would be better for describing the crisis in schools. Students must be firmly trained to value good science and its outcome. Even though some of us may not want to become scientists, we all want the truth. 

Wolff, a guest columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu