Cheating in science

A friend posted an interesting two-part article from Psychology Today about cheating in science. Part 1 Part 2. Coincidentally, this dovetails with another story about cheating (in journalism) posted by CNN a few days back.

I am happy to report that I did not witness - or at least was not aware - of any fraud during my time at Cornell. It might be harder to get away with in astronomy and the natural sciences, as opposed to the behavioral sciences discussed in the articles, simply because there are fewer excuses for nonrepeatability of results. Mice could behave differently, but photons generally don't.

That said, it's an opportunity to share my personal experiences with cheating. Rather, it's a single experience, but it's bothered me enough to admit it.

I never cheated on any homework or test in K-12. In fact, I even turned in a poor guy who was cheating on an 8th grade science test. I did it discreetly, and I have hope that the teacher was gentle, but I still feel guilty about it. I should've approached him directly. But I didn't, maybe because I had a rigid view of right and wrong, and maybe because I was particularly hierarchical in my value system.

Thanks to a belief in both Harvey Mudd's Honor Code and my own (somewhat unrealistic) belief in my own abilities, I never cheated in college. There were a few reported incidents of cheating by peers in college, but they were largely regarded as one-offs. I'm sure it happened, but, charitably, I'd like to think it happened less frequently than at other colleges.

At Cornell, I remember the stress, panic, and depression starting to set in toward the end of the first semester. My grades were reasonably good, but my research was not, and the doubts I had about pursuing astronomy were beginning to be confirmed. It was perhaps a product of my decreasing confidence that I cheated for the first and last time on an academic test. I don't recall which class it was, but I recall using outside materials and seeking outside help.

I felt terrible about it, terrible for a long time. It may or may not have made a difference in my final grade, but as the difference was perhaps between a B+ and a B, it didn't matter by grad school standards.

It did, however, profoundly impact my view of myself as an honest scientist.

Much later, I did hear about other tales at Cornell of academic dishonesty. They included the absurd - a former professor, well before my time, was caught double-billing his travel expenses to NSF. They also included the depressing - an employee admitted to working half-time for the last few years on a program, but then proceeded to hold the project hostage. Such are the perils of smaller research projects - one person really can be irreplaceable.

I was never, ever pressured to deliver results by others; in that, I think I was far more fortunate than most people in grad school. (It helped I had my own money - the NSF fellowship.) However, I can understand and sympathize with the self-imposed pressures of individuals - some of whom, let's admit frankly, are the product of a selection effect that discourages those who are well-rounded or have developed a healthy self-esteem across multiple areas - who would be so obsessed with academic approval that we would compromise our values to keep the supply flowing. This in no way applies to my former colleagues - most of whom, I confess, I was jealous of because they did seem pretty well-adjusted.

All this to say that self-imposed pressures can lead good people to cheat. And, like so many sins, once it is committed, it becomes easier to continue along that path.

I never cheated in school again - honestly, it wouldn't have helped. But I can imagine that those who find a way for it to work, those who have a combination of bad fortune to have an onerous PI, or uncooperative project, coupled with disinterest in making the project work, or perhaps a desperate need to be a "success", would feel that cheating was a way out.

Cheating, is of course, not limited to the sciences. As I mentioned earlier, there was a fascinating case about a journalist who fabricated stories for The New Republic - it's a worthy read for the psychological insight into the man and his motivations.

It also brings up the issue of redemption - in science, there is none for cheating. What about in the rest of life? Do we really believe in the possibility of transformation stories - to use a biblical reference, the conversion of Saul to Paul - or do we really ascribe to a view that reform is impossible?

I think our words and our actions reveal two different answers. For a Christian nation, we do believe in the death penalty, life without parole, incarceration over rehabilitation, and marking individuals who are released with their own version of Jean Veljean's yellow convict papers. We hold people's past misdeeds against them, and forget their good actions. We're bad at weighing things in a balanced fashion. There may be evolutionary reasons for this, but I'd hope that we depend upon more than evolutionary selection to base our moral philosophy.

Have you cheated? Academically? Personally? Did you feel remorse? Did you get away with it?

Santa Monica, Faith, and the Great Recession

Today I write about the showdown in Santa Monica about Nativity Displays. A coalition of atheists has managed to secure the vast majority of permits for lots in a Santa Monica park, historically dedicated to nativity displays. It looks like yet another showdown between Christians and atheists. But I believe this is a great opportunity masquerading as a crisis. All parties currently involved, and those on the sidelines, to take the opportunity to use that space to serve those hardest hit by economic downturn.

I respect both the desire to celebrate faith and the desire to defend one’s right to not believe. As someone with scientific training and a religious upbringing, I’ve lived in both worlds, among both peoples. And I’ve found remarkable degrees of both compassion and rigid thinking in both camps. I have treasured friends and family members entrenched in both camps who each, in their way, demonstrate the great virtues of courage, compassion, and generosity. For them, I write this appeal.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if something positive could come of this? What if the churches used this as an opportunity to reassess the value of spending thousands on nativity scenes, and choose, at least this time, to use that money for a living testament to Christian faith? What if, in turn, the atheist organization used this opportunity to humanize their cause, to demonstrate that an absence of God does not mean an absence of values – perhaps one of the most vehement arguments leveled against atheists? What if, given the option between confrontation and cooperation, these two camps chose to spend their efforts fighting the poverty that now grips Santa Monica and our country in general?

I propose that the coming fights and lawsuits be abandoned, in favor of a hunger luncheon, sponsored by people of all faiths, and those of no faith, dedicated to the common cause of alleviating poverty and hunger in Santa Monica this season.

Churches have not been immune to the downturn. Though the bankruptcy of Crystal Cathedral ministries might be the most conspicuous victim, many smaller churches have struggled. Yet in the face of the hard times, some churches, reaffirming their values and recognizing an increased need, have actually increased their efforts to provide food assistance and shelter. Here is the opportunity once again to demonstrate the tradition of giving and service that is both in keeping with the spirit of the season and the finest traditions of the faith, admired by those of any creed.

The atheist coalition has already scored a valuable coup in securing the permits and space. But what will come of it? Will a large display of one community’s values be supplanted by another’s? And will this continue a trend whereby any space must be contested, lest an opposing view take it? Or, perhaps, will the opportunity be seized in order to make the point that social service need not be necessarily tied to a specific religious faith? I can think of no greater way to demonstrate the virtues of their cause than by graciously working with others to host a hunger lunch.

Santa Monica is a city whose recent history has seen controversy regarding its attitudes and approaches toward homelessness. It is also, from what I can tell, unusual, if not unique, in its use of an annual Homeless Count, currently scheduled for January 25, to monitor and track trends of homelessness and the effectiveness of its policies to alleviate it. Here is an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to help those most at-risk in its community.

Our nation is tired of wars of bombs and words. We can scarcely afford either. And it has been known since the beginning of religion and philosophy that one cannot preach effectively to a hungry person. Feed the hungry, and then, if necessary, make the case for your cause.

This season belongs to everyone. So, too, do the poor. Here’s hoping Santa will bring Santa Monica the gift of common purpose.