Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Good Fake, Bad Fake

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 17, 2006.


Stem cell research fraud vs. literary fraud: Only one harms its victims.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Nancy Reagan is probably indignant about South Korea. The former first lady, who in recent years has become a huge advocate of stem cell research for treating (surprise) Alzheimer's, must be reading apologetic editorials by Science magazine's editor in chief and gritting her teeth. That venerable magazine is responsible for publishing articles by Woo-suk Hwang, whose groundbreaking work on stem cell therapies has made him a megastar in South Korea's scientific community. Unfortunately, those stem cell studies turned out to be fake and creepy. Not only were some of the research results forged, but apparently the cell samples were also taken from female lab assistants.

Honestly, the whole give-me-your-eggs thing wouldn't bug me so much if it weren't for the fact that this debacle means we're not as far along with stem cell therapies as we thought a few months ago. I'm less disturbed by creepy science than I am by bad or fake science. Go ahead and pull a Dr. Jekyll if you want -- as long as you don't hurt anybody, I'm there. I'll be the first to read about how you injected yourself with something that turned you into Spencer Tracy with bad makeup. I guess that's why I've been so bemused by another bizarre fraud scandal in the publishing world. JT Leroy, a rising literary star whose gender-fucked magic-realist novel "Sarah" earned him fans among Hollywood glitterati as well as dispossessed teenagers everywhere, has been unmasked.

Instead of being an abused boy hustler whose tragic childhood nearly drove him mad, JT, it turns out, is a hot goth chick named Laura "Speedie" Albert. Since one of the main ways JT reached out to his fans was via his website and email list, this news is breaking the internet in half. Tales of betrayal are filling up blogspace and spilling over into column inches in the New York Times.

Among many of my geeky friends, the Korean stem cell scandal has been eclipsed by the JT scandal. You'd think JT had somehow faked his literary talent instead of simply masking his true identity. I mean, what difference does it make if JT is a girl or a boy? Why should we care whether he's the victim of abuse or merely a person whose writing about being abused is good enough that we could easily believe it was inspired by true experiences? It's not like he managed to convince one of the world's most respected science journals to print a pack of lies based on faked research. JT writes fiction. He doesn't need to do real-life research to back up his stories. Therefore it's no betrayal when it turns out he didn't.

And it's not like JT's novels had the power to change the course of medical research. Though, in fact, his novels probably did change thousands of people's lives, and they still can -- even if he's just a girl who lives in San Francisco with her boyfriend and son.

OK, I'll admit it. I'm one of the many people JT phone-stalked. He'd call me once in a while and talk about his work, sounding like a cross between Michael Jackson and Dolly Parton. Turns out a lot of us got these calls -- my old pal Cara Bruce used to get them; Susie Bright and Ayelet Waldman have both written online about getting them too. All of us agree that the calls have been at times annoying and/or creepy. But as I said, creepy isn't a problem. If you can do something amazing without hurting anyone -- whether that's science or literature -- go for it.

I think our culture has become so confused about the difference between scientific realities and fiction that we've lost sight of what both things are supposed to do. Science should teach us about what we can do in physical reality. It doesn't, for example, allow for the discussion of what a possible spiritual entity might have done if he or she had had the ability to design the universe intelligently. Nor should science have anything to say about issues like whether it's good or bad to have sex or create families in certain ways.

Fiction, on the other hand, can do all of these things and more. It pushes us to stretch our imaginations, to consider what it might mean for gods to make worlds and for little boys to be abused. Fiction may be a pack of lies, but it can push us to make new scientific discoveries, or to change the way we think about our children. Hwang did fake science, but JT doesn't write fake fiction. His work does all the things fiction should do -- including, sometimes, forcing people to remember that imagination is not the same thing as real life.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Annalee Newitz (imaginary@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who'd rather be crank-called by JT than Woo-suk.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Aliens cause global warming
Posted by: list-processor on Jan 18, 2006 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all these awful news about fakes in the area of Molecular Biology (to which I myself am a researcher), articles as the above are a sad reflection of what seems to be "en vouge" in science - and I make a bet it was not the last time we had to see the trustworthiness of science crumble at the deeds of researchers huntig form fame instead of truths...

But the state of objective science itself gets even worse in another sense, not only relating to deliberate fakes - as Michael Crichton points out in the following article - it seems we are also moving from a fact based to a "consensual" approach to realities, more like in the middle ages:
Aliens cause global warming - if you don't mind reading a lengthy essay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Aliens cause global warming Posted by: danjkelly2
» RE: Aliens cause global warming Posted by: danjkelly2
» Evidence of Change Posted by: danjkelly2
Fake and science
Posted by: xyz2002 on Jan 18, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the big deal here? There will be fakes whenever there is money and/or glory. Rememer the cold fusion in '80s? Scientific community will correct them as other scientists would try to duplicate the results whenever there is a break-through. When they couldn't they will question the validity of the break-through. The validating process and the open discussion ensure that the fake will not last long.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael Crichton is SO full of it
Posted by: McJulie on Jan 18, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some reason -- creeping insanity, kickbacks from the Bush Administration, or pure wishful thinking -- Crichton doesn't want to believe global warming is real. So he's out to deny the very notion of scientific credibility, at the same time pretending that's what other people are doing.

Of course science uses consensus -- not a consensus of what people "believe," but a consensus of what they have found out. You know, replicating research results, or independently examining data.

Sure, a lot of things that eventually become scientific consensus start as one guy with a weird idea -- but if nobody ever replicates his results, it never becomes consensus. He remains forever a guy with a weird idea that may or may not be right.

Global warming has been traveling along that path -- the path from idea to consensus -- and the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that only really dedicated deniers don't believe it's real. But, you know, there are people who think the Earth is flat and the moon landing was faked, so I'm pretty sure the existence of deniers does not itself prove lack of scientific consensus.

We just live in a time when it's fashionable to deny that there is such a thing as objective scientific reality -- witness the ongoing "Intelligent Design" debate, which even its proponents admit IS NOT SCIENCE. They just want science to be "redefined" to allow something like ID to be included.

And Crichton is trying to redefine science as something that isn't based on consensus. But he's wrong. You don't have to take my word on this. Ask a scientist about it -- not a popular novelist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reality TV spilling over?
Posted by: lamar on Jan 18, 2006 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This obsession with "authenticity" in literature is blindingly mad. Authors have always used pseudonyms, get used to it. Are we so far gone that we now have to have reality novels? Goddam reality TV spilled over into written word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]