Science is in danger. Peer review scandal in the community.

[Gadgetmac]

Kent Border Kenny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Please post that in the Climate Politics thread which is positively overflowing with climate change deniers claiming scientists are all in it for the money and are prepared to doctor their own research to say something the government wants them to say rather than the actual results of their investigations.

Apparently you scientists are quite happy to spend your whole careers lying in order to earn a decent wage. To hell with your morals and professionalism not to mention your actual interest in getting to the truth.

Well, I’m possibly not the best person to make that argument, having left science to move into finance.

I can’t imagine ever having falsified results though, the whole point for going into science was to find things out.

So nobody ever whispered into your ear that if you could just omit a few of your actual findings in favour of something you know to be wrong you could stay on the gravy train for the rest of your scientific career?

I'm shocked

[eldar]

Gadgetmac said:

So nobody ever whispered into your ear that if you could just omit a few of your actual findings in favour of something you know to be wrong you could stay on the gravy train for the rest of your scientific career?

I'm shocked

I’m sure it has happened on occasion. The peer review process will uncover malpractice quite quickly.

At least, that is the plan...

[tweenster]

Simpo Two said:

That is a temptation I agree. But scientists can't work for free so who pays them? Everybody has an agenda, be it industry or government.

I have no doubt that real genuine science is in decline as it gets bent/taken over by the media (ie arts graduates) and shouty activists on social media.

Surely this is why University research departments tend to be held in such high regard, rather than 'corporate scientists'. The problem is, industry pays significantly more than University salaries.

I am not a scientist, but all my children are; my eldest is just about to submit his thesis to complete his PhD in Protein Science and has started a job researching increasing crop yields in warmer/drier climates (using wheat as their primary test crop). At least I think that is what he said...

[Kent Border Kenny]

Gadgetmac said:

So nobody ever whispered into your ear that if you could just omit a few of your actual findings in favour of something you know to be wrong you could stay on the gravy train for the rest of your scientific career?

I'm shocked

I can’t even begin to imagine how foolish that would have been, or the massive effort I’d have had to put in to falsify my results in just the right way to tie in with others’.

Maybe I was just too junior, and the real conspiracy went on above me, with the Higgs being nothing more than an elaborate plot to keep scientists able to afford to eat out a couple of times a year, drive an old Saab, and to ensure they continued to be ignored at parties.

[Derek Smith]

I'm no scientist, so am only qualified to preach on climate change. However, I can read. I buy the occasional sciency book, and get New Scientist weekly.

Goldacre comes up with some serious points about the scientific method, and in particular the research paid for by the pharma companies. Something appears to be wrong with the system. Whether it is critical or not is open to discussion. One thing that has evolved over my lifetime is sugar. Once more or less harmless, it is now seen as something that one has to guard against, second only to salt, at least at the moment.

Someone mentioned MMR. What it showed is that most information outlets have either: 1/ no idea about the scientific method, or 2/ a belief that truth is unimportant. I get Private Eye and it was rather odd reading conflicting conclusions to New Scientist in the same week.

From a lay person's point of view the system appears far from fool proof, or perhaps that should be charlatan proof. It does seem clear that dishonesty is not punished to any great degree.

[Eric Mc]

Goldacre's book "Bad Science" is worth a read.

As an aside, Ben Goldacre is the son of the 1970s singer, Noosha Fox, who I kind of lusted after a bit when I was in my teens -

[andy_s]

And from within science: https://quillette.com/2019/12/21/the-many-faces-of... discusses 'Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research', by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis.

[Gadgetmac]

andy_s said:

And from within science: https://quillette.com/2019/12/21/the-many-faces-of... discusses 'Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research', by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis.

An interesting article but one free from accusations of political agendas at play.

[andy_s]

Gadgetmac said:

andy_s said:

And from within science: https://quillette.com/2019/12/21/the-many-faces-of... discusses 'Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research', by Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis.

An interesting article but one free from accusations of political agendas at play.

Granted, but it's essentially the same mechanism just different motivation. The point was really that some shenanigans undoubtedly go on and it's easy to see how peer/career pressure can manifest itself as easily as self- or gross deception.

The miserable case of anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon for example: https://quillette.com/2019/10/05/the-dangerous-lif...

[andy_s]

....Political pressures in academia:

[Gadgetmac]

Again, thats Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

If it had said that you have to sign up to an anti-racism statement that to would have been a positive step.

All are admirable goals and nothing to do with skewing research to fit an agenda.

I’m failing to understand what point you are trying to make or evidence you think you might be presenting that peer review is somehow impacted by this.

[andy_s]

Yeah it's a bit general, it's just to point out that scientists aren't always automatons, without agency and bereft of political/social pressures.

[Kent Border Kenny]

andy_s said:

Yeah it's a bit general, it's just to point out that scientists aren't always automatons, without agency and bereft of political/social pressures.

I agree, and when used well the scientific method should be our best route to avoid those biases affecting the results.

There are some changes that could make things better, such as requiring trials to be described ahead of time, to stop “failed” ones disappearing, or the aim being changed, but overall it works pretty well.

[skwdenyer]

tweenster said:

Simpo Two said:

That is a temptation I agree. But scientists can't work for free so who pays them? Everybody has an agenda, be it industry or government.

I have no doubt that real genuine science is in decline as it gets bent/taken over by the media (ie arts graduates) and shouty activists on social media.

Surely this is why University research departments tend to be held in such high regard, rather than 'corporate scientists'. The problem is, industry pays significantly more than University salaries.

I am not a scientist, but all my children are; my eldest is just about to submit his thesis to complete his PhD in Protein Science and has started a job researching increasing crop yields in warmer/drier climates (using wheat as their primary test crop). At least I think that is what he said...

A little over 20 years ago, I left university research at what is said to be one of the world's best institutions precisely because my research group was being restricted & "directed" in not only what it could do but in what it could (or could not) publish, along with general problems in "the industry."

One of those issues was repeatability; preventing the publication of sufficient data precisely to try to prevent others from following along.

Other issues were more segment-wide - for instance, splitting up research into multiple papers (so that each participant got lead author credit) across multiple journals, so that no one paper ever properly defined the work, for instance. That meant each part-paper was scrutinised by a different peer review board who could not even necessarily see everything to allow them to properly evaluate the work. So papers went through "on the nod" based upon the reputation of the research group / professor / etc. which in turn blocked decent science from "fringe" groups from being published.

"Corporate scientists" frequently get prevented from publishing anything at all, which is not unexpected. Universities, however, are supposed to be dedicated to public benefit...

[AshVX220]

skwdenyer said:

A little over 20 years ago, I left university research at what is said to be one of the world's best institutions precisely because my research group was being restricted & "directed" in not only what it could do but in what it could (or could not) publish, along with general problems in "the industry."

One of those issues was repeatability; preventing the publication of sufficient data precisely to try to prevent others from following along.

Other issues were more segment-wide - for instance, splitting up research into multiple papers (so that each participant got lead author credit) across multiple journals, so that no one paper ever properly defined the work, for instance. That meant each part-paper was scrutinised by a different peer review board who could not even necessarily see everything to allow them to properly evaluate the work. So papers went through "on the nod" based upon the reputation of the research group / professor / etc. which in turn blocked decent science from "fringe" groups from being published.

"Corporate scientists" frequently get prevented from publishing anything at all, which is not unexpected. Universities, however, are supposed to be dedicated to public benefit...

That sounds like a massive issue to me, surprised it actually goes on and can be remotely considered good science.