Grex Scruples Conference

View Responses

Grex Scruples Item 38: Academic honesty
Entered by davel on Sun Jul 17 05:52:19 UTC 1994:

You are a scholar doing research, using primary sources, in a fairly obscure
area of historical interest.  You are asked to comment on the qualifications
of a man for an academic position in your specialized field.  As you read
one of his recent papers, you see that it proposes an interesting thesis,
quite plausibly, which you know absolutely to be false, on the basis of
documents in an uncatalogued library to which you've had recourse in your
own research.  Not only that, but it is clear from points made by the man
in question has also had access to these very manuscripts, and must have
known that the thesis he advance was incorrect.  You bring these facts to
the man in question.  He admits everything, but begs you not to pursue the
matter, saying that if you make his actions public you will destroy his
career.  In addition to a wife, he has two very young daughters and a
load of debts from his own education.  What do you do?

9 responses total.

#1 of 9 by wish on Sun Jul 17 18:23:08 1994:

I think that if anyone made his actions public, it would ruin his career.
It might be better that he lose ihs credibility now than later. Perhaps he
can be convinced to write a paper disproving his wrong thesis, or at least
withdrawing the thesis. In any case, his actions so far hardly warrant a
high recommendation.

#2 of 9 by flem on Sun Jul 17 23:45:59 1994:

I have a question.  Why did he write the paper on a thesis he knew was wrong?
why didn't he just write it on the correct thesis?  It seems to me that 
this would be both easier and more beneficial to his career.

#3 of 9 by davel on Mon Jul 18 00:21:31 1994:

(He had devoted himself to proving this theory, and then discovered a piece
of evidence that proved conclusively that it was wrong - but he'd fallen in
love with his theory and couldn't bear to let it go & start over.  He also
stole the document in question, but couldn't bear to destroy it.)

#4 of 9 by nadine on Mon Jul 18 23:55:05 1994:

Hmm, I think I remember this from an episode of "Family Ties."  Alex was
an R.A. to a professor (Economics, I believe) and was confronted with
almost this exact scenario.  In the end, I believe he was saved the guilt
of ruining this guy's career because he admitted the faulty research
himself.  To paraphrases "Reality Bites," it really is too bad that real
life doesn't wrap all the loose ends up neatly at the end of the half hour.

#5 of 9 by scg on Tue Jul 19 00:12:47 1994:

(Reality Bites took a whole 1.5 hours to wrap up the loose ends)

#6 of 9 by roz on Tue Jul 19 03:18:02 1994:

Rather than exposing him myself, I'd give him a time limit to write
a corrected article.  If he didn't, then I'd take action.  But let
him clean up his own mess, I guess.

#7 of 9 by davel on Tue Jul 19 11:19:43 1994:

Re #4: interesting.  I've never seen Family Ties, but this was based on a
book by Dorothy L. Sayers.  Didn't tie itself up so neatly.

In fact, the book (_Gaudy Night_) includes some long discussions among the
characters (& working out in the plot) of the question of when/whether/how
personal considerations should be allowed to influence professional
decisions such as this.  I'm tempted to quote, until I think about just
how **long** it would be.

#8 of 9 by ewhisam on Thu Dec 28 00:12:06 1995:

You have a responsibility to publish what you are researching if that is your
goal. Allow the man to be a part of published correction. Good researchers
admit the wrong path and know how to start anew. Research is filled with
dead-ends.

#9 of 9 by diznave on Sun Nov 9 07:26:09 1997:

Try to see how many words you can spell from  "acedamia"

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.