Zagorchev, I. S.

Geological Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,

Acad. G. Bonchev street bldg. 24, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria

E-mail address: zagor@geology.bas.bg

Geotectonic hypotheses

as scientific fraud stimuli

Geotectonics has been always considered as the philosophy of geological sciences. Geotectonic hypotheses of most general character are powerful stimuli for the development of all Earth sciences. Their outstanding role is well visible throughout the whole history of geology.

Another and not so honourable role becomes clearer during the last years when new developments lead to fast progress. There is a clear tendency of omission, distortion, mispresentation, falsification and fabrication of field and laboratory geological data. These fraudulent procedures are aiming at conforming to the dominant tectonic hypotheses, and of “confirmation” of the latter with regional geological evidence in different parts of the world.

Numerous examples may be given relative to the time when the geosynclinal hypothesis has been dominant in geology. In the times when deep-seated faults have been the hit in Soviet-dominated science communities, important overthrusts and low-angle normal faults have been systematically omitted or “transformed” into steep major faults, and very often, proclaimed to be deep-seated faults.

The plate-tectonics hypothesis quickly gained a dominant position in the 70-ies of the 20^th century. Numerous subduction zones, microplates and continental margins have been urgently “discovered” on the basis of false evidence. Even prestigious scientists and international groups admit in their projects grossly falsified “facts” in support of fictitious geodynamic reconstructions. Fraudulent procedures embrace not only structural geology but also palaeontology, stratigraphy, petrology. During the last years, the fashionable hypothesis about the exhumation of metamorphic core complexes along low-angle detachment faults triggered a real epidemic of “discoveries” of such phenomena that in many cases turn to be real hoaxes.

Very often, scientific fraud is performed under external or internal pressure. Students and young scientists are simply requested to “find” and “prove” the hypotheses of their professors and supervisors. Research projects are being elaborated on the assumption that a dominant tectonic hypothesis is valid for a given terrain, and failure to “prove” it could have unpleasant consequences for the researcher. Reviewers and editors assume that any manuscript contradicting or not supporting a fashionable hypothesis is old-fashioned and retrograde. Following the leading tectonic hypothesis becomes a matter of Faith, and the unfaithful or doubtful are prosecuted with the modern inquisition methods.

It is time to remember that Science is based upon professional integrity and confidence. Geological evidence should be professionally gathered and reported. Confidence means that geologists rely on the evidence gathered by their colleagues. It means also that Society relies on the professional skills, integrity and ethics of the scientists. If these social confidence contracts would be broken and betrayed, the very basis of Science would be considerably shaken.

References

AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Policy and Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Scientific Research and Publication. Established 1990. – Internet Publication, 1998.

AIPG. American Institute of Professional Geologists. Code of Ethics. Established 1989. – Internet Publication, 1998.

CSEPP. On Being a Scientist. Responsible Conduct in Research. National Academy Press. - Internet Publication, 1995.

Hewitt, J. A Habit of Lie. - Internet Publication, 1999.

NERC. Safeguarding good scientific practice. - Internet publication, 1998.

Sylvester-Bradley, P. Evolution Versus Entropy. - Proceedings of the Geologist’s Association, 1967, v. 78, No 1.

Williams, N. Scientific misconduct: Editors seek ways to cope with fraud. – Internet Publication, 1997.