He is pursuing a PhD at UCLA and is at the center of one of the biggest academic scandals in recent years: LaCour falsified a political science study intended to demonstrate that gay campaigners could change voters' opinions on same-sex marriage in a short period of time. conversations After it was revealed that he had fabricated data and had never even worked with the polling company whose services he allegedly used, Science magazine.

“How could this happen?” the New York Times editorial board asked this week. Their answer is that fraud is largely the fault of deceitful or overambitious rule-breakers and researchers who do not properly check the raw data on which scientific work is based. The title of the article is “Cheating Scientists.”

But to focus on academic fraud is to miss the larger problem. It’s not just the “black sheep” who are to blame. The scientific process itself has serious structural flaws that make it difficult to expose fraudsters and, in some cases, even encourage the inaction of responsible researchers.

Most studies are not repeated - it is not profitable for scientists to do this

Let's take the problem of replication. One of the principles of the scientific method is that scientists should try to verify previous findings by repeating experiments. This is how Lacour's deception was discovered: another scientist, David Bruckman, tried to repeat the study and realized that it was impossible.

The problem, however, is that this kind of work is done very rarely. “The vast majority of scientific articles do not receive any development,” explains Harvard University scientist Sheila Yasanoff. Attempts by scientists to replicate the work of others are often discouraged because they are considered less important or worthy than discovering something new.

It is significant that others in the scientific community tried to dissuade Bruckman from checking Lacour's work. He was encouraged to build a career on new research, rather than on refuting the work of others. Jesse Singal observed in his stunning methodical analysis of the situation for New York Magazine:

“Throughout the entire trial, until the very last moment when irrefutable evidence finally began to emerge, Bruckman was repeatedly advised by friends and advisers to remain silent about his doubts, lest he earn a reputation as a troublemaker, or, worse, as someone who simply repeats and explores the work of others instead of discovering something himself.”

This is problem. This makes it not only more difficult for scientists to detect deception, but also more difficult to weed out low-quality work. As the scientific community began to take replication seriously, it turned out that much cutting-edge research could not actually be tested by replication.

They are all right. Science is carried out by people and it will inevitably be imperfect. Sometimes people will deceive and cheat, or simply push low-quality and incorrect research through the publication mechanism. We know that replicability can help correct some of these shortcomings. We know that increased attention to the influence of hierarchy can help too. Instead of talking about unscrupulous scientists over and over again, we must adjust the system of science to weed out the errors and deceptions that we know will continue to come between us and the truth.

MOSCOW, June 27 - RIA Novosti, Alfiya Enikeeva. The authors of the Stanford prison experiment were suspected of staging. This threatens to cancel the results of the study, which is considered canonical by psychologists around the world. The history of science knows many falsifications. RIA Novosti recalls the loudest academic scandals and understands why scientists resort to deception.

Women scientists were more honest than men, study showsIn addition, it turned out that men were more likely to break the rules: they accounted for 149 cases of cheating (65%). Moreover, the higher the status of the scientist, the higher was the proportion of male violators.

If in the case of Zimbardo we are talking more about an incorrect interpretation of the results obtained (a special case was extended to the entire human population) and ignoring errors in the methodology, then the Japanese biologist Haruko Obokata falsified the results themselves.

In January 2014, Haruko Obokata, an employee of Harvard University (USA) and the RIKEN Scientific Institute (Japan), published in Nature a sensational report that ordinary cells can be turned into stem cells without interfering with their genetic code, simply by exposing them to acid. The Japanese woman claimed that she obtained mouse stem cells from lymph cells.

The research was groundbreaking because it opened up the prospect of creating artificial organs and tissues with a low risk of rejection. After all, stem cells can turn into any type of cell that makes up the body.

In the spring, the researcher admitted to falsifying some data, but continued to insist that she had obtained stem cells using her method more than two hundred times. She was asked to repeat the experiment in a laboratory under 24-hour video surveillance. Obokata tried to create stem cells 48 times without success.

She was fired from the institute, and the article was retracted from Nature. One of the co-authors of the work, Yoshiki Sasai, who headed the laboratory where the experiments described in the article were carried out, committed suicide.

Clones that never existed

South Korean biologist Hwang Woo Suk became famous as the scientist who was the world's first to clone human stem cells and a dog, a traditionally difficult object to copy.

In articles published in Science and Nature, he claimed that he had created a culture of embryonic stem cells (in such experiments, not individual cells are obtained, but entire cell generations - lines) from adult human cells. In addition, he used only 185 eggs for eleven cell lines. It's quite a bit. For comparison, it took 236 eggs to clone Dolly the sheep.

Some scientists refused to cooperate with Hwang Woo Suk, pointing out violations committed by him when obtaining eggs. Seoul University, where the biologist worked, initiated an independent review of all his research.

As a result, in addition to ethical violations in the acquisition of eggs (they were given by students and employees of the university), it turned out that all the results, except for the cloning of a dog, were falsified. Of the eleven cell lines, nine had identical DNA, meaning they were descendants of the same cell.

Science published a refutation. In his homeland, the scientist was sentenced to two years probation for embezzlement of public funds and was prohibited from engaging in stem cell research.

Fictional experiments

German physicist Hendrik Schön, a specialist in microelectronics, simply invented experiments, and then described the results of the experiments in accordance with his assumptions. This strategy worked well for many years, and the scientist was even considered a candidate for the Nobel Prize.

In three years (from 1998 to 2001), Shen demonstrated in organic materials almost all the electronic phenomena needed by the high-tech industry - from superconductivity to the single-molecule transistor. A new publication was published every eight days.

Other scientists were unable to reproduce his experiments. And in 2002, it turned out that several of his works used the same diagram, but with different captions. An internal investigation was launched at Bell Labs (USA), where Shen worked. turned out to be disappointing: Shen carried out all the experiments alone, did not keep laboratory records, and destroyed samples of materials.

The physicist's scientific work was found to be falsified. He was fired and stripped of his doctorate.

Introduced Dostoevsky and Dickens

One of the most notorious scientific scandals occurred in literary criticism. British researcher Arnold Harvey wrote scientific articles under various pseudonyms for 35 years (at least seven of his alter egos are known), quoted himself and made up historical facts.

In particular, in 2002, he described a meeting between Dickens and Dostoevsky, when the English writer allegedly complained to his Russian colleague about mental illness: “Two personalities coexist in me.” To which Dostoevsky replied: “Only two?” - and winked.

© Public Domain

© Public Domain

This pseudo-meeting, which was later mentioned by all Dickens scholars, marked the beginning of a whole series of revelations. An American Slavist from the University of California at Berkeley, Eric Neumann, doubted the reliability of the information provided and tried to find the author of the publication where the conversation between famous writers was first mentioned.

Stephanie Harvey, who wrote that article, referred to the Gazette of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR, but this journal could not be found. But the researcher was actively quoted and even criticized by other scientists, traces of whose existence Neumann also did not find. After an almost detective investigation, it turned out that these were all pseudonyms for Arnold Harvey.

It was impossible to fire him for violating scientific ethics; by that time he did not work anywhere. The historian himself is pleased with how much noise his hoax has caused. In an interview, he said that he wanted to demonstrate the bias of editors of scientific journals, who for several years refused to publish works signed with his real name.

Among all the specialists I knew with whom I agreed to talk about the nature and causes of such a phenomenon as falsification, deliberate distortion of the results of scientific research, Pavel Petrovich Babenko was as far as possible from the specifics of certain areas of scientific research - physics, biology, genetics, etc. ., however, I went to him first.

I really hoped that a professional criminal psychologist would be able to answer a few questions regarding the underlying nature - the psychological nature - of the numerous and alarmingly increasing cases of "swindle" in the scientific world in recent years.

Pavel Petrovich, why does a scientist, whose calling is to find the truth, begin to produce lies?

But he's a man, right? It is human nature to lie. This can be called its natural property. Animals, for example, do not lie. They simply don’t know how to do this...

How does this property arise and what does it represent? Our consciousness consists, roughly speaking, of two parts - goal-setting and executive. The executive part is constantly busy searching for ways to solve the problems that the goal-setting part sets for it. So, if animals have at their disposal the executive part - only the body, limbs, which can be made to grab something, tear someone with their claws, then in humans, intelligence is added to the capabilities of the body.

If it becomes necessary to lie in order to achieve something, that possibility will not of itself be discarded. I will say more, only a well-educated person is able to reject it as unethical, to whom, in the process of education (or, perhaps, self-education), the skill of consciously combating such options for realizing his plans is instilled.

Let me emphasize once again - in all other cases, behavioral options associated with lying will always be “ready.”

There are no absolutely honest people. But there are people who are able to resist themselves and overcome the temptation to achieve what they want through unethical means. Moreover, “overcome” - in the literal sense.

The motives of a person's actions are very similar to forces. These are like forces acting on us... Not a “chess miscalculation of the situation on the board”, but it’s like going against the wind.

If the intellect has calculated that the goal set by deception is achieved as efficiently as possible, this option will be like a strong wind. Not everyone can resist...

Isn't this a too simplified picture?

It's not that simple. You can also take as an example the hierarchical structure of needs - it is called Maslow’s pyramid.

Needs are generalizations of groups of goals, formed by the goal-setting part of consciousness. Look what happens: lower level, animals, physiological needs. In relation to the topic of our conversation, these are desires for food, drink, clothing, housing. A scientist's wishes!

The scientist, to his surprise, also wants to eat, sleep peacefully, dress and live somewhere... These are the most easily achieved needs of the pyramid, its first floor. Everything that is here can be purchased for money.

Hence the consequence: if there is a lack of money, a scientist will constantly be tempted to resort to falsifying the results of his work in order to obtain, for example, grants, private or government investments, etc. (the assessment of the required amount of money is purely individual, however, remember - this is only the first floor pyramid of needs, the most primitive). Manufacturers of completely false data also most often “live” on this “floor” of the pyramid.

According to Maslow, by the way, for needs (or goals) of a higher order to arise, the needs of the previous level must first be satisfied, otherwise they simply do not arise. Well, I don’t completely agree with him here. There are examples of level inversions. True, it is always very noticeable and looks... unsightly.

In general, this is true, by the way...

What are the next floors?

The next floor is the need for security. By the way, the achievement of this need often provokes this kind of falsification, such as juggling the results of experiments, fitting them to the concept developed by the scientist. Safety! Everything that is “built” must be reliably protected. Even with the help of falsifications.

Next is a very interesting “floor”: the need for a good attitude from others and belonging to a group. What's behind this? At a minimum, the following: a scientist who has somehow solved his financial problems (first floor), who has learned to defend his scientific concept, theory, development, technology with all available means (second floor), begins to feel the need to be accepted as a member of this or that other scientific community. The desire in itself is normal, but it can provoke official forgery, conscious support of false or falsified results by community leaders. This is already the level of a non-novice scientist... Doctors and academicians also sin in a similar way.

The last level is the need for approval of actions, for respect. In short, on this floor there are the ambitions and self-affirmation of a scientist, copper pipes. There is very wide scope for falsification and deception. Having reached here, having realized the needs of this level, any of us will find ourselves in a state of severe psychological pressure from our own executive part of consciousness, forming an attitude never to sink lower again, not to lose what has been achieved. And there will definitely be an “extra” - at any cost. Up to the creation of completely fictitious scientific directions and paradigms.

False witnesses

In human practice, the establishment of rightness is implemented by a formalized procedure known as a court. The equivalent of courts in science are the editorial boards of scientific journals, publishing houses, and scientific councils. Equivalents of testimony are scientific reviews and discussions of works. Editors-in-chief of journals or chairmen of academic councils - analogues of judges - bear personal responsibility for the final decision.

The judge controls the form and content of questions and answers. He himself or with the participation of a collegial body (for example, a jury) makes a decision, referring to questions and answers, and other materials of the case. The law establishes the possibility and way of appealing a court decision. There is nothing like this when evaluating scientific papers. Unlike the court, in science there is no authority that is obliged to consider the substance of the dispute between the authors and the editorial board or scientific council.

This state of affairs has developed and is supported not by some external forces, but by the scientists themselves. But the anonymity of peer review asserts that scientists consider themselves a priori incapable of defending scientific truth in an open dispute. Moreover, anonymity in science is a fiction: the content of a reviewer’s comments, as a rule, clearly indicates their author or at least his team. Anonymity is needed only to exclude liability.

It guarantees that in case of dishonesty it is impossible to name a specific culprit.

In science, unequivocal positive assessments of the new are rare. One positive review in the face of a dozen reluctant academics can be a sign of an outstanding discovery.

Huge public and private funds are distributed with the participation of science. The health and lives of millions of people depend on scientific results. At the same time, numerous examples show that deception, abuse, and fraud occur in science. We can say that these are exceptions. But this is an exception in all other forms of human activity, but is punished criminally on the basis of legal laws and court decisions. This is not provided for in the practice of reviewing scientific works...

Alexander Khazen

You are professionally involved in analyzing the veracity of the testimony of witnesses and accused... What from your experience could be useful to fighters against falsification of science?

It is unlikely that this experience will be so easy to perceive. The dual nature of our consciousness, which I spoke about, presupposes for each of us a clear understanding that the reasons for lies, deception, falsifications lie within each of us. Who would like to know this about themselves? Or maybe someone will take it upon themselves to say that he is not like that and everything that I have said so far does not apply to him personally?

Fundamental - this is very important! - the fundamental difference between so-called honest researchers and falsifiers (and in general - between honest people and liars) is only that the former fight temptations and most often win, while the latter do not fight. They simply do not know about the existence of this internal struggle, do not feel it and do not engage in it. And therefore, in the vast majority of cases, they lose.

What might be useful? Perhaps the most important thing is to understand that each scientist must have his own pace of ascent up the steps of his scientific career, which it is advisable to dose in accordance with the current strength or ability to resist the impulse to unethical acts. A?! How do you like it? Do you think everyone will agree with this?

Now another aspect: who will balance the forces? A scientist himself? Will not work.

This is the task of his scientific supervisor, and the task is not from the field of science, but rather educational. Are there many of our scientists who can handle it? In general, all this concerns lines of succession in science, scientific schools...

I may disappoint you somewhat, but I’ll tell you honestly: I believe that no organizational measures will solve the problem of falsification in science. Just as they do not decide in all other areas of human life.

You just need to understand that a person is in a constant psychological struggle. If a person is loaded beyond his strength, he will fall. This is an axiom. Do you know what they say about bribe takers? If someone does not take bribes, it means that no one gave him the required amount. Or - no one needs him. Well, this is a joke, of course... There is no need to put a scientist, especially a beginner, in conditions of unbearable psychological moral stress. Intellectual strength and moral strength are two completely different things. The intellect is usually stronger than all “prejudices of conscience” and easily overcomes them...

How dangerous are the processes of falsification of scientific knowledge?

Well, I’m not an expert in the development of science, its paths... It’s difficult for me to say anything here.

I can only note that, unlike the falsification of, say, vodka (a serious criminal offense, by the way, from which hundreds and thousands of people can suffer), falsification of scientific research results slows down or sets back the development of technologies on which the quality of life, lifestyle, way of life for millions.

In your line of work, have you ever had to deal with any facts of falsification? After all, you can, in principle, get real money from a fake project, and this is already a crime...

I have to constantly. (Smiles). But you meant falsification of scientific results? No, this is not the area of ​​criminal law... At least not yet.

There were, one might say, private invitations. Once they asked me to give a review of an American film with fragments of supposedly documentary filming by the KGB at the site of a UFO crash... Well, what can you say?..

Yes, take Soviet documentaries from the 50s about our army, look at our military, real military - how they walk, look, communicate... Everything will become clear to you yourself...

Several years ago there was a lawsuit filed by a private enterprise that invested money in the project of some kind of thermal generator with efficiency. 200%... well, maybe a little less...

In short, a perpetual motion machine and a goldmine.

I saw the generator myself; the developers provided us with the documentation and signed a non-disclosure agreement. Only there is no secret there - two candidates “dumped” gullible businessmen, and never again, I am sure, these businessmen will not want to come close to any scientific and technical “miracle”. And this is bad - next time developers of something really valuable may come for money, but I think they will be sent away... Here, by the way, is the answer to your question about the danger of falsification.

Among the falsifiers there are very active ones. The real “extremists of progress”…

Well... Extremists remain extremists. As a psychologist, I can immediately say: extremism and the desire to impose a point of view are rarely combined with good intentions, so to speak. Draw your own conclusions...

Another thing is alarming - this style of communication causes a desire to give an “adequate answer.” In short, these are all kinds of commissions, etc. The main thing is that the activities of these commissions do not turn into something like an inquisition. As I already said, there are no absolutely honest people. In the same way, it will not be possible to create a single absolutely objective commission to investigate scientific falsifications, pseudoscientific trends, etc.

I believe that after some time cases of abuse will begin to come to light among members of this kind of “bodies for the investigation of truth.” This is a dead end path.

It turns out that everything is useless? Will lies triumph?

Well, here you are again... We need to remove the causes of the phenomenon. These reasons, as I have already explained, have the nature of internal tendencies of human consciousness, and do not lie in the sphere of organization of scientific activity. Whenever a person is faced with a moral task that is beyond his strength, he will act erroneously. This is an immutable law.

Black and white

Imagine an article where in the introduction it is written: “We wanted to get this and that, but the necessary methodology did not work (we still don’t understand why). When we decided to do at least something based on the collected results, we were prevented by the death of experimental animals (here the reason is clear - the laboratory assistant’s divorce.) But we noticed such an oddity, to explain it we put forward such and such a hypothesis, and when we began to check it, we discovered something completely different, something that we will present now...” Will a decent journal publish such an article? Of course not. And any scientist understands how to rearrange the introduction (and, more broadly, the logic of presenting the results) in order to show that exactly what was needed was done from the very beginning.

And who will receive a research grant: the one who directly and honestly describes an ambiguous situation in some area of ​​research (I wonder if there are areas of research where the situation is clear?), or the one who embellishes and simplifies the “picture”? Which grant report will be received with greater satisfaction? Which dissertation is easier to defend: the one where all the “holes” are honestly shown, or the one where varnish is applied and the appearance of solving an important scientific problem and a significant economic effect is created (through more or less violence against the material)? What kind of prosperity would the economy reach if all the declared economic effects of scientific innovations suddenly appeared in it?

The answers are obvious. If you could always choose whether to take the honest (but longer) road or the straight dishonest path, many people would take the honest path. But very often there is nothing to choose from. Given the composition of the academic council that the applicant can count on, it is almost impossible to defend an unvarnished dissertation. It is almost impossible to obtain funding for interesting research from the appropriate fund if the real picture is not embellished.

And sadly, to one degree or another, the vast majority of professional scientists (at least those who publish intensively, grow their careers, manage topics, and receive grants) engage in embellishing the picture.

I don't want to call all scientists liars, no. Some are lucky to get a really bright result, others work under powerful cover, eliminating the need to prevaricate. Finally, many reject the prospects of embellishing their work. But still, the very organization of scientific research pushes not only to lies, but to half-lies, “quarter-lies,” etc. And everyone has to draw the line of what is acceptable for themselves. For example, a “quarter lie” is possible only under special conditions; a lie of one-eighth is not considered a lie, but those who go half-lie are immoral people.

The other day I received a letter from an environmental organization. Local authorities want to destroy a section of a forest park on the outskirts of the city, environmentalists want to preserve it (and I agree with them). According to the law, an argument for protecting the forest in this territory may be the habitat of protected species there. People ask me if there are species from “my” group there. In fact, this is a situation in which scientific data on the distribution of vulnerable species is used for conservation. I know that two or three species should have been there (and probably once were), but most likely they have already been knocked out and caught (too many people there). But what prevents me from saying that I registered them there? They will not require any evidence from me, the goal in itself is good... Many environmentalists will consider me a fool, since I consider it unacceptable to slightly compromise honesty in order to save a forest area. And I don’t do this not because I never cheat (if only!), but rather because of selfishness - I don’t want to go beyond the limits of the world in which I feel comfortable.

Dmitry Shabanov

Photos from open sources

Falsification of truth is a common thing in our wretched society, where it is headed by a handful of multi-rich people, for whom unlimited power over the people is much more important than the development and prosperity of modern civilization. And there is no crime that they would not commit for the sake of the power of money. (website)

Today it is almost no secret to anyone that for the sake of this very notorious unlimited power of the world government, history is distorted, written and rewritten. However, as it became known, even more terrible for society is the falsification of science, which allows the Illuminati to keep humanity in darkness, poverty and hunger.

Photos from open sources

This is precisely the statement made by Alfred Webre, who was once a White House adviser, and therefore knows first-hand all the ins and outs of the US government’s policy of hiding scientific data. So Webre claims that in the United States, development of, say, the same time machine has been going on for at least eighty years. During this time, during numerous experiments there were both dead and missing, however, in the end, the results were amazing, proving that it is possible to travel both to the past and to the future.

Photos from open sources

For this reason, Webre says, the White House government, for example, knew in advance about the tragedy of September 11, 2001, knew in the early seventies. This is even proven by the “Illuminati” playing cards that appeared in 1995, which depicted the collapsing twin towers of the famous New York World Trade Center. Then, of course, all this was written off as a coincidence, but in fact, such decks of cards are evidence of information leakage.

Photos from open sources

But why in this case the US government did not prevent the most ambitious terrorist attack of the early 21st century is another question, although it is again closely related to the distortion of the truth (any).

Falsification and secrecy go hand in hand

The richest clans of the Earth, which are sometimes called the world government, sometimes the Illuminati, which is essentially the same thing, at the beginning of the last century classified all scientific experiments that would undermine their fabulous income from the sale of gas, oil, and other important natural resources, and therefore world science today is bribed. All developments such as “time machine”, “perpetual motion machine”, “zero energy and its wireless transmission” are tabooed. These developments can only be carried out by selected (you know who) scientists in secret laboratories under the supervision of, say, the same CIA. Therefore, the results of these studies are closed to society, but the Illuminati themselves successfully use them for their own selfish, almost misanthropic purposes.

Photos from open sources

Alfred Webre gives an example that the world “elite” a hundred years ago developed a memorandum aimed at falsification in the field of science and practically destroying it throughout the world. It all started with the destruction of the disciplines fundamental to science and education - the scientific method and logic. Thanks to this, fundamental science is practically marking time - it has reached a complete dead end. This is also confirmed by the luminaries of modern scientific thought, such as M. Kaku, V. Katyuschik, S. Sall and many others, who plainly state that today we are practically running in the opposite direction from the same zero-energy (free for all humanity) and many other great discoveries, since dogmas and patterns that contradict common sense are imposed on society.

Instead of Mendeleev's Newtonius, Einstein's erroneous theory

For example, why was the element newtonium, which was in the zero row and with which the table began, excluded from D. Mendeleev’s table? But the fact is that newtonium corresponds to the world ether, which stores and transmits all types of energy in nature. The theory of the ether itself led to limitless and practically free energy, which was not at all part of the plans of the oil and gas magnates. And then, instead of the theory of ether, Einstein's theory of relativity was imposed on the world. Moreover, the German scientist himself would be very surprised if he became acquainted with some of the provisions of “his theory”, which were openly falsified.

Photos from open sources

In fact, it is not space that is bent, explains V. Katyushchik, but a place; for example, the trajectory of photons passing by the Sun is bent, but not space. These are the basics of the scientific method, which are not taught in universities, like the interpretation of the first law of logic. And why? Yes, because otherwise students will get to the bottom of the truth and ask in surprise: what does space curvature have to do with it?

Why and how do the richest clans in the world falsify science?

In the middle of the last century, journalists still raised this issue - about the falsification of science. For example, in the Financial Times newspaper of that time you can find the article “What is Science?” It said that modern luminaries of science are far from being celestial beings who do everything for the good of the people. Among them there are a lot of swindlers, crooks and falsifiers, and for the sake of money they are ready for any meanness, even crime. Unfortunately, the authors of that article concluded, the activities of such “prominent scientists” are recognized by society too late, sometimes when they are no longer alive. And sometimes you can’t even get to the bottom of the truth, who is to blame for what...

However, as Alfred Webre explains, journalists at that time did not understand the main reason why people from science falsify this very science, that they are simply paid for their silence, their fraud and even their crimes. Moreover, they pay well, since this is very beneficial to the world government. But in fact, there are two sciences in the world. One is true, but secret, and the second is public, but deceitful and corrupt. By the way, the same picture can be seen in education, which is why society is becoming more and more stupid and less educated, despite the numerous secondary and higher educational institutions. And the fact that the satirist Zadornov ridicules the Unified State Exam and American education, which has already captivated the whole world, including Russia, is in fact far from funny, but sad and even tragic for all humanity...

Photos from open sources

Let's say, the same Rockefeller is generously paid by the so-called “science commissions”, which have been created in almost all the advanced countries of the world, thereby suppressing any attempts to develop and even more so implement the same alternative fuel-free technologies, medicines for the most terrible diseases of our century , means of extending life, revealing the hidden potential of a person and much more that undermines their power over the world. Thanks to these commissions, everything advanced is declared charlatanism, pseudoscience, and obscurantism. At the same time, the world government itself, with the other hand, also generously finances its underground science, and uses the fruits of purchased scientists to direct forbidden knowledge to further strengthen its already almost limitless power...

Knowingly misinterpreting something for the purpose of obtaining some benefit (for example, falsifying scientific data, data, etc.).

Falsification should be distinguished from.

There is also a place for adulteration in food production. Sometimes, to improve organoleptic properties, various additives are used that imitate quality improvement (sweeteners, dyes, etc.)

Falsification in art

Fake things

Counterfeit is an imitation that is usually made with the intent to maliciously misrepresent its content or origin. Word fake most often describes counterfeit or , but may also describe things such as: , or any other product, especially when it results in infringement or infringement of a trademark. Often, in order to avoid accusations of violation, counterfeit items are marked with brands that are very similar to the original names of the manufacturing companies, but with one or more letters in the name changed. The most famous cases: -, Abibas- etc.

Food adulteration

Food adulteration was extremely common until the 19th century. Research into adulteration in the early 19th century and the development of methods for detecting adulteration in the mid-19th century led to the first food adulteration law being passed in Great Britain in 1860 ( Food Adulteration Act). In 1906, through the efforts of a chemist, publicists (, and others) with the support of the president, “” was adopted, and in 1907 it came into force: the FDA was created.

According to the Federal Law “On Food Quality and Safety”:

Counterfeit food products, materials and products - food products, materials and products that have been deliberately altered (counterfeit) and (or) have hidden properties and quality, information about which is deliberately incomplete or unreliable.

Counterfeiting of perfume and cosmetic products

Counterfeiting of medicines

At the end of the 20th century, falsification became widespread. It is believed that a significant part of them is produced in the same plants that produce “normal drugs” (“unaccounted for”). The other part is manufactured in small clandestine production facilities, in which proper production conditions cannot be ensured at all; in this case, the drugs may differ very much from what is indicated on the label. Some fakes are sold through.

Control over medicines is assigned to the relevant authorities of the Ministry of Health.

Despite the wide coverage of the problem of falsification of medicines in , control authorities almost never refer the matter to , limiting themselves to removing low-quality and falsified drugs from sale. This indicates both the weakness of regulatory authorities and imperfect legislation, and high potential.

Falsification and forgery in philately

Falsification in science

Fakes in the media

In 2017, the phrase “fake news” was recognized as the phrase of the year. This phrase meant sensational, but deliberately false reports. Experts from note the vague nature of the concept of fake news, which can include, secretive and. Sometimes true reports are presented as fakes, the headlines of which exaggerate the sensationalism. Fakes are often presented as eyewitness accounts who send fake photos to the editor. As a rule, fakes are spread by media that themselves are in error. Subsequently, the media may apologize for publishing fake news. Fake news can be news that refers to “unnamed sources.” In some countries (), legislators are planning to criminalize the spread of fake news, but human rights activists warn that this could serve as a legal basis for restricting freedom of speech. The word “fake news” was used to describe the channel.

IN

As photo processing technology advances, images are becoming more and more common on the Internet.

Fake (fake) accounts can also be accounts, pages or sites with content similar to the main site.

see also

Notes

1. "3D barcodes target counterfeit drugs and devices"
2. On the quality and safety of food products (as amended as of December 30, 2008) (version effective from December 26, 2009) (undefined) . Products. JSC "Kodeks" Retrieved April 15, 2010. Archived February 20, 2012.
3. Falsification // Philatelic Dictionary / V. Grallert, V. Grushke; Abbr. lane with him. Yu. M. Sokolova and E. P. Sashenkova. - M.: Communication, 1977. - P. 193-194. — 271 p. — 63,000 copies.