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: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:31PM
Nobody is suggesting that. There's a fairly good way of vetting somebody who's trying to get grant money:
1. First, you check the random strangers' educational qualifications. For example, an exothermaldynamicist would be expected to either have a doctorate or be working on their dissertation. You would want them to have done well in their coursework, which you can get from their college transcripts.
2. Second, you check their previous work, if any. If they're somebody new working on their dissertation or something like that, then you'll understand them not having much of a record but you'll probably be a bit stingier with the grants.
3. Third, you ask the acknowledged experts of exothermaldynamics to see what they think of the proposal and the person who's proposing it. Answers like "total crackpot!" or "hmm, there might be something to that, it would be worth a try" should give you some good guidance.
4. Fourth, you get opinions on the random stranger from everybody who knows or has worked with them, particularly academic advisors and professors and such.
The fact that there are far more qualified scientists out there than there is funding for them is truly shameful, because it means that we're intentionally holding back the rate of scientific discovery due to a fear of losing small green pieces of paper.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.