Doug Sheridan Says:
“ Clearly, it's the scientific community itself... namely, those who fail to speak up and demand the discontinuance of practices ruining their reputations.”
Doug Sheridan Says:
Stephanie Lahrtz writes in NZZ, an interested public can now follow almost in real time which new findings scientists are working out in laboratories and in front of their computers. It's good that science isn't hidden. But the speed with which data enters the public discourse is damaging.
The publishing of data as quickly as possible and without external verification gained enormous momentum during the pandemic. Researchers presented their data, almost daily fresh from the laboratory, on freely accessible platforms. This encouraged broad discussion, especially among experts outside of their own narrow area of expertise. Politicians could quickly access data for their decisions.
The traditional way of disseminating new scientific knowledge, on the other hand, is very time-consuming. Researchers submit their study to a specialist journal. This asks experts not involved in the work but who are well versed in the field for an assessment. These external experts check and detect errors. The team then revises their work. Only then will it be published in the specialist magazine, where everyone can see it. This process, known as peer review, is supposed to give the study a seal of quality.
Today, there is no longer the time pressure of a pandemic. Nevertheless, the practice of presenting data without peer review has become rampant. PR departments of institutes, as well as the media, often pick up on this without thinking. But there is also a lot of junk. And there are increasingly fakes, authored by AI models and algorithms.
If counterfeits or bad work are then exposed in front of everyone, this is a desirable cleaning process. But if studies must be corrected and conclusions changed with regularity in public, then the public rightly loses trust in science as a whole.
To Sum It Up: For scientists and journalists, trust in their work is an extremely important currency. Research is only taken seriously if scientists and their findings are considered credible by the public. Currently, they aren't.
Our Take 1: When we write about the deteriorating quality and credibility of science, we inevitably get pushback that "not all scientists" have abandoned sound process and the principles that come with it. But that misses the point—namely, that the public have no way of knowing which findings are the result of "good" science and which are the result of "bad" science. It's a crap shoot... and that's no good.
Our Take 2: Implicit in the lament that not all science is compromised is the belief that good science shouldn't be dragged down by bad science. Okay, but who's allowing the bad science to go unchallenged? Not us.
Clearly, it's the scientific community itself... namely, those who fail to speak up and demand the discontinuance of practices ruining their reputations. Yes, we and others are happy to do our part. But ultimately it's up to scientists to fix this. We hope they will.
Here here! Get them here with papers ,....we’ll back them up if we can. Plenty of scientists here.
thank you, seems like this world is lacking people who care about other people or something. There was an article that came out about the discovery of COVID at the beginning and it was so full of hoopla, sad thing is people believed it...I think more people saw through it, then are willing to say anything is all and that's been kinda sad...