I stumbled on this fascinating blog post here:
A disproportionate amount of scientific fraud is committed by a small number of serial fraudsters (see here for a summary of the data on scientific fraud).
What happens to those serial fraudsters after they’re discovered? We can all recall cases of serial fraudsters who admitted their guilt, and serial fraudsters who denied everything and fought tooth and nail against their accusers.
And we can all recall cases of severe penalties (e.g., firing; rescinding of graduate degrees), and cases of much lighter penalties (e.g., short federal funding bans). But are there any generalizations that emerge if you look at more than a few cases?What happens to serial scientific fraudsters after they’re discovered? (UPDATED) | Dynamic Ecology
Fraud happens because the pot is full of gold at end of the academic rainbow. There’s “peer recognition” and it sounds good when the introduction in conferences mentions about having x number of publications. However, the definition of ethics is fluid. There is a nagging suspicion that scientists in one country may attempt to silence the findings in others. Exclusivity along with bragging rights (and more funding) would turn it into a virtuous feedback cycle.