A Few Lies in the Name of Science, Part 1: The Cardiff Giant

This post is written by Jessica Reynolds, who turned in her anthropology trowel in pursuit of writing. She currently writes about science and research practices and offers advice for students needing scientific poster and research project help.

It’s the night before your research presentation and you have no idea how you are going to pull it together. You’ve done some research and gathered some decent information but you have no idea how it all fits together. In a moment of desperation, you do what only seems necessary at the time; you make something up. It’s only a small lie after all.

I’m sure we’ve all had this temptation at least once before. Desperation and fear of failing prompt us to make up small lies. We may not be proud of it and professors might be able to see right through it, but lying isn’t just a student’s plague.  Well-known and once well-respected individuals in academia have succumbed to lying about their scientific discoveries. The search for fame, fortune, and even revenge has led some individuals to construct some of the biggest lies in science.

This three-part series aims to examine three hoaxes in the scientific world. We will look at each event, as well as the people and motivations behind the hoax. The three hoaxes I’ve decided to focus on are: The Cardiff Giant, the Piltdown Man, and the Schon Scandal. First up, the Cardiff Giant.

In 1869, a large being, thought to be a “petrified man” was uncovered in Cardiff, New York. There were many theories about the figure dubbed the “Cardiff Giant”, none of which stood up very long to scientific scrutiny.

From Wikipedia

The first theory, and most commonly believed, was that the figure was a petrified giant from biblical times. Another theory stemmed from Indian legend. Stories flew about Native American myths concerning giants roaming the plains. Others spoke of a giant Indian prophet who predicted that the descendants of their people would see him again.

After scientific examination, it became clear that the giant was not a fossilized human being, but a carving. Was it an ancient depiction proving that giants had existed? Was it an idol? None of the theories held up under close examination. But this didn’t stop people from paying 25 cents, and later 50 cents a viewing. The giant was sold to a conglomerate of men who put the figure on tour.

Showman P.T. Barnum tried to buy the giant from the syndicate, without success. He created his own giant out of wax and tried to pass it off as the real giant, claiming the other was a fraud. The issue went to court, and both giants were found to be fakes.

It turns out that George Hull, an aethiest from New York, concocted the whole scam to get back at some Methodists who were talking about the mention of giants in the Bible. He had the giant privately commissioned and planted on his brother’s farm. A year later, his brother hired men to “dig a well” and the giant was discovered. It is notable to mention that the spot the giant was found in was not a logical place for a well.

Hull’s scam did not fool very many scientists, but it did convince many academics, religious authorities, and other well-respected people. Since the whole point was to make religious people look foolish, Hull had no problem confessing to the hoax in court, finally adding the “ha, you’ve been duped” as the icing on the cake.

Hull was motivated by making other people look dumb. He did not try particularly hard to conceal his lie once it had been proven that people would fall for it. This is an example of someone using science to trick others or make them look foolish. This is a big argument for why transparency in science is important.

Next week we will explore the discovery of the Piltdown Man, and then the fake scientific “research” implemented by Jan Hendrik Schon.

Advertising in Open Notebooks

I wrote a post a long time ago about potentially funding science through ads in your open notebook (presuming you have one). The conversation was great and included a lot of different perspectives. The one prevailing piece of advice was that of caution. Advertising brings money, when money is involved there is investment, and people tend to feel that their investment warrants voice. When it comes to science there is the potential to be controlled (in whatever capacity that may entail), which is something that should never be incorporated into research.

Interestingly enough, I’m bringing this conversation to light again, but this time it is through practice. If you go to the home page of this site (click the title/banner above) you will see an ad for biology.answers.com in the right sidebar, just below my social media information.

I want to make it very clear that the presence of the ad in no way influences my research or post content. The material on this site is free to read and free to use and will always be CC licensed.

I decided to place the ad mostly because it would pay me. Which initially I was against, but after thinking about it I decided to go through with. They didn’t pay me an astronomical sum, but the money I received for the add pays for the website, which allows me to continue to keep the site running for the foreseeable future. This I believe is great for all of you.

Another reason I included an ad, is because I was asked to list the ad. It’s not a google ad that I’m trying to make money from over all time. Right now it is a one year deal and if it doesn’t work out then oh well. Because I was approached about advertising, and someone had spent time analyzing my site, I put some thought into the decision.

I also did it because of the experiment I linked to above. I don’t know if anyone has had advertising on their research site before, but if you can pay for any aspect of your research without government funding then why not? I may get a lot of negative feedback for allowing ads on my site, I may increase the likelihood people have open notebooks knowing they can have self-sufficient, self-hosted websites. I have no idea. We’ll see what happens in the long run regarding this issue.

If you have any comment, concern, or anything to say about me doing this then please, by all means, submit a comment. I also highly encourage you to read the post linked above, which is not my best work but raises some interesting questions. In that discussion, I never thought of specific banner ads, as most of the conversation was directed at Google banner ads, which change depending on the user and site content. With that said…

…share your mind!

 

@BreakingBio Episode 24: #OpenNotebookScience Edition

I totally forgot to post this when it came out about a week after I defended. The folks who run the hilarious video podcast Breaking Bio had me on as their special guest, with Heidi Smith reporting live on location. Check it out:

#Scifund Outreach Training: Week 1

The first week of the first ever Scifund Outreach Course (Scifund Outreach 101) is now complete.

Week 1 was mostly set up and getting familiar with the environment, as we requested students sign up for Twitter, Google+, Wikispaces (Scifund Wiki), and Google Groups, and then start playing around.  We also asked students to sign up for Google Hangouts with us for some wonderful discussion into what is holding back science outreach.

If you didn’t get to sign up for a hangout, or aren’t registered for the course, don’t fret! I’m going to share some of the questions that were discussed along with the perceptions of science outreach in the scientific community. As you read this post, I want you to think about the topics discussed and how these perceptions affect your contribution to science outreach.

Is your scientific network supportive? (This includes collaborators, advisors, department, etc.)

To me, this was the most important question asked in the hangouts that I hosted. It was also the question that got the most varied responses. There are a number of motivating factors that push a person into science outreach, and most definitely one of those factors is the environment. Obviously, every person is different, but I feel it is safe to say that scientists who are encouraged and trained to communicate effectively will be more inclined to do so compared to people who are discouraged.

The point of this outreach course is to provide this very environment.

So how supportive is your network?

Some students find themselves in very encouraging labs and organizations. Others find themselves in discouraging situations. But even when your network isn’t directly discouraging, it could be indirectly so. In this scenario, advisors, collaborators, and supervisors won’t go out of their way to discourage outreach, but they don’t see the value of it and disregard outreach as a waste of time. In this situation, students may find themselves passively discouraged, through priority: “You should be doing research instead.”

What, personally, is holding you back from doing outreach?

Like I said, there are many factors that contribute to your outreach efforts, outlooks, etc. In the hangout sessions, I always tried to ask what their fears and hurdles are when doing outreach. If only I had thought to phrase it like this! This question was most important for students to hear other students’ perspective. Knowing that your peers are having the same issues as you, helps you understand that you are not alone in your efforts. And not surprisingly, many of the students have the same restrictions.

The biggest restriction is technological challenge. Simply put, there are a lot of tools on the web and it is impossible for anyone to keep up with all of them. More so, it is difficult for anyone to even be experts at a lot of them. How do you work around this? Develop a strategy. This will allow you to understand what you need to do, and what tools you will need to fulfill that strategy. This will minimize the time you spend learning tools, and maximize your effort and engagement.

The other major hurdle is the communication barrier. Everyone in the course acknowledges that communication is key, and that everyone could benefit from developing their communication skills. Why can’t all scientists think this way? What many of the discouragers fail to realize is that outreach is excellent for developing communication skills that are vital in scientific careers. Every scientist will give a talk about their research at some point in their career. That presentation could earn you a degree, a job, a collaboration, etc. So why not give the best possible presentation?

Are there any potential career conflicts with outreach?

I got into this a little above, as outreach can give you skills that can enhance your career. But this answer is kind of a response to the thinking that outreach is a waste of time. Many of the students in my hangouts discussed potential negative backlash from outreach, which was highlighted in this video:

Despite the ultimate in outreach horror stories, Sarah manages to maintain a positive attitude. But how frequently do these horror stories occur? What if your message isn’t what the public wants to hear? Is there a stereotype for scientists who do outreach? (Ie, they can’t cut it in the research world.)

These are all very valid questions, and some are pretty scary to think about, especially when they affect your career. I don’t have any outreach horror story first hand, but I doubt they are frequent. If there was a common backlash from outreach, no one would do it.

But what about the misconception of scientists who do outreach? That is just a misconception. There are many scientists who survived the rigors of their PhD program, braved their post-docs, and walked through fire to get tenure, and do outreach. In some cases scientists may make a career change to do outreach full-time. In these situations many of the scientists involved were recruited to use their analytical skills to present the truth. After all, why not digest information directly from an expert in the field?

Outreach doesn’t necessarily need to be solely about communicating research to the public. It can also be a collaborative environment. In some hangouts, the discussion moved toward combining research and outreach. Citizen science projects are the best example of this. By communicating properly, web surfers are recruited to contribute to science directly through projects like the Galaxy Zoo. Even open notebooks (like this one here) provide some collaboration of science outreach and research. If communicated properly, you may even have some public engagement.

Conclusion

There is a lot to consider when starting an outreach campaign. Identifying the hurdles in your path can help you overcome those hurdles, which make it much easier to define your outreach plan and achieve it. The motor behind outreach is your ability to communicate, and the desire to improve your communication skills will help you develop your outreach plan. In fact many of the discussions gravitated toward developing your message for communication. In week 2, students will be using the “message box” approach to develop their message, and if you are following along you should too. I’ll be writing my message box and will post it here for everyone to see.

Update:  This post is now up on the #Scifund Challenge Blog.

Arabidopsishttp://t.co/ZM1LINP0Sm Growth Try 4: Week 5

The latest updates are in. Between last week and this week, plants grown in 0% D2O, 30% D2O, 70% D2O, and 80% D2O have died. While this is expected for the larger concentrations, I can’t explain why the 0% D2O sample or 30% D2O sample has died. But I did just think of an interesting effect:

Because the plants are more-or-less sealed from the environment, I have minimized the effects of evaporation and transpiration. I’m not sure if transpired water is harmful to the plants because it basically is their excrement. Regardless, the water in the solid media (the agar) should have a slight rise in D2O concentration due to transpiration processes in the leaves and evaporation of water from the solid media. I’ll have to find the reference for a paper I have that verifies this.

Thank you everyone!

Surfing through my site analytics I decided to look at the total number of viewers by their location. Here is what I discovered:

 

 

Screen shot 2013-05-05 at 10.13.48 AMIn the 1.5 years that this notebook has been made open, it has spread to almost every country on the planet. I’m not at all surprised that science accessibility could have this kind of influence, but I am in awe that I get to be a part of it.

Hopefully this becomes evidence that open science, science outreach, and science accessibility in general are the keys to the future of the scientific method.

Arabidopsis Growth Try 4: Week 5

Arabidopsis Growth Try 4: Week 3

Growth of Arabidopsis in heavy water

Arabidopsis seeds in DI water (0.0156% D2O).
Arabidopsis seeds in DI water (0.0156% D2O).
Arabidopsis seeds in 33% D2O.
Arabidopsis seeds in 33% D2O.
Arabidopsis seeds in 66% D2O.
Arabidopsis seeds in 66% D2O.
Arabidopsis seeds in 99% D2O.
Arabidopsis seeds in 99% D2O.

Growth of tobacco seeds in low concentrations of deuterium

Growth of tobacco seeds in DDW.
Growth of tobacco seeds in DDW (0.0001% D2O).
Growth of tobacco seeds in DI water.
Growth of tobacco seeds in DI water (0.0156% D2O).
Growth of tobacco seeds in 1% D2O.
Growth of tobacco seeds in 1% D2O.
tobacco seed root length
Tobacco seed root length growth.

Do you?

%d bloggers like this: