There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.
Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt was the most difficult book I've ever written. I'm a cosmologist—I study the origins, structure, and evolution of the Universe. I love science. I live and breathe science. If science were a breakfast cereal, I'd eat it every morning. And at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I watched in alarm as public trust in science disintegrated.
But I don't know how to change people's minds. I don't know how to convince someone to trust science again. So as I started writing my book, I flipped the question around: is there anything we can do to make the institution of science more worthy of trust?
The short answer is yes. The long answer takes an entire book. In the book, I explore several different sources of mistrust—the disincentives scientists face when they try to communicate with the public, the lack of long-term careers, the complicitness of scientists when their work is politicized, and much more—and offer proactive steps we can take to address these issues to rebuild trust.
The section below is taken from a chapter discussing the relentless pressure to publish that scientists face, and the corresponding explosion in fraud that this pressure creates. Fraud can take many forms, from the "hard fraud" of outright fabrication of data, to many kinds of "soft fraud" that include plagiarism, manipulation of data, and careful selection of methods to achieve a desired result. The more that fraud thrives, the more that the public loses trust in science. Addressing this requires a fundamental shift in the incentive and reward structures that scientists work in. A difficult task to be sure, but not an impossible one—and one that I firmly believe will be worth the effort.
"which was never designed to catch fraud anyway." Exactly. This isn't a good system that got off the rails; it was always a gatekeeper system that ensured that new insights had to stay in line with current orthodoxy.
When I submit something for peer review, there are two options: I get youg reviewers (who want the exposure and the glory), or I get old reviewers who have the reputation and like to engage in "field control". The young ones are usually dogmatic and eager to prove their worthiness; they will tear you apart over BS to prove how much they've read to the journal editors. The old ones have a legacy to defend, and want to make sure that "what they found out" is not abandoned by snotty youth. Either way, if your paper goes against orthodoxy,. it has a hard time. Worse if it tries to use insights from one side of the subject to augment another side of the subject, because in all likelihood, the Old Ones have mad a career of trashing that other side. The editors will likely send the article to one "representative" of each side, each one of which will trash the half of the paper you're trying to adapt to their field. Worse if you're challenging a "basic understanding" in that field; then, all of them will trash you.
This is old news, of course. Read Kuhn about the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, still unmatched, about how science is generational and political to defend given orthodoxies; though he's optimistic about how revolutions arise when generations change.
reply
Science evolves one funeral at the time
reply
P value has to be 5 percent or less
reply
There are norms developing that should help, but ultimately this won't be fixed until the incentive problems are fixed.
Some of the emerging norms are making data available for replication, publishing your code, and prespecifying your methodology. Also, when building on prior work, it's good to also replicate the finding yourself. I'm not sure how often people do that, but we were encouraged to do so in my PhD program.
reply
Not so much in my PhD, but during one of my postdocs, my advisor thought me the importance of benchmarking and replicating some previous results or models before using them as foundation for my own work.
reply
If you insult me you insult science
reply
During Covid the fraud around PCR testing was mind blowing to me. I’m not sure that the depths of fraud in science generally are yet fully understood and I think that the public should stay sceptical until there has been a degree of atonement within the profession.
reply
You can manufacture results by adjusting thermal cycling
reply
A true pioneer who took a lot of heat for unconventional ideas, turns out he was right on many of them
reply
bad luck that he passed away in 2019 before the stupidity and insanity
reply
Science is not an institution and you can never trust it. The whole point of science is to always question it, if you cannot ask questions then it is not science. People in recent years has failed to communicate what science really is and instead have portrayed it as infaillible dogma, that is wrong and people know it so good luck turning that around
reply
This clip of physicist Eric Weinstein talking to Piers Morgan is relevant I feel.
reply