I looked at the Savine case on the ORI website, located at http://ori.dhhs.gov/content/case-summary-savine-adam-c .This case details the story of Mr. Adam Savine, who falsified his data and presented it in publications and at conferences.
Unfortunately, the legal jargon only tells one story. It tells the story of a bad academic in a psychology department who took the easy route and got caught. I would imagine that Mr. Savine felt pressured to edit his data to fit his hypotheses because of pressure to publish as a doctoral student in order to get some position after he completed his degree.
This cheating isn’t worth the risk. Luckily I operate from the perspective that there is no measurable (T)ruth, and that reality is relative. For me, there is no way to falsify the data because the data is what I see, and you could call it opinion instead of fact!! Sure, there are still plagiarism concerns- and what worries me most is that I’m not doing a thorough enough job in my review of the literature to discover if anyone has had similar ideas before.
But that’s not the case here. Mr. Savine believed that some aspect in his discipline of psychology was measurable. He then altered the data to fit his conclusion, and got caught afterwards.
Social science isn’t worth the trouble.