Is it morally wrong to publish fraudulent research?

Tell me more about how the DOE's interests in fast computers taints the research they fund on faster computers

Yes it's morally wrong. You can lead science in the wrong direction and have people on a goose chase and making fraudulent claims based on your work.

Nobody is going to do it because people are lazy. He likely won't be called on his shit due to the PhD and the fact that a lot of people are statistically illiterate and take graphs for what they are instead of asking for the raw data and double checking the presentation. The only one who'll catch it is his supervisor, and of they don't catch it nobody likely will.

has this ever actually happened

It is never more moral to publish fraudulent findings than publish the truth. Outside of implications in academia, fraudulent findings can literally affect the economy, product/tech development, politics/government decisions, and more. People with PhDs quite literally have a social responsibility to not lie with their research. The impact can change the direction of human history depending on the "finding" and the field. It's completely understandable why someone would advocate for the death of someone lying about research.

You have clearly not read and understood my post, because I explicitly anticipated your correct concern that lies lead to bad social policy, which can lead to mass human death, catastrophe, etc, which I purport to dislike and wish to avoid.

You also (perhaps, it's possible I'm misreading your rhetoric) seem to falsely intimate by your first sentence here that I suggested that it is more moral to publish false things than to publish the truth. That is not the comparison that I made, and that is perfectly clear by reading my post .

The point that I made, is that cultural academic argument over fraud, plagarism, and related categories of intellectual misrepresentation and/or intellectual theft, always, and of-themselves insofar as they are nascent, and not immediatley impactful upon lived human experience (that was a tedious clause, as is this parentheses, but it's necessary to frame the thing properly), I say that such academic arguments, such academic culture, are a specific and a lesser value system in a definite, "dumb-simple" sense: it is a quite different thing for two comfy old skinnyfat professors to be locked in some departmental or legal fight over the status (honest/dishonest/plagarism/legal/illegal/ethical/etc) of their work, while that skinny Somalia baby dies of thirst or something. The latter precedes the former, and not the other way round.

cont.

I've also anticipated the need to have the larger discussion about this side of academia, and the real (potentially bad) social policy entailed by bogus publications, fraud, etc. Treachery was most hated by Dante, and there is a long tradition of hating and expelling liars, I appreciate that as well. We were all children once, and those of us who are not sociopaths understand that telling lies is bad, because it leads to a cognitive dissonance, getting in trouble, etc, /misrepresenting reality/. But that wasn't my above point, which was to underline the more basic absurdity of the idea that wilfully publishing a bogus paper is down on a moral Cocytus with, say, running abortion clinics (you don't have to be, nor should you be religious to still appreciate how execrable the latter practice is), being a contract killer, a Stalin, a Hitler, etc.

Killing /now/, /directly/, is worse than killing /later/, /indirectly/, /with arguably good intentions/, etc. The remaining consideration is thus one of scale, and this observation dovetails into the possibility of a real discussion, for which I've mentioned actually comparing academic fraud with again, say, someone shooting someone else on the street, in cold blood, or for no reason, or so on.

I earlier entertained academic alternative moralities in a vague way, which might be more attributed to non-STEM fields, but upon reflection STEM endeavour is just as susceptible to depravity: for example, wishing to effect biological immortality, or absurd life extension.

>Is it morally wrong to publish fraudulent research?
You knew the answer to this before posting.

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/the-stem-cell-scandal/amp

Just get legitimate results and notify wherever you published them that there was a mistake, and send them the correct shit

>pilot wave has been proven true
>copenhagen has been debunked
>copenhagen is still taught because old relics can't handle change
everyone's OK with this

>some random user on some meaningless paper fudged some numbers
omg you're distorting all of science!