These are dark times for science so we asked hundreds of researchers how to fix it.

“Science, I had come to learn, is as political, competitive, and fierce a career as you can find, full of the temptation to find easy paths.” — Paul Kalanithi, neurosurgeon and writer (1977–2015)

Science is in big trouble. Or so we’re told.

In the past several years, many scientists have become afflicted with a serious case of doubt — doubt in the very institution of science.

As reporters covering medicine, psychology, climate change, and other areas of research, we wanted to understand this epidemic of doubt. So we sent scientists a survey asking this simple question: If you could change one thing about how science works today, what would it be and why?

We heard back from 270 scientists all over the world, including graduate students, senior professors, laboratory heads, and Fields Medalists. They told us that, in a variety of ways, their careers are being hijacked by perverse incentives. The result is bad science.

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.

“I feel torn between asking questions that I know will lead to statistical significance and asking questions that matter,” says Kathryn Bradshaw, a 27-year-old graduate student of counseling at the University of North Dakota.

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.

Source: The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists – Vox

Categories: Uncategorized

Related Posts

Uncategorized

Cancer Gene Trust Search

Source: Cancer Gene Trust Search Related PostsScientists Find Form of Crispr Gene Editing With New Capabilities – The New York TimesPills of Science – 1 WeekDNA Extraction Virtual LabDNA Extraction Virtual LabCancer Gene Panels http://t.co/u8SHjG91I5

Uncategorized

The Long-Term Stock Exchange Is Worth a Shot – Bloomberg

Silicon Valley venture capitalists are shaking things up with “tenure voting.” Source: The Long-Term Stock Exchange Is Worth a Shot – Bloomberg Related PostsThe Right Way to Grant Equity to Your EmployeesHow CEO Anne Wojcicki Read more…

Uncategorized

How to Be a Know-It-All | The New Yorker

What you learn from the Very Short Introduction series. Source: How to Be a Know-It-All | The New Yorker Related PostsIntroduction to Scientific Python – StanfordDeep LearningIntroduction to Biostatistics and BioinformaticsIntroduction to Biostatistics and BioinformaticsThe Read more…