One of the commenters on Drugmonkey's post on the suicide of Yoshiki Sasai says the following:
I fear that in some subfields, like in Lance Armstrong's bicycling world, the fraud is driving out the real science, and so we can't be as confident that "scientific understanding" will win out (at least, in anything less than the long term during which the moral arch of history also curves towards justice). That's too long.
I agree that there are many parallels between these two types of fraud: the years of doping that Lance Armstrong did, made possible by a huge web of lies and people wanting to believe in this heroic story, and the way people want to believe in "heroic science". The kind that gets you on the cover of Science, gets you the huge grants and gets you the SfN selfies like RXNM pointed out.
It made me wonder if, in science, there is a body like UCI - the cycling union - that fights fraud (although in the Armstrong days it seems like maybe the UCI wanted to believe in the heroic story too). Is there something like that? And if not, do we need it, and what would it look like? Because we can all say that we need to reform science in order to diminish fraud and make sure "scientific understanding" will prevail over the desire to become a science hero, but are we actually doing that? And what would we need to do?