In their year end review The Scientist is carrying two stories that trumpet the BAD news in science over the last year.
The lists the Top Ten Retractions in 2014, which seems like more than previous years.
The retractions include:
- STAP stem cell paper retractions from Nature
- Spiking rabbit blood samples with human blood to make it look like an HIV vaccine was working.
- A “peer review and citation ring” got 60 articles yanked
- 120 bogus papers produced by the random text generator
In addition there was A List of the top Science Scandals of the year, some of which are included in the above, but also major containment issues at US government labs, including the discovery of undocumented pathogens in questionable storage.
It wasn't all bad news, a third story listed their nominations for The Years greatest breakthroughs.
Regardless of what we hear in the popular press, it is interesting to see what scientists themselves find most troublesome in their various fields. And it is interesting to note that many of the issues revolve around the review and publishing process.
Related Stories
PSMag is running an article that addresses some of the problems discussed here on Soylent News, regarding the problems with the Trustworthiness of published science.
Last January, the two top-ranking officials at the National Institutes of Health wrote that “the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled” by a growing tendency to cut corners. They announced that the NIH is planning “significant interventions” to ensure that we can trust the results that are published.
Several proposals for reproducing results of important science projects are on the table. One from The Science Exchange Network would have scientists submit their studies to a third party for a reproducible study. Submitted experiments are matched with an appropriate, verified Science Exchange lab which would (for a fee) reproduce the experiments.
The problems with this approach are many. Replication of results is desirable, replication of exact experiments is a waste of time and money according to Canada's National Research Council. Often, results can't be reproduced, without exact replication of the experiment. One such case came down to how a solution was stirred at a critical stage.
More often, nobody tries to reproduce results at all. Even when they do try, researchers rarely publish an attempt to replicate someone else’s experiment, and are even less likely to reproduce a failed attempt. Therefore it is unknown what fraction of published studies aren't reproducible.
The article goes on to discuss problems with published results, retractions, and the trustworthiness of published science in general. It is an interesting read without getting bogged down in too much minutia.
(Score: 2) by carguy on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:25PM
Down near the bottom of your otherwise nice summary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @02:38PM
Also there is a missing word in the sentence "Regardless of what we here in the popular press",
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:06PM
When you allow women into science. It's not a problem of IQ or even education. Women are inclined to lie and believe their own lies. It's in their DNA.
Men only lie for fame, women and money and don't actually believe their perpetual motion machine works. That's why they get caught more often.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @03:56PM
...namely tooth regeneration. Damn.
(Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:19PM
Just a giant cavity in that area of science...
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:02PM
You say bad, but I'm hearing that it was a good year for science, because a lot of bogus stuff was caught and thrown out.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:58PM
It would almost appear as if the 'scientific community' were composed of human beings, operating under a flawed framework of rewards, warping results by polluting data with external incentives.
Bizarre...
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:09PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:27PM
I came to say pretty much this. This is not a 'bad' thing. It is the way science is supposed to work. There is hundreds (maybe thousands) more papers out there like those listed in the summary. There was the one a few months ago of 'get me off your fucking mailing list'. Just because it is published does not mean it is good.
Some people seem to think science is a line in the sand and you get things like 'its settled' (one that makes me cringe when I see it with weather type stories). But that is hardly the case. For example dark matter. They have some ideas but still can not find the sucker. They are even starting to think they didnt find the higgs boson.
The real issues is people are afraid to fail. Tests and results that fail are JUST as interesting. But rarely get you more funding.
I think Ray from ghostbusters put it best. "You have never worked in the private sector. They expect results". Which is the core of the problem, money.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 28 2014, @08:13PM
I think Ray from ghostbusters put it best. "You have never worked in the private sector. They expect results". Which is the core of the problem, money.
Results != money. "Results" means here that you're doing activities which are expected to produce more benefit than the money, resources, etc put in. What the complaint really is about is that the researcher is complaining about having to provide accountability for the parties who enable his research.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:36PM
Blha, you blew the line!
"You've never been out of college! I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 31 2014, @04:12PM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday December 28 2014, @07:54PM
Agreed.
In fact, I almost made that comment when submitting the story. I saw nothing of that sentiment in the sources I linked to, and decided against adding it, trusting that someone on SN would make that observation.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:55PM
The retracted nature articles represent bad science but the random text generated articles being accepted isn't about science at all. Reputable scientists never did publish in those journals that accepted these fake articles.
Let me break it down. There are scammers that try to get scientists to publish in their journals for a fee..No institution is fooled by these. When hiring they look for articles in the journals they know and read.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by ngarrang on Sunday December 28 2014, @04:55PM
And scientists wonder why the common man distrusts so much science these days; THIS is the reason. Not ALL science is bad, of course, that would be faulty logic. BUT...the common man is not known for exercising proper logic. Thus, we end up with vast swathes of population disregarding the science that is good, all because they read about this. Scientists need to understand that their hubris could be society's downfall.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday December 28 2014, @05:07PM
Flawed argument. "Common man" does not read. Well, not anything belonging to this strata of argument.
Like most people, they believe what elite arbiters of their class and prejudice dispense. And 'twas ever thus.
The chattering classes are chained as firmly to a European Finance Minister writing in the Economist as are the god-and-guns crew, to a bigot on Fox News.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday December 28 2014, @06:36PM
BUT...the common man is not known for exercising proper logic.
I'd disagree with this. The 'common' man IS exercising logic and 'common sense' in distrusting modern science. Ok, pretty bold and unusual statement so lemme try and back it up. Most here won't like this but please try to read what follows with an open mind to at least understand why so many now distrust science. It is a problem that won't be fixed by just swinging the hammer harder, with more feeling.
I'm going to begin just speaking for myself. I'm an IT oriented geek who also follows science, science fiction, etc. That said, I am NOT a scientist, I do NOT play one on TV; merely an interested lay person. When younger I believed Scientists could individually be corrupt but Science was ultimately self correcting (Scientists don't change their minds, they just die. Google that quote and understand it.) It was always going to keep finding the Truth about the world we live in and probably at an alarming speed. Heck, we were walking on the Moon, Science was on a roll here.
Most halfway educated folk of that era would have basically agreed with that assessment.
But even then there was a problem beginning to fester, now grown to a full blown infection/infestation in the world of Science. Call it Scientism mixed with a big unhealthy dollop of Lysenkoism for lack of a better short description.
Scientism is the extension of Science beyond it's natural scope into a new age religion. Science (as we currently understand the term) is unlocking much of the mystery of What the Universe is. But it has limits, anything earlier than the Big Bang for instance is basically 'Here There Be Dragons' as far as science is concerned. And as to any question of Why? Why is the universe? Why are we here, etc. Nope, Science is entirely silent. At least at our current low level of understanding, it is entirely possible that in another thousand years Science might indeed wrest enough fundamental secrets from the universe that knowledge and pure reason can indeed answer such basic questions, even answer moral questions of Good and Evil, etc. But the point is that even lay people can clearly see that Science lacks even the proper vocabulary to ask those sort of questions. But everyone can give examples of 'scientists' trying to do exactly that in the name of Science, Which Must Not Be Questioned. So that is problem Number 1.
Problem Number 2 is perhaps even worse. Google Lysenkoism before continuing unless you are really familiar with it already; it has happened in the past, and I am saying it is happening again. Listen for phrases like 'Settled Science' and it isn't hard to notice how often politics and science are merging, with Science the poor stepchild to Progressive politics, expected to provide whatever facts are required to support The Party's positions.
If Science has a home, it should be the University. But the modern University is more interested in Critical Theory (look it up) than searching for and passing on knowledge and searching for Truth. Now Universities are where people are taught to blindly believe, to punish any heretical questioning of authority, to never question Settled Science. And worse, that while Science is all knowing, they must DoubleThink the iron law that there are also many Questions which must not be asked. With the fall of the university and the corrupting influences of the funding chase having no counterbalancing force, far too many scientists are only 'so called scientists' now.
Most 'common people' don't really understand all of that but they can tell something is wrong, that people who are held up as 'scientists' ain't. That they are politicians in drag,
We even know it here, most simply refuse to let their mind follow to the conclusion of the observed facts. Because it would be disturbing to cherished myths. How many times do we see 'experts' in fields where the crowd here knows of it making laughable statements and go unquestioned by the authority figures in Science, the Academy, the Press, Politics, everyone. Now just extend that to the other subjects, assume those 'experts' are just as wrong, but again, always wrong in exactly the same ways. If yo ucan believe in a coincidence that great, odds are you believe in ghosts, bigfoot, etc.
Science has been corrupted because all of the underpinning institutions that used to support it are corrupt. Almost everyone here would agree with the individual charges against institutions and even with charges against the worst individuals; but most will refuse to connect the dots. This problem ain't going to fix itself people, connect the frickin' dots and then demand change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 28 2014, @11:05PM
Science is a method of exploring questions about physical processes not capital "T" truth. Scientists are people that are trained to do science they are not science incarnate.
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Monday December 29 2014, @10:27AM
What you are describing has occured before. Indeed Isaac Newton had a lot of crack pot psuedo-religious ideas and Jonathon Swift apparently didn't even need to make up the crazy experiments in Gullivers Travels. He just copied what the Royal Academy in London was actually doing at the time. People have always been wary of scientists.
My biggest bug bear with modern science is when an expert researcher in one area suddenly thinks they can comment on another. It's a case of I am so clever that I must know everything. I worry about Richard Dawkins in this respect. As It happens I am aethiest too but by tying in his position with one of militant anti-theology then he weakens his argument and makes it less likely that evolution will be taught in nutty religious schools even though there is nothing in their beliefs that should have a problem with it. After all Genesis describes the creation of the animal types in the order they probably evolved. I don't believe there is a god but I cannot scientifical prove that there isn't so I don't make grand pronouncements on the issue.
(Score: 2) by umafuckitt on Sunday December 28 2014, @11:10PM
I would add the proliferation of bogus journals that publish shitty non-science [nationalgeographic.com]. When I began my academic career 15 years ago I got zero academic-related spam. It was all just porn and errection pills. Now I daily get crap from slightly shady sounding suppliers, requests to attend clearly bullshit conferences, to review clearly bullshit articles, or to submit a paper to clearly bullshit journals. They often send repeat e-mails ("you didn't reply to our invitiation and the dead-line is approaching..."). Obviously this rubbish is profitable but I wonder where the money is coming from. How much of it is being leeched from the taxpayer?