Scientific Misconduct , Kuhnian Scientific Revolutions and Scientific Ethics

With increased occurrences of Scientific Misconduct in the form of Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report being reported in leading Scientific Journals and in the regular press, it is befitting to ask whether Kuhn’s “Theory of Scientific Revolutions” foresaw the epidemic that afflicts the Scientific World and Enterprise. This analysis reflects that even though Thomas Kuhn did not deal directly with Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report, his theory excludes Data fabrication, Data Falsification and Dishonest Scientific Report as part of scientific discoveries. A proposal to prevent or eradicate the commiting of Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report is put forward for discussion purposes.


Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report
"Research Misconduct" is defined as "fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results", pursuant to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the US Government's Department of Health and Human Services that oversees and regulates the activities of the US National Health Institutes with an annual budget of over 39 billion US dollars in 2019 which is no small change. There is hardly any watchdog to guard this pile of gold. It is not surprising that many have tried to take advantage of the laxity of the NIH. Recently, there has been much press coverage of Scientific Researchers being investigated, sanctioned, prosecuted and even imprisoned for committing Scientific Misconduct and Scientific Fraud [1][2][3][4][5]. A number of Scientific Researchers have tried unsuccessfully to sue the regular press for reporting on the occurrence of Scientific Misconduct and Scientific Fraud [6,7]. Indeed, even Politicians have taken much interest on the subject of Scientific Misconduct and Scientific Fraud, and have pressed for more draconian and severe punishments for Tricksters who commit Scientific Fraud [8][9][10].
Currently, the ORI does not have authority to actually investigate cases of "Research Misconduct" or Scientific Fraud or Dishonest Scientific Report. All investigations of allegations of "Research Misconduct" are forwarded to the Institutions where the alleged Scientific Misconduct, a situation that can be summarized as guarding the chickens by the fox or the sheep by the wolf. After the allegations of "Research Misconduct" have been investigated, the results of the investigation are sent to the ORI and if the ORI agrees that "Research Misconduct" has occurred, the Perpetrator of "Research Misconduct" is sanctioned by debarment from applying for any grants from the NIH and participating in any activities of the NIH.

Scientific Misconduct and Kuhnian Scientific Revolutions
Why are there so many cases of Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report being uncovered now? According to a study of Bhumika Bhatt [11],  [12] shows that most retraction are due to Scientific Misconduct. A more recent study by CamposVarela and Ruano-Ravina [13] [15] found that 50% (6.1%) of 960 papers published between 2009 and 2016 in Molecular and Cellular Biology contained "inappropriately duplicated images" and that ~10% of these papers were retracted.
Extrapolating from these figures, Bik et al [15] suggest that as many as 35000 papers in the literature could potentially be retracted.
Is one condemned to live with Tricksters who commit Scientific Misconduct, Scientific How studying the Philosophy of Science and Ethics can impact the way one does Scientific Research? Whether one agrees with Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper (it is known that they intensely disliked each other), the work of a Scientific Researcher is constrained by the "paradigm" or "theory". To work within a "paradigm" or "theory", the Scientific Researcher must through agreed upon ideas perform experiments to generate Scientific Data that tend to support the "paradigm" or "theory". It goes without saying that the Scientific Data cannot be fabricated or falsified because the Scientific Community will not allow it and the Scientific Data will not in anyway help to solve any Scientific Problem or understand or cure any disease states. Similarly, if the Scientific Researcher wishes to venture beyond the "paradigm" or "theory", the Scientific Researcher must disprove the "paradigm" or falsify the "theory" and this can only be done with valid ideas and most importantly with experiments backed by solid Scientific Data. There is no room for trickery because resorting to trickery in the form of Data Fabrication and Data Falsification does not comply with agreed upon rules and procedures that are inherent of Scientific Research. It is impossible to prove or disprove a "Kuhnian Paradigm" or "Popperian Theory" via Data fabrication and Data Falsification. Feyerabed and Kuhn's concept of "incommensurabilty" [18,19] dictates that the language of Tricksters in the forms of Fabricate Data, Falsified Data and Dishonest Scientific Report will be incomprehensible to the language of Scientific Researchers who do not resort to Data Fabrication, Data Falsification and Dishonest Scientific Report. That is the main reason why Graduate Students must be exposed to the Philosophy of Science and Ethics.

Scientific Ethics
None of Thomas Kuhn ideas and concepts will be worth anything if the Practitioners of (ii) Scientific Fraud.
If an individual has been found guilty of violating the Codes of Scientific Ethics, that individual must be sanctioned depending on the severity of the violation.  (iii) It will prevent Outside Vigilantes like Senators Grassley and Dingall from interfering and dictating how Scientific Research must proceed and how it must be run.
(iv) It will prevent self proclaimed Fraud Busters like Stewart and Nader from interfering in legitimate investigation of Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report.
(v) It will show that the investigation, determination and ruling of Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report will be fair, procedural and impartial.
(vi) It will provide Due Process of the Law to both the Complainants and the Respondents.
(vii) It will provide complete transparency with respect to the investigation, ruling and sanctioning of Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report.
(viii) It will prevent and dissuade would be perpetrators from committing Scientific Misconduct, Scientific Fraud and Dishonest Scientific Report.
The Scientific Research Communities in U.S.A, Canada, Europe, and elsewhere must wake up or they will be forced to act in ways that contravene the tradition of openness, fairness and impartiality that are ingrained in the Scientific Research Enterprise by the politicians and other interested groups.