There are cases in the history of scientific research that are marked by cases of fraud. Robert Bell's The Impure Science offers several case studies in questionable scientific activity; Bernard Rollin touches on a few other cases in the final chapter of Science and Ethics, and the chapter "Deception in History" offers an account of possible fraud by some of science's greatest historical figures. What is strange about these reports is that the integrity of the scientific discipline remains unchanged despite these cases of fraud. The central question of this brief analysis is whether science is capable of sufficiently controlling its own internal frauds. The self-monitoring techniques of science are peer review for research proposals, the referee system for manuscript review, and the ability to replicate scientific results (Rollin). Peer Review: The notion of peer review for research proposals is noble on a superficial level. First, if scientists were to present their research proposals to parties outside the scientific community, there is concern that reviewers would not be educated on the topic. Part of the research and publication process is being an expert in a field, knowing all the relevant literature, and knowing what a contribution to the field would be. Gaining this level of expertise in a certain area takes a lot of time and effort. Now let's consider all the research proposals that are submitted every year for funding by scientists. The topics and areas of research are very varied and typically highly specific. It seems plausible that other experts review research proposals since they are the only ones truly qualified to determine whether a project represents a contribution to the field. However, this can pose a problem for the process....... half of the paper ......however, the difficulty of moving out of the hermeneutic position undermines the effectiveness of these methods. Furthermore, the most effective self-monitoring method, replication of scientific findings, is not practical for detecting fraud across the field. The only other solution seems to be for external forces to control fraud in scientific research, but excessive regulation could hinder scientific progress. Determining the right balance between oversight and internal regulation may be the best solution, although difficult to achieve. Works Cited: Bell, Robert. Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1992. Print.Broad, W. and N. Wade. "Deception in History" from Traitors of the Truth. Rollin, Bernard. Science and ethics. New York: Cambridge UP. 2006. Print.