[arcanus]

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138937778/plagiarism-plague-hi...

I don't believe I can put it better than the article above,

"These days, China is lavishing money on Mr. Science. But without the checks and balances provided by Mr. Democracy, the corruption plaguing the rest of the system is infecting the reputation of Chinese science. "

[samdoidge]

Counter point: Dictatorship Germany in WW2 produced many scientific advancements.

[aab0]

But also produced a lot of junk pseudoscience and rubbish when conmen were able to get the credulous endorsement of leaders like Hitler. Plus, you have to remember that Germany was one of, if not the leading scientific and technological powers of the age. In the 1800s and early 1900s, places like America and Japan were still making would-be doctors and mathematicians learn either French or German and study abroad there. Even after English started gaining steam post-WWI and Jews began fleeing Germany, there was still a ton of native talent and expertise.

[groby_b]

Sure. Granted, they killed a whole bunch of people for e.g. the medical advancements. And the advancements are at least of dubious value[1].

And other advancements were... not as impressive as elsewhere. See e.g. nuclear science.

But the upside of science under a dictatorship is that you will publish lots of papers claiming successes, for personal health reasons, so you've got that going for you.

[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005173222006

[ramgorur]

Warnher-von-Braun (and co.), who brought the fledgling "nazi space science" from the post-war Germany to the US.

if we follow the time-lines of the space exploration of NASA after 1960 and before 1960, his contributions are conspicuously evident.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28rocket_family%29

[samdoidge]

> And other advancements were... not as impressive as elsewhere.

This applies in the case of nuclear, but not in others: jet engine, rocketry.

[jankedout]

Counter-counterpoint: Nazi science is one of the main reasons why we have IRBs.

They conducted many unethical experiments to obtain results. If China is researching unethically (by plagiarism, etc), then their work is worthless.

[officialjunk]

why do you think that "good" science is dependent on having democracy? is there a reference study to support this notion?

[joe_the_user]

I don't think one needs a specific study for such a broad question.

Science has historically based on a system of open debate. From Galileo onward, the ability of a scientist to engage in experiments which put commonly believed ideas into question has been one of the foundations of scientific progress. Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of science.

This doesn't mean that an authoritarian regime make science impossible but a regime where one's connections largely determine one's success, which stifles public debate and where winning become more important than telling the truth is going to have a hard time cultivating the honest, open debate that science needs to arrive at truer theories.

China is well known for scientific fraud already. The current leader is attempting to "root out corruption" and the party may try to root out bad science too but given that the anti-corruption efforts have gone against the leader's enemies, it seems likely that bad scientists with good connections can rest easy.

[petra]

>> Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of science.

Can you expand some details about that in the nazi regime ? but leave aside that nasty stuff with eugenics(which wasn't really a science) and focus on the hard sciences ?

[groby_b]

"Please give examples of pseudoscience, but leave aside pseudoscience".

But fine, let's skip eugenics.

* Ahnenerbe - racial heritage of German people, and plenty of occultism * Large parts of their human experimentation. * "Social Darwinism". (Granted, runs into eugenics. But it's the foundational belief under the whole regime, so hard to avoid) * Phrenology * "Jewish physics" - discarding Einstein completely. Trying to get Heisenberg & Quantum Physics, as well, but turned out his science worked a little too well to discard. * The idea that women can't get pregnant from rape[1]

In general, you'll find much of the "bad" science in the softer sciences - the more soft, the worse. The reason is that it's easier to maintain a fraud if the field doesn't expect clear reproducible answers.

The harder sciences were affected via Aryanization - e.g. Chemistry lost 25% of all its academics in the runup to 39.[2]

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2013/11/nazi_anat... [2] http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i37/Chemistry-Nazi-Germany.ht...

[dnautics]

> Science has historically based on a system of open debate.

That's not the definition of democracy, democracy is majority rule.

[Kristine1975]

TIL there is no corruption and scientific plagiarism in democratic countries. It's not like the minister of education of the democratic country I live in, Annette Schawan, had to resign in 2013 because of plagiarism in her PhD thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Schavan#Plagiarism

[jamesrcole]

Clearly the relevant question is not whether any corruption/plagiarism occurs, but the relative degree to which it occurs.

[joe_the_user]

The tendency for fraud and bad science to appear everywhere shows how easy it is to appear. Scientists basically always have had to battle against people's tendency to towards fraud and to believe whatever is convenient. But this battle is even harder in a society without open debate and where connections are a determining factor for success.