Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
With seven or eight million researchers in the US, limited funds,
a publish or perish system, and a serious decline in peer review, [COLOR="DarkRed"
the temptation to fake it, or at least twist it, is huge[/color].
I read some numbers the other day about big pharma trying to replicate results
of promising studies are having a dismal success rate.
Here are some reasons. |
My first impulse is to ask if we should compare xoB's "temptations" among scientific researchers
with the "temptations" of, say, auto mechanics or salesmen or ...
But aside from such silliness as my impulse, my next one was to question
why advance a "fake it or twist it" condemnation from that link.
It's not really a significant part of the article.
The article talks about several other factors and influences that
come to bear on "replication".
I think it is a reasonably good article, talking about several different
real world issues that researchers face. But many of them are quite
similar to the issues that manufacturers face... similar to proprietary secrets,
little interest from funding agencies for "confirming-type" studies,
etc.
Although the authors seem particularly interested in the idea
that research is not self-correcting, there is
de facto evidence that it is.
When there is "competition" between research centers, and/or collaboration on projects,
or the reputations of the investigators, and especially if an individual's career
and/or continued funding, etc. on the line... something that is
non-reproducible becomes evident and controlling.
One thing I (did not see in the article) is a review of the actions
and the lengths to which institutions will go to protect their own reputations
if/when even hints of "falsification" some into play. They usually make it into the lay press.