Scientific exploration is eventually vetted to the full extent because there will always be follow up to published works done by other investigators. The high quality peer-reviewed science journals usually manage to pick referees for submitted papers that have as much in depth knowledge of the particular subject under review as do the publishing authors. In certain subjects, like anthropology, less protection is afforded. But in the hard sciences, like chemistry and physics, (the cold fusion flap notwithstanding) its a lot harder to fake results. In the biomedical field, the eventual "outing" of phoneys will occur sooner since new treatment modalities, especially new medicines, have a great deal of not just peer review but regulatory review. All that said, those who falsify their work should be run out of the business or university.
Correct. That's why shabby episodes like this Hwang affair, although highly regrettable, should give us confidence in the process of science. Individuals are fallible, but the enterprise of science ultimately assures that only good work prevails.
It's somewhat like the process of evolution itself. Bad stuff washes out, and the beneficial remains.
The results called "global warming",,,"greenhouse gases" and "ozone hole" sure have been faked...LOL
This is how it is supposed to work, but I question this. It works in fields where there is a lot of parallel research and interest, the "hip" science, but in other fields I don't see a willingness to verify other's work, or dig into the data in another paper. It is especially bad when the paper supports the prevailing belief, such as global warming.