Scandal struck the scientific community in 2002. Hendrik Schon was a prominent physicist who, in 2001 alone, published four articles each in "Science" and "Nature," arguably the two most respected scientific journals in the world. In some circles, Dr. Schon was considered to be in line for a Nobel Prize. All was rosy until a Bell Labs investigation discovered that Dr. Schon "manipulated and mishandled" his data, making his results illegitimate. Dr. Schon had deleted his primary data files, claiming that his computer "had insufficient memory." Since the discovery, some scientists now claim that his misrepresentation of data discredits the whole body of work related to his field, namely, molecular-scale transistors and superconducting buckyballs.

Schon's data falsification, unfortunately, likely only represents the tip of the iceberg. With increasing competition for grant money and publications, the temptation for exaggerating results and even falsifying data is growing ever greater. This is not to say that scientists alone are to blame. The Fen-Phen scandal, in which 18 million prescriptions were written for a weight loss drug that, only later, was shown to cause deadly health complications, was largely due to heavy promotion by drug companies. In the race for the next "miracle drug," these companies failed to conduct sufficient research on side effects such that the drug would be appropriate for public use.

Scandals such as Fen-Phen, I think, are the fault of three parties: the scientists, the general public and the media. Scientists tend to read and accept scientific articles on faith-with no easy way of reproducing data, false information becomes easily perpetuated throughout the scientific community. Secondly, the researchers who create miracle drugs are clearly aware of the profits they can reap and may feel tempted to shove any inconvenient data under the rug. The general public, in turn, has a tendency to accept scientific findings without looking objectively at the results and implications of the work. More so than the businessman, the politician or the lawyer, the scientist is seen as the seeker of the truth, who does not have a personal agenda or ambitions of fame and fortune. While this may have been true before federal scientific involvement in World War II, the Schon scandal is definitive evidence that the scientific environment has changed. This is not to say that the public deserves all the blame for its idealistic portrayal of science. Science is by nature an esoteric discipline. One cannot expect the average American to understand or care about the details or closely follow the findings published in scientific journals. It is the media who makes the sell, and the public usually buys their words at face value. Unfortunately, the media has a tendency to blow science out of proportion: For example, the media proclaimed Fen-Phen to be a "great breakthrough." To come full circle, the media largely gets their information from the scientists. The magazine "Popular Science"-one of the most widely-read science and technology journals in America-has its articles edited by scientists. The men and women in the white lab coats are the ultimate source of public knowledge.

The willingness of the general public and the media to accept and even exaggerate scientific findings suggests that scientists hold a great degree of power in American society. As stated in the movie "Spiderman," though, "with great power comes great responsibility." Research can potentially go beyond the thesis advisors, the principal investigators and the dissertation committee. It could potentially reach the American public, who in their omnipresent trust of science, will uncritically put their faith in our interpretations and results. Scientists have a responsibility, therefore, to present an accurate, unbiased report of their findings. I applaud the Amherst College neuroscience department's policy of not assigning thesis grades and distinctions based on significant, "revolutionary" data, for they realize the potential hazards. I only wish that this policy could be extrapolated to publications and grants, both of which have a bias towards "revolutionary" and "far-reaching" data.

Some might argue that a solution to the problem is to have federal agencies oversee scientific research. In some respects, this is a useful tool. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) represent an important barrier against scientific abuses. However, federal control can be taken too far. Indeed, putting science in the hands of non-scientists might exacerbate the problem, as politicians will likely put their own spin on research to promote their own agendas. Political goals are not always in the public interest. While the FDA looks to prevent potentially harmful drugs from reaching the market, its zeal to avoid scandal also delays the release of potentially life-saving drugs. The Bush administration is being roundly criticized by scientists for skewing research towards its own political ends. More federal control also could result in basic research taking a back seat to applied science. To be fair, the National Science Foundation was founded in the late 1940s to promote both basic and applied research. It also left control over science research to a board of scientists who were supposed to be unaffiliated with Washington. 

Ultimately, to prevent potential disasters like Fen-Phen from happening, scientists have a responsibility and a duty to the American public to scrupulously and critically eye data before blowing it out of proportion. The media must, as well, refrain from blatant exaggeration and the quick sell. Dishonest researchers like Hendrik Schon not only damage the reputation of the scientific community, but also pose serious risks to the general public.