The Case Against Science

avatar
(Edited)

As a Medical student, wanting to write my own research, even if its a mockery of one, was always something I wanted to try my hands out on. I always had an affinity towards academic writings, the affirmative, rhetorical language and tone researchers would employ had a big impression on me, and during my third year, I finally had the opportunity to do just that along with my peers. We'd jot down our collective ideas regarding which topic we felt would grab attention. But before we could get typing, we had to learn what made a research so objective in its effect.

image.png

The foundation and anatomy of any research is massively underlied by the relevant data collected. A subset of the researchers harvest their own data through their own devised methodology, but many opt to cut corners. Researchers and scientists cite other studies that went through the troughs of manually harvesting data. In the name of transparency and for disclosing the exploratory methods of analyzing the data, the methodology often ends up to be the most exhaustive section of many researches, which compels many to retrofit and sculpt data, either to erroneously extrapolate numbers or to stick and pander to trending topics of flimsy importance.

It didn't take long for the case opposing science to quickly emerge. The bulk of the publications and scientific literature in circulation may be inadequately founded, if not outright false. The frequent chasing of trends and and topics of questionable importance compels scientists to upend the scientific method: selectively choose data that matches their theory and hypothesis and reject those that go against it. The appliance of invalid methods of analyses, not to mention the inclusion of knowledge and information that is not disclosed, complicated by small sample sizes of little significance has all yielded a culture that is slowly veering towards research misconduct.

Obviously, papers and researches, especially concerning highly volatile topics that gain widespread public interest, are a monumental task to undertake, but the reward of recognition as being the first to produce "credible" research is seen as always worth it. Add to that, the value and worth of a scientist is seen through the number of publications they have made, not by the quality of each research produced. This isn't just confined to scientist either. Nowadays, entire faculties and universities are ranked each according to the quantity output of their research, not by the quality or how impactful each of those were in their respective fields of study. All of this alludes to a system in place that is highly ripe for exploitation.

However, I think the grandiose reason could be attributed to there being very few incentives to correct behaviour amongst scientists. There exists no investigative authorities involved in steering behaviour back on track. The only thing existing towards that is publishing agencies (The Lancet, European Journal of Medicine, etc...) acting as gatekeeping entities from the wider public. The problem with such a system is the fact that trust of publishing only good researches is earned by having published high-impact studies beforehand (Discovery of the DNA, etc...). As a result, it is the reputation of the institute that plays the investigative role, not the objective side of analysing the methodology and obtained data of each research. At this point, the system inherently favours skewing the public's views and trust of any fashionable topic, as long as the publishing agencies' brand is slapped on top.

Can this conduct be fixed?

A simple oath is not enough to deter bad practices. There are lots of proposals to correcting behaviour, such as incentivizing collaboration over competition. Or Emphasizing mentorship over independence. The most compelling approach of correcting such conduct comes from other communities. Outside of the scientific community at large, the high-energy physics community has endured several blunders in its publications. What followed was many investments of efforts and supervision into checking and correcting data before drawing conclusions, which is all done by independent groups of people. Many physicists are also encouraged to criticize when it comes to peer-reviewing, with the goal being to yield good, reliable results instead of speeding through the entirety of the publication process.

Conclusion

Science has become streamlined, almost bloated and without resistance against bad research praxis. With the state of the scientific community being how it is, it goes without saying that something must be done. Though I'm sure everybody agrees with this sentiment, there are no robust answers yet as to how or what needs to be done in order to flush the system. Of late, however, this problem is beginning to take traction and a lot of recognition within the community itself.


Posted via proofofbrain.io



0
0
0.000
1 comments
avatar

Congratulations @leonordomonol! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You received more than 1250 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 1500 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

0
0
0.000