The dissertations scandal: social perception, science and morality in crisis mode

In recent years, a debate has flared up that goes far beyond the limits of the academic world and deeply interferes with social consciousness. These are scandals that were triggered by the accusation of plagiarism in high-level scientific papers and startled a wide public. These events not only reveal the limits ofscientific integrity, but also the attitude of political leadership and society towards the principles of truth, honesty and responsibility. The reactions to these scandals were characterized by an amazing indifference that suggests a fundamental attitude in society. It became apparent how widespread the assumption is thatAcademic mistakes and deceptions only represent a petty that is hardly significant in public perception. This impression shaped the debate about the scandals and raises fundamental questions about how science, morality and social cohesion are connected. It is necessary to understand the background, the causes and the consequences of these eventsto take a closer look at how our society deals with such crises and what lessons can be learned from it.

The social attitude towards academic honesty

The scandals have revealed that in parts of society there is a certain indifference to the principles of scientific honesty. It seems as if scientific violations appear in public perception only as minor misconduct that do not have far-reaching consequences. This understanding is dangerous because itImpressively conveys that deception and fraud in the academic world are merely trivial, comparable to marginal misconduct in everyday life. Associated with this is the assumption that science is a sphere in which irregularities do not have a major impact because ultimately it is only important for a small elite. This thought pattern leads to the moralIntegrity in science is increasingly relativized, which endangers trust in research in the long term. The attitude that scientific misconduct is only a triviality reflects a deeply rooted view that science considers a less important social authority. It is precisely this attitude that is a danger to the socialCohesion, because it undermines the credibility of the scientific community and calls into question the importance of truth and honesty in public discussion.

The political reaction and the attribution of meaning

The political leadership’s reactions amid these scandals were characterized by an amazing restraint. It was emphasized that someone had been appointed to an office that was intended for a political role, not for scientific work. This argument is a misleading analogy that misjudges the seriousness of the matter. The idea of it is theScientific work around a separate sphere that has nothing to do with political responsibility is a gross simplification. The fact that in this context the distinction between minister and scientific advisor, between public-political action and academic work, was repeatedly questioned shows how much the boundaries are blurring.When the statement came up that a defense minister had been appointed and not a scientific assistant, it was such a simplification that it was a misleading analogy. The so-called two-body theory, which in the Middle Ages describes the distinction between physical body and metaphysical official, was used here in a way thatactual circumstances in the case of Guttenberg completely missed. Because in this case there was no separation between the person and their public role, rather everything was a unit: the politician, the nobleman, the athlete, the academic, everything merged into a single public self that strove for splendor and success. This multifaceted person was also what thepublic about the scandal so fascinated: It was about someone who tried to shine in all their faces of his existence, who presented himself as a nobleman, large landowner, minister, athlete and academic. This became clear to the Chancellor when, together with Guttenberg, she showed an attitude that is an obvious indifference to the procedures and interests of theScience revealed: It seemed that science was just a side effect for them, which receded into the background while the public person was the focus. However, the popularity of Guttenberg, his status as a star, contradicted precisely this separation between the ministerial office and the academic title, which additionally raised the whole situation.

Reforms in the education system and their side effects

Since the first major international comparative study published in the early years of the last decade, politicians and educational actors have interpreted the results as a kind of national catastrophe. Numerous initiatives followed, aimed at a comprehensive modernization of the education system. especially the reform of university education afterA model of a European process led to a radical intensification of competition within the universities. The excellence was raised as a model, which divided the German university landscape into a clear hierarchy of efficient, internationally competitive institutions and less important regional institutions. These measures were always with aRhetoric, which spoke of an impending national emergency, which can only be averted by the rapid implementation of the reforms. It seemed as if the country’s future was attached to the quality of its science and education. However, the fixation on the concept of excellence and the associated competitive advantages led to the real task of science,The search for truth and knowledge, receded into the background. Instead, excellence became an end in itself, which primarily served to justify and push one’s own work. The meaning of the footnotes has shifted: They no longer serve to give the source or to document the state of research, but above all to provide evidence of favor andauthorities. The academic operation thus became a place where scientists were more concerned with their self-marketing than with the truth. Public perception increasingly shows that this development is associated with a certain skepticism and rejection of academic culture. The latest polls to investigate voters’ reactions to the scandal,seem to confirm the assumption that the social significance of scientific standards is being called into question. The impression arises that a kind of referendum is to be made about the legitimacy and the principles of science, which calls into question the fundamental importance of these values in a democratic society.

The boundaries between scientific honesty and social evaluation

In the public discussion, it was hardly taken into account that the plagiarism and style copies in the case of the scandal were not only a violation of the scientific principles, but also affect aesthetic and stylistic aspects. It’s not just about copying from manuals or encyclopedias, but also about copying from renowned articles, opinion contributions andparticularly well-formulated passages, which in themselves have a high linguistic quality. The use of texts from well-known editorials is particularly problematic to improve your own introduction, because here not only knowledge, but also the beauty and originality of the expression are the focus here. This is less a purely scientific oneaction, but rather an aesthetic that is located in the world of art. Plagiarizing art means including the author’s personality directly, which makes the process even more serious than just stealing facts, data or theories. While the theft of scientific knowledge concerns the integrity of research, copying stylisticElements a violation of aesthetic authorship, which has an even greater importance socially. Because it is about the appreciation of individual creativity and originality, which is highly valued in social discourse. The scandal makes it clear how close the boundaries between scientific honesty, moral responsibility and socialappreciation of creative performance blur. At the same time, this makes it clear how important it is to strictly maintain these limits in order not to endanger trust in science and public discourses. Only in this way can a society ensure that the principles of honesty, originality and responsibility are permanently respected and that science is asplace of truth can be preserved.