“Max, grownups sometimes tell lies to make a living” – Fletcher (Jim Carrey) in the movie Liar Liar to his son Max (Justin Cooper).

Remember Fletcher, a habitual liar, the lawyer in the movie Liar Liar, pleading with his son Max on his birthday, to ‘unwish’ so that, going forward his father can tell lies. That would relieve him (Fletcher) from the obligation to tell the truth under all circumstances. Fletcher goes at length to explain to his son that he has a case to win; his career is at stake and so requests his son to permit him to lie.

So while it appears reasonable that lawyers, politicians, priests and even doctors and the rest of us to lie sometimes to make a living, is it ok for that one group, Scientists; to lie?

The answer is no.

Our survival instincts condone our lies for practical reasons. But, exactly for practical reasons, if not for idealism, scientists cannot lie.

ace_up_the_sleeve

I am referring to an article titled “Liar! Liar!” in the recent edition of Economist detailing how some researchers bend truth to suit their purpose. I was disappointed to know that some of our venerable scientists alter results to suit their hypothesis, doctor their data to get their papers pass their peers’ review and get published, tinker with their presentation to conform or reinforce their point of view.

One may argue ‘to err is human’ and scientists are human. Scientists are under time pressure like anyone else to produce results: results that are tangible before their research grant runs out. Having invested years of study in frontier science to accept that their theory was wrong, is demoralizing to say the least.

This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse. When we made the bet in 1975, we were 80% certain that Cygnus was a black hole. By now, I would say that we are about 95% certain, but the bet has yet to be settled.
—Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (1988)

Even the renowned Steven Hawking conceded that there is a flaw in his findings that matter and information is forever lost in black holes. It runs counter to the currently accepted law of conservation of mass and energy. So Steven Hawking who proposed and proved his theory one way, declared later that he stands corrected and will soon publish a paper proving his new findings which goes another way. And the scientific community is eagerly waiting to see if that too will stand its scrutiny.

Here is an article on ‘cold fusion’ in Wikipedia.org. Read it and then read the discussion about the current status of the article. There will see a To-do list with 7 steps for Cold fusion. Reading and dwelling upon it you will see how rigorous the scientific community is in validating a theory before accepting it.

So you see Science is dispassionate and it is neutral. It is immaterial who proposes the theory. It is more concerned with the process or the method than with the end results. The repeatability of the results, anywhere in the world, under the specified conditions, subject to intense scrutiny, for all time to come; is what validates the theory and makes it into a law.

It better be that way, because our survival as a race depends on it.