New genetic and morphological evidence suggests a single hoaxer created 'Piltdown man'

Policy relevance and the ethical conduct of science

Scientific enquiry and the communication of science are essential to achieving development goals. The demand for evidence-based policy poses a challenge to maintaining the ethical conduct of science. The modern scientist faces intense competition in light of the changing nature of collaborative efforts, the quickening pace and increasing complexity of research endeavours and a growing emphasis on commercialisation of research results. Academic performance criteria continually change, becoming more demanding and increasing complex to measure. The integrity of the scientific community is challenged by cases of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. The mass production of science outputs, evidenced by the incredible rise of predatory journals, poses risks for the veracity of science. Yet, scientists are not the only ones driven by performance targets. Under the constant scrutiny of governing boards, research and development funders-both public and private-are increasingly pressed to demonstrate outputs, outcomes and impact. There is an urgent need for independent research but also a need for consensus with regard to policy guidance. Consensus studies expect scientists to make sense of the available science and find a way of presenting the controversies, contradictions and convergence of evidence to guide policy decisions. Policy consensus dialogues can valorise science guidance. These practices adopt multidisciplinary approaches, bringing top-rated scientists from a variety of disciplines around the table to contribute best practice examples, share experiences and lessons learnt against the background of solid critique of existing research.

Understanding scientific progress: the noetic account

What is scientific progress? This paper advances an interpretation of this question, and an account that serves to answer it (thus interpreted). Roughly, the question is here understood to concern what type of cognitive change with respect to a topic X constitutes a scientific improvement (to a greater or lesser extent) with respect to X. The answer explored in the paper is that the requisite type of cognitive change occurs when scientific results are made publicly available so as to make it possible for anyone to increase their understanding of X. This account is briefly compared to two rival accounts of scientific progress, based respectively on increasing truthlikeness and accumulating knowledge, and is argued to be preferable to both.

Teilhard de Chardin, human evolution and "Piltdown Man"

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit paleontologist, priest, and philosopher. In the figures published in articles in 1943 and 1951, he attempted to draw a "plausible schematic reconstruction of the natural connections between fossil men" and a "phyletic composition of the human group". I draw attention to Teilhard's reference to Eoanthropus ("Piltdown Man") in small print in his figure that was first printed in 1943. Most suspiciously, there is no reference to this (supposedly important) genus in the associated text, nor is there any reference whatsoever to "Piltdown Man" in the article published in 1951. Even as early as January 1913, Teilhard may have been aware that "Piltdown Man" was a hoax or joke, artificially associating a human cranium with a modified orangutan mandible. A new suspect is Edgar Willett (rather than Charles Dawson). Teilhard may have been an advisory accomplice in a joke that went seriously wrong.

Is Peking Man Still Our Ancestor?—Race and National Lineage

Since China participated in the Human Genome Project in the 1990s, implications of the debate surrounding the Homo erectus Peking Man’s ancestorship for nationalism wrapped in scientific jargon have been well comprehended by various segments of the society with ultranationalists and a liberal public opinion as the two extremes contesting each other. This divergence also cuts through the Chinese party-state. The discourse on a pure ancestry, an ancestral home, a natural bond between this ancestor and the environment, and most of all, a narrative that attributes remarkable lineal continuity to physical, mental, intellectual and even moral traits unique to this ancestor and its posterity, support fanatical racial nationalisms.

Reproducibility of science: Fraud, impact factors and carelessness

There is great concern that results published in a large fraction of biomedical papers may not be reproducible. This article reviews the evidence for this and considers some of the factors that are responsible and how the problem may be solved. One issue is scientific fraud. This, in turn, may result from pressures put on scientists to succeed including the need to publish in "high impact" journals. I emphasise the importance of judging the quality of the science itself as opposed to using surrogate metrics. The other factors discussed include problems of experimental design and statistical analysis of the work. It is important that these issues are addressed by the scientific community before others impose draconian regulations.