SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The scientific process, in its ideal form, is elegant: Ask a question, set up an objective test, and get an answer. Repeat. Science is rarely practiced to that ideal. But Copernicus believed in that ideal. So did the rocket scientists behind the moon landing.
But nowadays, our respondents told us, the process is riddled with conflict. Scientists say they're forced to prioritize self-preservation over pursuing the best questions and uncovering meaningful truths.
Today, scientists' success often isn't measured by the quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It's instead measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public.
Scientists often learn more from studies that fail. But failed studies can mean career death. So instead, they're incentivized to generate positive results they can publish. And the phrase "publish or perish" hangs over nearly every decision. It's a nagging whisper, like a Jedi's path to the dark side.
"Over time the most successful people will be those who can best exploit the system," Paul Smaldino, a cognitive science professor at University of California Merced, says.
Many scientists have had enough. They want to break this cycle of perverse incentives and rewards. They are going through a period of introspection, hopeful that the end result will yield stronger scientific institutions. In our survey and interviews, they offered a wide variety of ideas for improving the scientific process and bringing it closer to its ideal form.
Before we jump in, some caveats to keep in mind: Our survey was not a scientific poll. For one, the respondents disproportionately hailed from the biomedical and social sciences and English-speaking communities.
Many of the responses did, however, vividly illustrate the challenges and perverse incentives that scientists across fields face. And they are a valuable starting point for a deeper look at dysfunction in science today.
The 7 problems identified are:
1) Academia has a huge money problem
2) Too many studies are poorly designed
3) Replicating results is crucial — and rare
4) Peer review is broken
5) Too much science is locked behind paywalls
6) Science is poorly communicated
7) Life as a young academic is incredibly stressful
It seems to me, that, much of this is already known to most scientists. However, this cycle of publish or perish continues unabated. What do you think should be done to change this mindset ?
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Monday July 18 2016, @03:14AM
The simple fact that "publish or perish" is a common phrase pretty much sums it all up. New scientists should be concerned with doing the science properly, instead they cut corners and fake results in order to "succeed". The pursuit of science is not about bringing a new product to market, but that seems to be the general mentality these days. I think it is a systemic problem with society, you can see similar types of problems all over the place. Teachers are forced to be more concerned with standardized test scores (which gets tied to school funding), hospitals make life and death decisions based on a person's quality of insurance, many others make decisions based on financial rewards instead of doing what would be best. The Flint water crisis is a good example, fracking is another.
Unless we can solve the general issue of global economics and keep people from having to worry about basic existence, then these issues will continue. Trying to fix science on its own will be fixing one symptom and not the disease.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @08:04PM
Then there is industrial research where, if I publish I will perish (non-disclosure agreements).
(Score: 3, Informative) by shortscreen on Monday July 18 2016, @09:06PM
People whose career advancement depends on being seen to improve metrics focus on metrics to the exclusion of all else. Standardized test scores, stock prices, number of published studies, and budgets are all metrics. Metrics are God.