SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Richard Horton writes that a recent symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research discussed one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with science (PDF), one of our greatest human creations. The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. According to Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a United Kingdom-based medical journal, the apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world or retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.
Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive and innovative. Tony Weidberg says that the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication following several high-profile errors,. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticize. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal. "The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously," says Horton. "The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system."
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:56PM
Which fits in as a result of the "graduate ten times as many PHDs are there are PHD level job openings". If you don't want the results of brutal cutthroat competition, then don't make a competitive situation. Academia really is messed up and I'm glad I didn't go down that path.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:49AM
We here in academia are pushed to graduate more students. It's not that we want to take on inferior or subpar students and train them for a job they'll never get (and aren't capable of, anyway), but rather it's the case that more students bring more income into the university and god help you if you try to reject or flunk a full fee paying student. I've been straight up told that I need more PhD students by the time I get to tenure review.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @08:38AM
Maybe a better model would be to pay universities only if you failed. That would have a twofold effect: Universities would have to balance their failure rates (too little, and they don't generate income; too much, and they won't get any students), thus making passing the exam a meaningful measure against. On the other hand, it would give an extra incentive to the students to be good (because being good, they could save money), and to those who wouldn't have a chance pass anyway, to stay away (and thus improve the situation for those who do have a chance).