| Date | Lecture | Speaker |
|---|---|---|
| 15.09.2026 | Taboo Topics We Can No Longer Avoid: Negligence, Tampering, and FraudIn general, the public have a high degree of trust in science. But has this trust been earned; is science trustworthy? In this talk, I argue that for an enterprise tasked with discovering truth, science has a surprising lack of formal and effective quality assurance mechanisms. In general, there are stronger quality assurance mechanisms to ensure that food is safe to eat than to ensure that scientific articles contain truths rather than falsehoods. This talk outlines, from a firmly pro-science perspective, some of the recent threats to the trustworthiness of science and efforts to quantify and improve it. This will include discussion of both bottom-up grassroots efforts by so-called "science sleuths” as well as top-down institutional adoption of quality control mechanisms. Such changes require that we, as scientists, confront uncomfortable topics. Ensuring the integrity and credibility of the scientific record likely requires that we abandon the assumption that intentional fraud is exceptionally rare, and that we confront the threats posed by honest error, negligence, and recklessness. |
Ian Hussey, University of Bern |
Research Integrity and the Quest for Treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease (online)Why is a meaningful treatment for Alzheimer’s disease so elusive? The biological complexity of the disease is undeniable, but effective treatments are emerging for other exceedingly complicated neurological diseases. An uncomfortable possibility is that lapses in research integrity may have misdirected a meaningful portion of Alzheimer’s disease research over the last several decades. This talk will explore major cases of research misconduct surrounding research into neurodegeneration and discuss forensic methods, regulatory processes and the fallout from misconduct, closing with a call for structural changes to our scientific institutions to make them more resilient to abuse. Publishers must take a more active role in detecting research misconduct and correcting problematic data in the literature. Institutions should strengthen misconduct investigations by making them timely, independent and transparent. And individual scientists should commit to not being silent bystanders, but actively promote integrity and rigor in research. |
Matthew Schrag, Vanderbilt University | |
| 29.09.2026 | Protecting Research Integrity -- A Practitioner’s ViewFor two decades, natural sciences have been plagued by a failure of replication crisis. In the humanities, plagiarism cases paint an equally dire picture. A vast amount of research, often dating back many decades, calls for a renewed critical review. While the advent of AI technologies facilitates such reviews, one is afraid that it will also bring new waves of research . Alongside scientists' associations, journals, and academies, universities investigate alleged breaches of standards of research conduct. The presentation will explain the regulation and procedure that control investigations carried out for the University of Zurich. Problems, failures, and successes of university-based investigations will be discussed. Alternative mechanisms and measures of prevention will be looked at. The speaker, who has contributed to the University’s efforts and will continue to do so, expresses his personal views. |
Wolfgang Ernst, University of Zurich |
When every hypothesis is published: AI, the exploitation of Open Science Assets, and false discoveries (online)Open science has given us a shared public good, in the form of publications and public datasets, free to access and reuse by anyone. But AI can now generate, test and write up hypotheses against those assets faster than our community can evaluate them. This talk looks at what happens to open repositories when they become inputs to industrial-scale hypothesis generation, and whether this is likely to become a systemic problem. We will also provide case studies of outputs that can be generated in under an hour, and examples of the impact on the literature (including the de facto banning of some open science resources altogether). It also asks what data stewards, funders and publishers can realistically do about it. |
Matt Spick, University of Surrey | |
| 13.10.2026 | Philosophy of Scientific MalpracticeMuch of the discussion about scientific misconduct is shaped by high-profile cases of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP) committed by a few individual researchers. Likewise, policies, regulations, and research integrity training often focus on the responsibility of individual scientists to avoid such misconduct and on where and how to report it when they encounter it in others. In this talk, I argue that we should pay greater attention to the vast grey zone of ignorance, negligence, sloppiness, wishful thinking, and overconfidence that lies between responsible research and outright fraud. Rather than concentrating solely on detecting deliberate misconduct, we should also train collaborators and mentors to recognize and respond to warning signs when results seem unusual, inconsistent, or simply too good to be true. Strengthening this capacity for critical caution may do more to safeguard research integrity than an exclusive focus on rare cases of intentional fraud. |
Hanne Andersen, University of Kopenhagen |
No Research Integrity without True Scientific SpiritAccording to the scientist and philosopher Charles S. Peirce, for science not to be corrupted and to progress towards its constitutive aim of truth or knowledge, it is both necessary and (to a large extent) sufficient that it is conducted with a "true scientific spirit". Prima facie, this view sounds quite implausible, for two opposite reasons: i) the "true scientific spirit" requirement, as Peirce understands it, is very demanding and looks strongly counterintuitive because, as I will show, it seems to exclude as unscientific many research activities that are usually categorised as properly scientific; ii) it does not seem that satisfying this requirement would guarantee the integrity of science. I will argue that Peirce's view is defensible when combined with Pierre Bourdieu's central claims about how the scientific field should be regulated to enable genuine scientific progress. |
Benoit Gaultier, University of Zurich | |
| 27.10.2026 | Phantastic Images and Where to Find Them (and How to Deal with Them) (online)Abstract coming soon… |
Kim Wever, Radboud Medical Center, Nijmegen |
Journals as Curators Rather than PublishersAbstract coming soon… |
Meredith Schuman, University of Zurich | |
| 10.11.2026 | Healing Science from the Inside Out: Meta-Science as a Vital Path to Public TrustAbstract coming soon… |
Ye Sun, University of Georgia & University of Zurich |
Studying the Research System: Metaresearch, Incentives, and Research Assessment ReformAbstract coming soon… |
Rachel Heyard, University of Zurich | |
| 24.11.2026 | Equating Research Integrity with Good Scientific Practice – a Journey with Moving Goal-posts.Abstract coming soon… |
Edwin Constable, University of Basel |
Understanding the Spectrum of Questionable Research Practices Helps to Promote Research IntegrityAbstract coming soon… |
Leonhard Held, University of Zurich | |
| 08.12.2026 | How Supervision Can Foster Good Research PracticeAbstract coming soon… |
Tamarinde Haven, Tilburg University |
Podium Discussion: Fighting Scientific MisconductAbstract coming soon… |
Tamarinde Haven, Tilburg University Elisabeth Stark, University of Zurich Rachel Heyard, University of Zurich Leonhard Held, University of Zurich |
Ringvorlesung
Fake Science — Isolated Cases or a Systemic Problem?
University of Zurich
Date: Fall Semester 2026
Location: University of Zurich, KOL-F-118 (main building), Rämistrasse 71, 8001 Zürich
Doctored images, invented data, published studies that never took place — are these unfortunate but inevitable isolated cases? Or do they unveil a systemic problem in how research operates?
In this lecture we investigate the problem of evidently fraudulent science from multiple angles — ranging from specific cases, investigative techniques and the importance of whistleblowing, epistemological considerations, the role of AI, to possible reforms in scientific publishing, institutional responsibility, and avenues for fostering research integrity.
The lecture series brings together perspectives from various fields of empirical research, such as biomedicine and psychology, with those of empirical meta-research, statistics and methodology, as well as philosophy of science and science policy. It is aimed at students and researchers from all disciplines and at a broad public audience.
Each of the biweekly events features two talks and a joint discussion. The lecture series is held in English.
Organized by the Center for Reproducible Science and Research Synthesis (CRS).
Programme
Location: University of Zurich, KOL-F-118 (main building)
Time: 18:15 – 20:00