The Jury's Still Out on Science Quiz

Answer: Fraud

Using indexed Pubmed retractions from 1977, Ferric Fang et al "Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012) found that blatant fraud led to far more retractions than genuine error (as was previously thought).

Also found was that retraction rates were rising, and that prestigious journals were hardest hit by fraud because of 'publish or perish' scientists wanting to further their careers with spectacular data more likely to get published than anything humdrum.

The authors believed that ethical breaches can be prevented by better mentoring at universities and a system of research auditing, but conceded that the scientific community is loath to change the status quo.

Answer: Vioxx

Rofecoxib, commonly marketed by Merck as Vioxx, was a nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drug (NSAID) widely prescribed for osteoarthritis and other acute pain conditions since its 1999 approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Merck knew from the start that long-term, high-dosage use increased heart attack and stroke risks but suppressed this information as it was adverse to its financial interests. As a result, many patients developed serious heart disease on top of their existing pain issues.

Apparently, only research misconduct perpetrated using publicly funded grants warrants investigation by the authorities. Private drug companies are expected to self-monitor and, because they take into account the possibility of class action laws suits, they are largely unaffected by the damage they do (as Merck was).

Answer: Diederik Stapel

Stapel's 130 articles and 24 book chapters were investigated by three committees. Their joint final report found that Stapel's high academic status and charismatic personality permitted him to get away with fraudulent behaviour.

All agreed that Stapel had not only damaged the careers of graduates but also the pursuit of science, particularly social psychology. In his apology, Stapel made some salient points: "I did not withstand the pressure to score, to publish, the pressure to get better in time. I wanted too much, too fast. In a system where there are few checks and balances, where people work alone, I took the wrong turn."

Answer: University of East Anglia

In November 2009, weeks prior to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change, a server was hacked at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Subsequently, four climatologists were accused by 'denialists' of fudging data to support an international global warming scientific conspiracy that would profit the 'warmists' greatly.

Despite recommending that the publicly funded Unit might avoid similar allegations in future by honouring freedom of information requests promptly - as well as opening up access to its data, processing methods and software to allow others the opportunity to test its theories - eight investigating committees preserved the prestige of the university by finding no evidence of blatant fraud or scientific misconduct.

Answer: Jan Hendrik Schön

Schön's research at Bell Labs involved replacing conventional silicon semiconducting elements with crystalline organic materials. Prestigious journals "Science" and "Nature" published his spectacular findings even though nobody could reproduce any of his results.

This, as well as the fact that he was publishing one research paper every eight days, aroused suspicion. In 2002, an investigation committee set up by Bell Labs found misconduct in 16 of 24 allegations. He had reused whole data sets in different experiments and produced graphs from mathematical functions rather than experimental data.

Because Schön's co-authors - and the reviewers of his research papers - were exonerated, the international scientific community discussed the 'responsibility' issue, but nothing eventuated. This means that fraud will continue as long as the 'enablers' aren't also held responsible.

Answer: Andrew Wakefield

Because other researchers could not reproduce Wakefield's findings and verify his hypothesis of the link between the MMR vaccine and autism without being accused of the same charge he was (putting patients at risk) his research paper was debunked.

He was not anti-vaccination. He suggested instead it was safer to administer single vaccinations against measles, mumps and rubella - one year apart - rather than all at once, as per the MMR vaccine. Japan, for instance, favoured this safer approach.

It was Wakefield's application to patent a single-jab measles vaccine that brought on a British General Medical Council inquiry. Struck off the UK medical register, Wakefield continues to defend his research and by claiming no fraud, hoax or profiteering on his part he implies that there might be one in the medical and pharmaceutical establishment.

Answer: Barry Marshall

Medical doctrine held that stomach ulcers were caused by stress, spicy foods and excessive acid so when Marshall's theory linking Helicobacter pylori infection and stomach ulcers was published he was mercilessly ridiculed. No bacteria, claimed the status quo, could live in the stomach's acidic environment.

Undaunted by failed attempts to prove his theory by infecting piglets with H. pylori, Marshall swallowed the bacteria himself in 1984 and three days later developed symptoms which antibiotics subsequently cured.

Answer: Casper Schmidt

Publishing in the Journal of Psychohistory, Casper Schmidt was the first of many HIV/AIDS 'denialists' in the scientific establishment disputing the now generally accepted medical and scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

Schmidt actually claimed that AIDS was not a real disease but a manifestation of 'epidemic hysteria'. Interestingly, Schmidt himself died of AIDS in 1994, by which time most 'denialists' accepted AIDS as a real disease but refused to attribute it to a virus. They believed instead that AIDS was caused by poor hygiene and sanitation, recreational drugs, etc. - but particularly gay male sexual behaviour.

Despite a long and concerted campaign by the Gay Community to overcome the slur that AIDS is a gay disease, many dissenters still believe it is.

Answer: Vested interests

Articles from the "Forty Years' War - Series" in The New York Times clearly identify vested interests as the leading cause of this miserable finding. The bulk of research grants go to maintaining the status quo - drugs and treatments that haven't changed much since the 1950s and are unlikely to ever do so as long as vested interests maintain sway.

Funds spent on initiating early detection projects were also criticised for not only harming patients but also offering no real benefit. Also mentioned was patient unwillingness to participate in clinical trials and refusal to take the old drugs with horrific side-effects which simply deterred not cured cancer.

Lack of cancer cure progress was also blamed on the authorities for making it too difficult to market new drugs; and, pervading all, was reliance on 1950s doctrine relating to what causes cancer in the first place.

For a disease which can manifest in any part of the body it is not good enough to attribute cause to the patient according to which part of the body is diseased - e.g. breast cancer (failure to breast feed); lung cancer (smoking); bowel cancer (insufficient roughage); skin cancer (sunbathing); etc.

Answer: Butter and eggs

After decades of warning us about the danger of eating butter and eggs because of their high cholesterol content, the US government has finally admitted that the science behind the scaremongering was seriously flawed. Too bad for the margarine industry which profited greatly from the demonisation of butter, and too bad for the millions of gullible people who stopped consuming two foods which, apart from being staples in the human diet for thousands of years, have the beneficial effect of 'filling' the stomach and curtailing obesity.