I’m not into blogs. I dislike the assumption that one’s own
thoughts are so profound and fascinating that they simply must be published,
which I don’t believe is true in my case. Still, I do actually read the odd
blog - Ben Goldacre’s always been an inspiration and Richard Wiseman does lots
of wonderful stuff; but then they have something to write about other than being
a bit of a weirdo. I finally drew my decision after considering how John Watson
wrote a blog about a bloke with autism
and now they’re both on the telly,
which is obviously quite cool. So here we are.
I thought the most appropriate thing for me to post would be
that which inspired me to start shouting in the first place, I’ve really got
itchy about this. Now, I don’t know about you, when Greg Smith blew the rather
grimy whistle after his departure from Goldman Sachs yesterday, his words
really struck a chord. I’ve just completed a psychology degree, and was more
than a little pissed off last year when news hit of falsified data in published
academic journals. I was gobsmacked; it simply didn’t occur to me that a
grown-up wouldn’t realise that cheating doesn’t work. A grown-up! There was also an issue with someone publishing their own
work without peer review in Nature – unbelievable! Another grown-up cheating! A grown-up! Recently we had John Bargh’s rather antagonistic and undignified
rebuttal when his own findings were failed in replication, revealing that it’s
not about finding the truth after all, instead research motivations are all
about feeding one’s own fevered ego. Eugh - my whole belief system undermined.
I therefore ended up writing a smug, rhetorically worded
letter to the BPS magazine detailing my righteous indignation about our contemporary
dearth of integrity. I have no idea whether it will be published, but based on
my strong ongoing desire to stamp my foot and make people play properly,
I want to make sure my colours are well and truly nailed to the mast
so I can think about something else for a bit.
Here’s my letter, and although I’m trying to make an
important point, I hope someone at least finds it mildly entertaining:
Integrity – A Parable
I remember when my dad was knocked from his bicycle. I was
about 11 years old, marvelling as he regaled his inaugural flight across the
Small Heath Expressway. Luckily he was unharmed - not only do working class
people have a tendency to bounce, but he was sensibly protected by a cycle
helmet when he had his ballistic adventure. Dad bemoaned the expense of having
to fork out for a new one after cracking it off a kerb, which I countered by
pointing out that no damage was really visible – surely it would be fine?
“It only takes one knock kid; it’s useless. The whole
thing’s weaker now, the cracks run deep, even if they’re too small to see. It’s
been compromised. Do you understand?”
I understood. Not only that how easily integrity can be compromised,
but also that appearances can be deceptive… And it only takes one knock.
My tardy entrance into higher education was fuelled by a
rationalist revolution. Breaking down my world to embrace objectivity , atheism
and empiricism, I recognised a higher sense of purpose in humans who work find
the truth. Science dictates endeavours taken on, not in order to prove oneself
right, but to test whether an assertion
is true. For 5 years I believed that anyone working within the Sciences,
either as student or scholar, had the same motivations. At the end of those 5
years, I was sadly disillusioned.
During my undergraduate degree I heard of scholars who use
the peer review system to block papers which might potentially challenge their
leading theory; how ‘publish or perish’ can be re-interpreted as ‘perjure or
perish’ (a former supervisor of mine has openly said “We’re going to publish
this, even though it’s flawed”); students who declare that “You can make these
numbers look like anything, it doesn’t have to make sense” and go
unattested; ostensibly honourable
scholars who predate at conventions for fresh young meat, and first class
degrees being awarded of students who – and I quote – “Don’t know what an ANOVA
is”; and let’s not even start on the cheating. I’ve met and spoken with
countless experimental psychologists from the most illustrious of institutions,
many of whom talk freely about proving their hypotheses, never about testing, or even supporting their ideas.
And now as a graduate, I say this: to the data-peekers and
cleansers, the status-hungry, the removers of outliers and the out-and-out
liars; you know who you are, and I’ll be looking for you. I’d like to say that
you’re only cheating yourself, but we all know that isn’t true. Your
compromised integrity weakens us all. Without integrity, science is as
worthless as my old man’s helmet.
