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 FakeBeldin on Monday July 18 2016, @01:14PM
The main problem with academia is that it's become a rat race to move up in a pyramid scheme/hierarchy (where each new level is a lot narrower). The easiest way to move up is to attract funding. I.e.
Pyramidal hierarchy structure + moving up based on funding => funding is a scarce resource.
We were discussing this over lunch. If everyone with tenure would always have funding for one PhD student and one PostDoc, you'd have enough space to broaden your research and try out things. Things could get done that way, risks could be taken.
In the current situation: not so much.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 18 2016, @09:35PM
That's a nice idea! When I was in the US it was year-to-year budget crises where I could just about even get a liveable salary for myself. In those conditions, I'll do the work myself and seek to claim the credit rather than spend time on finding and training young guys. It's lose-lose because ultimately it's the young guys who succeed the old guys, just like I did in the past. Without that bridge, there's no incentive at all to bring the young guys on.