Is Plagiarism on the Curriculum of our Medical Schools?

Abstract

Over 50 Internet articles on plagiarism quote John Milton thus: BCopy from one, it’s plagiarism; copy from two, it’s research.^ This pithy quip did not sound to me like the 17th century English poet who gave the language more words than even Shakespeare. A little investigation showed that this witticism, often misattributed to Milton, was actually said by Wilson Mizner, the American playwright: BIf you steal from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you steal from two, it’s research^ [1]. What Milton (himself once accused of plagiarism) actually wrote in Iconoclastes XXIII was, BFor such kind of borrowing as this, if it be not bettered by the borrowers, among good authors is accounted Plagiare^ [2]. Both authors were not even saying the same thing; Mizner advised quantity while Milton advocated quality. Why have so many authors got this wrong? The similarity in names could explain a few, but fifty! (and counting). Obviously, some of these authors have blindly copied the mistake from others without verification. Remarkably, these mistakes occur in articles that discuss plagiarism and have been committed by authors who are all strong proponents of correct attribution. I use these self-referential misquotes to raise the worrisome issue that while we are all—academics, artists, researchers, writers, composers, comedians, and every one of us—uncompromisingly aligned against plagiarism, we do not always live our sermon. More specifically, I explore the possibility of plagiarism being an unintended subject lurking on the hidden curriculum that shadows higher education. The question posed by the title of this piece is not whether we teach medical students about plagiarism but whether we unknowingly train and encourage them to plagiarize. There are broadly two spheres of academic dishonesty that concern a student: cheating at examinations and cheating on assignments. While cheating in the examination hall is patrolled against and heavily penalized, teachers are less strict or vigilant against dishonesty on assignments. Students are aware of this and, though most would not cheat on a test, they are less hesitant to copy out or download homework. A strong intrinsic deterrent to cheating in examinations is that students are, in effect, cheating against their friends. When working on an assignment, they have no hesitation in copying from sources that, to them, are impersonal pages, not people. Students are accustomed to indiscriminate sharing of software such as music, video, and e-books. Social networking has fostered the spirit of Bgenerosity,^ regardless of copyright and legality. The difference between sharing a URL and a download is seen as only one of kilobytes. Some students consider plagiarism as not very different from copying software and music, with possibly a lower inhibitory threshold. Why should they bother with attribution when the original author would never know? After all, they are not doing it for their own entertainment, but as work for the teacher. Students do a lot of their reading—textbooks or webpages— on computers and tablets. Given the cost difference between a printed tree-book (often comparable to a device) and that of an e-book (always cheaper and, if pirated, free), it makes sense to use a digital device, one which also provides internet access and social connectivity. A student reading off a screen is unlikely to pull out pen and paper, or even a keyboard, to make notes: with the digitization of knowledge, Bcopy and paste^ is the modern mnemonic mantra. * Sushil Dawka sushil.dawka@gmail.com