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[1] and now they’re both on the telly[2], 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[3], I want to make sure my colours are well and truly nailed to the mast[4] 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.

---

[1] I have autism too, by the way. Just FYI

[2] I bet I could solve crimes. If I had the funding.

[3] or I’m having my ball back

[4] With a time and date stamp – I’m sick and tired of all the ‘I told you so’ discussions which occur after my precise and insightful predictions, which are definitely not a product of hindsight bias. Definitely. I smell zeitgeist!