The ability to deceive is a sign of intelligence. Only human beings are capable of deliberate deception to any great degree, although it takes them a couple of years to acquire this capability. There is only anecdotal evidence that other animals can deceive with intention. Naturally, cheating is despised within the scientific community – generally held to be the palladium of intelligence – and in no way is it considered to be a glorious intellectual deed.

Triggered by the Schön affair

ETH is also concerned about the integrity of its research. One reason for the present uneasiness is the controversy surrounding the scientific fraud affair that was exposed in 2002 involving the physicist, Jan Hendrik Schön, in the areas of microelectronics and superconductivity. One of the co-authors of many of the articles that contained faked data is a physicist who, in the meantime, has joined ETH. Professor of Physics Bertram Batlogg headed the team that included Schön. Although an inquiry carried out by an independent scientific committee exonerated the ETH scientist and judged he had reacted appropriately and met his responsibility as co-author, the question also arose as to whether a distinguished head of research like Batlogg had adopted a critical enough attitude to the research under investigation.

For the ETH Direction the affair was reason enough to set up a working group in 2003, which included Nobel laureate Richard Ernst, to formulate guidelines for research carried out at ETH Zurich and regulations on procedures in cases of scientific misconduct. In the meantime the ETH Executive Boeard has ratified the new "Rules of Procedure Governing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct at ETH Zurich" that comes into force on 1st May 2004 (1). A further measure is that all who carry out research at ETH have received copies of the paper "The Research Culture at ETH Zurich“ and the brochure "On being a scientist“. On top of this, last autumn the Collegium Helveticum at ETH launched a series of events under the title of "Debating Science Culture" (2), to encourage scientists to undertake a process of critical self-assessment. The series runs until the end of this semester.

Loss of confidence a major problem

"Scientific Frauds" is the title of the next event on 26th April, in which Bertram Batlogg and Andreas Diekmann will also take part. Diekmann is ETH Professor of Sociology and caused quite a stir with his inaugural lecture last semester entitled "Scientific fraud and deception". In his lecture the sociologist named loss of trust as the most serious consequence of scientific fraud – both within and outside the world of research. When asked for an examples from the history of science to illustrate this point Diekmann first thinks of Friedhelm Herrmann. The fraud practised by this German cancer researcher, which became public in 1997, had led to a storm of outcries from scientific bodies and the media.

Where does fraud begin?

But weren't Schön and Herrmann simply two isolated cases, exceptions to the rules that govern scientific research that couldn't seriously damage science as a whole? Diekmann is sceptical. First of all, because every new case of fraud leads to a loss of trust. "If an airline loses three planes in crashes in a single year, passengers won't book with this airline, anymore, even though they know that any plane belonging to any airline might crash." The sociologist says we also have to be cautious because the frequency of scientific misconduct is an unknown quantity. This has to do with the fact that scientific transgressions are often more difficult to identify than, for example, traffic violations. In addition there is a grey area where things are not so clear-cut that one can speak of fraud. "Take, for instance, the analysis of statistical data. Test x is not significant while test y delivers a result with the desired significance. So the researcher writes up on the results of test y," explains Diekmann. This is leading to a situation where the "honest" manuscript containing lots of "ifs" and "buts" stands less chance of being published in the journals.

Controlling practice insufficient

Despite grey areas and the difficulties of identifying scientific wrongdoings Diekmann thinks the new ETH rules of procedure on scientific misconduct is an improvement on the present situation. "Even though we haven't got a radar trap or a Breathalyser for fraud there is nevertheless a need to set out 'a highway code' for research." Experience has shown that the current practice of self-regulation isn't sufficient. New institutional regulation is therefore a prudent step, says Diekmann. He would also welcome it if spot-checks were carried out to check the validity of data and ensure that proper scientific methodology has been used, especially in areas where duplication is not likely to happen. There is no reason why this couldn't be done within the framework of a scientific self-control. Because he doesn't believe that scientists are a better category of human being.

The specialist media also reacted strongly to the fraudulent publications of the physicist Jan Hendrik Schön. large

Diekmann says this doesn't mean that one can do without scientific morals or training practice for honest working methods. "Most scientists carry out punctilious work, even though deception could bring them material advantages or be beneficial to their careers."

He himself approaches the issue of fraud by seeking out methods that can show indications of the falsification of specific data and statistics. Under certain conditions a so-called Benford distribution proves suitable to find indications of anomalies. Naturally, such a procedure can never provide particular details of a forger, like a fingerprint.

What level of trust does this ETH scientist himself place in his colleagues after all the time he has spent looking into forgeries? Diekmann says that he gives everyone he meets or works with a sort of "trust in advance", and adds, "But when I read of new results in a scientific publication, I first believe that these have been independently duplicated." For those readers who think that the careful attitude of this scientist is not enough, Mark Twain comes to the rescue. He proposed the following method to get at the truth: "There is only one way to ascertain whether a man is honest – ask him. If he says 'yes' then one knows that he is dishonest."