It's really not that hard to come up with ways to commit fraud if you want to. On the other hand, it's very easy to make such mistakes if you don't know to avoid them. This characterization is very misguided IMO.
I'm just saying: I don't believe anyone actually tells budding researchers that they should commit fraud. Instead I think the process is probably more like this:
Year 1: Statistics/research training. Here are a load of subtle mistakes to watch out for and avoid. Scientific fraud happens sometimes. Don't do it, it's very dishonest.
Year 2: Starting research. Gee a lot of these papers I'm reading are hard to reproduce, or unclear. Maybe fraud is widespread - or maybe they're just smarter or better equipped than me.
Year 3: "You really ought to have published some papers by now, the average student in your position has 3 papers. If you don't want to flunk out you really need to start showing some progress"
It's not that you need to be tought how to cheat, it's that you need to be tought how to avoid unintentionally cheating.
New student is shown how to read a paper, how to spot egregious errors and all the things listed above.
Student, i guess feels forced to publish. And maybe uses murkier tactics to get the paper published.
As Dr Frank Etscorn said, "I can show anything correlates to anything else." We were discussing vitamin D papers anf I was testing that paper funding AI mentioned on HN a few times last year.