Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Problems with scientific research: How scienc

1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 12:20:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From: http://www.economist.com...

Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong
Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself


"A SIMPLE idea underpins science: "trust, but verify". Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.

But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying"to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.

Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 "landmark" studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.

What a load of rubbish:
Even when flawed research does not put people"s lives at risk"and much of it is too far from the market to do so"it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world"s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.

One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to "publish or perish" has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135,000 in 2012"more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people"s results) does little to advance a researcher"s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.

Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results "based on a gut feeling". And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, going senile or letting children play video games, they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.

Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. "Negative results" now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.

The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.

If it"s broke, fix it:
All this makes a shaky foundation for an enterprise dedicated to discovering the truth about the world. What might be done to shore it up? One priority should be for all disciplines to follow the example of those that have done most to tighten standards. A start would be getting to grips with statistics, especially in the growing number of fields that sift through untold oodles of data looking for patterns. Geneticists have done this, and turned an early torrent of specious results from genome sequencing into a trickle of truly significant ones.

Ideally, research protocols should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to fiddle with the experiment"s design midstream so as to make the results look more substantial than they are. (It is already meant to happen in clinical trials of drugs, but compliance is patchy.) Where possible, trial data also should be open for other researchers to inspect and test.

The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum papers. Some government funding agencies, including America"s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need to go much further. Journals should allocate space for "uninteresting" work, and grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be tightened"or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favour of post-publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. That system has worked well in recent years in physics and mathematics. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.

Science still commands enormous"if sometimes bemused"respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding."

http://www.economist.com...
http://www.chicagotribune.com...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 1:57:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/18/2013 12:20:59 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
From: http://www.economist.com...

Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong
Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself


"A SIMPLE idea underpins science: "trust, but verify".

What?! Scientists trust nothing; have you tried to submit a paper?! Every single graph will return tattered from objections. This simple idea is ridiculous. Trust nothing; assume nothing.

Of course, mistakes are made, but we will continue to advance as it always has by using ye olde tried and tested methods. Improvements are always going on, however.
PatriciaMcGee
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:03:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A lot of shoddy research papers are produced every year from students studying Masters and PhD. Not only are their academic researches not authentic and copied form various other sources, those previous resources are just as unoriginal. This means no new data is being shown in new academic papers and no genuine research is being conducted. This can prove to be very dangerous and can give an economy a huge set back.
Resource: http://www.writingjunction.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2013 1:57:58 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/18/2013 12:20:59 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
From: http://www.economist.com...

Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong
Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself


"A SIMPLE idea underpins science: "trust, but verify".

What?! Scientists trust nothing; have you tried to submit a paper?! Every single graph will return tattered from objections. This simple idea is ridiculous. Trust nothing; assume nothing.


Well, that sounds good as a speech, but in reality you have to trust a lot of things or you even get out of bed in the morning, much less do useful science.

I think it's better said to be aware of one's assumptions, not pretend we're not making any. Every engineer or researcher gets bit by an out-of-calibration instrument at some point, for instance, but you really can't calibrate your instruments every day. So what does a real researcher do? It might be phrased as "Trust, but check your answers".
This space for rent.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 10:26:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:33:43 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/18/2013 1:57:58 PM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 10/18/2013 12:20:59 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
From: http://www.economist.com...

Problems with scientific research: How science goes wrong
Scientific research has changed the world. Now it needs to change itself


"A SIMPLE idea underpins science: "trust, but verify".

What?! Scientists trust nothing; have you tried to submit a paper?! Every single graph will return tattered from objections. This simple idea is ridiculous. Trust nothing; assume nothing.


Well, that sounds good as a speech, but in reality you have to trust a lot of things or you even get out of bed in the morning, much less do useful science.

I think it's better said to be aware of one's assumptions, not pretend we're not making any. Every engineer or researcher gets bit by an out-of-calibration instrument at some point, for instance, but you really can't calibrate your instruments every day. So what does a real researcher do? It might be phrased as "Trust, but check your answers".

Ironically, that was an assumption. Present your evidence and then we'll talk.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:28:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any scientist who knowingly falsifies results or who purposefully and dishonestly misrepresents his conclusions or the conclusions of others should be indicted for fraud and never allowed to hold a research position again (which depending on severity is kind of what happens now). Moreover, more funding and acknowledgement should be given to those who perform legitimate well reasoned experiments or research that fail.

The fact that this is a big deal is a testament to how serious truth is held and how negative bias and dishonsty to evidence is in science.

No doubt creationists will use this to demonstrate how they are right, neglecting the fact that creation science not only has absolute bias and absolute dishonesty fundamentally endemic and necessary for their profession to a level that would make even th most unacrupulous researchers jaw drop: but proudly proclaim such bias on their websites.
DAC-design
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Science in its basic form is the observation of nature but how we perceive things is affected by the nature of are minds. See quantum mechanics and how observation of the experiment changes the result.

Leonardo Da Vinci
"All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions."

I think the concept of competition can be seen as a delusion of the mind as observation of nature indicate that it dose not really exist in nature it just takes what it needs to survive an no more, if you observe nature from an scientific non judgemental point of view.