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: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 18 2016, @06:26AM
What can you do?
1. Use your qualifications to get a high paying job.
2, Save, save, save. And save some more. Far easier to do that when you're single with no children. Skip the high end cars, luxury condos, etc. At one point I was saving over 3/4th of my income.
3. Retire at a young age. Before 50, or if you can swing it, before 40. The point is to have enough money saved up that you need not ever work again even if you live to be over 100, plus enough more to pay for whatever research you wish to do.
Step 2 is the crucial one. With money, you have freedom, and can do whatever you want, within reason. Maybe that's research, and maybe that's something else. At the least, it immensely strengthens your bargaining position should you wish to continue being an employee and while you still need to save more.
Problem is, extremely few people, including even super smart scientists, have the discipline to do it.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Monday July 18 2016, @08:19AM
Unfortunately, step 1 for me would require leaving the country; robotics is hot right now, but not really in Australia. And there is more to life than money. Yes, I can move away for a while and save up a ton... but raising a family overseas is not something I want to contemplate, either. I've lived and worked in the US before and it's a hell-hole, and Europe doesn't look much better atm. Right now, I'm being paid well enough that I can potentially retire at 50ish (if the missus starts paying a useful income), but that's still not as much as I could earn internationally. Really, it boils down to 1. do work that stimulates me, 2. earn a living wage, 3. not go crazy from stress; pick two. I chose 1 and 2.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @09:10AM
I've lived and worked in the US before and it's a hell-hole, and Europe doesn't look much better atm.
An Auzzie says this about the USA and the EU! A former Penal colony is a much better place to live than the centers of financial and economic power of the planet? I hear you, Mate! G'day!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @10:22AM
Have you been to any of these places?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @09:47PM
lolz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 19 2016, @12:26PM
Exactly. I've been to all three, and fuck knows I'd rather be in Australia!