Below we reproduce a comment by Albert Donnay (University of Maryland, Baltimore) about the fraud facilitating influence of those in the academic world who have some ethical obligation, if not a duty, to respond to allegations of research misconduct, but for their own self-interests instead turn a blind eye.
Dr. Donnay’s comment is particularly interesting to me for using the term “one-eyed jacks” to describe such individuals. I do not know if it is an original use by Donnay, but I like it as a short-hand term, particularly for those who are derelict in their official responsibility to act against misconduct and fraud. Many whistle-blowers express concern that such one-eyed jacks actually do more than “merely” turn a blind eye, but instead avoid the truth with a reckless disregard, deliberate ignorance, or worse. (Professor Helene Z. Hill, for example, discusses such concerns in a case with which she was involved in a new book about to be published).
Donnay’s comment was published in response to a Brandeis Magazine (Winter 2014-2015) article by Laura Gardner titled, “An Epistemology of Scientific Crackpottery”:
“Excellent review but the list of characters is too short! A major contributing factor to the plague of scientific misconduct are the many “one eyed jacks” from students to deans to who only see what they want to see –the bits that benefit their interests–and turn a blind eye to any and all misconduct they come across in the work of friends colleagues staff students mentors etc. They know there is no reward to them for speaking up, only potential losses, like their job.
It is very dark on the dark side. Investigators who look around with flash lights draw heavy fire from the “kings” (male and female) who hide fraud by deliberating keeping the lights out and taking no prisoners among those who dare speak out. Those who try are quickly forced out and excommunicated from the team.
And then there are the “queens”, again male or female, who hide their frauds with lots of flash and fancy trappings, dazzling and distracting.
Last but not least are the jesters — the rare jokers in the deck willing to directly challenge the hypocrisy, nonsense, fraud, etc in their particular ” Court” of scientific opinion with wit, humor and sometimes even some artful deception of their own. (Like sending journals articles composed entirely of random gibberish to see which will publish them.).”
