No sane man would ever think of underestimating the importance of
education.
But, my question is this: Is really
an education whatever is being sold to the public today under that name? Because
the name alone cannot define a product, a situation or a person; only their actions and the results can.
It is a fact that, if the government(s) wanted better educated individuals they could have them by *not*
dumbing down the educational system (see: "No child left behind," etc.). That is because a few decades earlier the educational system was producing real engineers while education today has become
a commodity for everyone who can afford it to have. This explains why today's "educated" individuals have
their egos grown to the size of cathedrals, without being actually able to
think critically or
in a rational manner --or even to communicate decently with their social counterparts. Does this not sound to be another form of
Social Engineering?
You may call me pedantic; but there is a huge difference between
educating and
conditioning an individual (or even a whole society). Since everything in life is about
choice, anybody could chose to live any life they wish:
"Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip," George Orwell observed,
"but the really well-trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip." Now, is that sympathetic dog above (the one that entertains its master and the guests on demand) an
educated life form or a
conditioned one to do his part whenever he is told to?
This leads us to contemplate about scientists, the individuals who represent the highest form of the upper level educational system outcome: Well, it seems that there are
scientists and
"scientists." The former ones are the honest and respectable researchers who try their best to make the world a better place, while the latter ones could be called
"monkeys with a degree"; that is because these nice and sympathetic animals can easily be trained to be pressing the right buttons in the right order, for example, and to finally receive their certificates of a successful end of their training. But, is this not the definition of a "degree" which is an official certification that the degree holder has responded correctly to a predetermined set of questions after the appropriate education? So, what I am trying to emphasize is that, a degree actually does neither certify that its holder is a man of real abilities, or a man of character integrity; I am trying to emphasize that
a certified "scientist" could easily be a crook.
To support this thesis, above, let me refer to a recent article published by TimesOnline in 04/06/2009, which currently is only
accessible by subscription. This, however, is a copy of that very interesting article, coming straight from my personal archives:
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.
Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data, are less unusual than is generally assumed. “Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered,” he said.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.
In all the surveys people were asked about both their own research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under the heading “questionable practices”. These included dropping data points based on a “gut feeling” and failing to publish data that contradict one’s previous research.
The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees of anonymity.”
The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to be conservative.
Another explanation for the differences between the self-report results and colleague-report results could be that people consider themselves to be more moral than others. In a marginal case, people might characterise their colleagues’ behaviour as misconduct more readily than they would their own.
The study included scientists from a range of disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.
Aristotle used to say that,
"Dignity does not consist in possessing honours, but in deserving them."-George
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
