This is what plays in my head every single time I read an article about how scientists are not trusted. Enough of the bleak dystopian futures !
(okay, it's ironic that it's given by an arch-villain, but never mind)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CKP-00yaEg
Do you think the Scientific community actually polices Scientists adequately who have been found to be untrustworthy?
ReplyDeleteClear fraud is one thing. There are other problems short of clear fraud.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure that Science does a good job of policing fraud, but I'll stay away from that because I might get involved in making charges that would be actionable in court.
I do know of a case where a conflict of interest wasn't divulged before research that approved the use of a new drug and I don't believe the Scientist involved suffered any consequences whatsoever.
I believe there is evidence of collusion to suppress research that disagrees with pet theories and when this evidence of this collusion becomes known, nothing happens.
Scientists have advocated for standards of evidence and transparency on their own research that are not according to accepted practice and nothing happens. I'm thinking here of a case where a famous Climate Scientist flatly stated that it was uncommon for raw data sets to be shared. This one is a matter of public record, so I'll share some background on that:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4202.htm
I believe raw data sets were destroyed in this case, also not in keeping with accepted practice. The Scientists involved in this have suffered not at all.
I believe that real fraud occurs commonly in the Social Sciences. Many practitioners here suppress their own research that tells against a pet theory or worldview and skew data to support their own political philosophy.
You might say that Science does a good job policing such things or you might say that my concerns are overblown, but that's my perception.
As long as Scientists insist on doing work that is motivated by personal gain or to advance a political philosophy, especially in cases where their results cannot be independently confirmed in controlled experiments, I think there's a real concern.
There are certainly different cultures within different disciplines. I can't speak for the others since I have no experience in them.
ReplyDeleteIn astronomy it's common but not universal to make data publically available (the project I work on does this). Most of those who don't are willing to share it if asked. Many facilities have a propriety period after which the data must be made public.
I cannot conceive of raw data being deliberately destroyed in astronomy. Telescope time is worth ~$1000 per hour - it just wouldn't happen. Old data might get lost or accidentally deleted, but never deliberately. It is extremely difficult for me to imagine what would happen to someone who did this.
"As long as Scientists insist on doing work that is motivated by personal gain or to advance a political philosophy, especially in cases where their results cannot be independently confirmed in controlled experiments, I think there's a real concern."
Have to agree with that. Since the only "personal gain" in astronomy is advancement in one's reputation, and real-world politics is basically absent, I'm not the best person to ask about practices in more socially-relevant disciplines.
Rhys Taylor Yes.
ReplyDeleteI don't expect you to defend all of "Science" or even for "Science" to have a robust policing authority to throw out those who put self-interest ahead of objectivity.
People are frustrated by, on the one hand, their dependence on scientific experts in so many areas but then they are confronted with troubling instances of humanity among the scientific practitioners.
I do wish there were more visible advocates to call scientists on the carpet when there are problems. There certainly are a number of scientific groups that take politicians and others to task for going against "accepted" science.
Btw, this lay person has noticed how "accepted" science, in many "disciplines" (I hesitate to use that word) radically change their stands every few decades.
But, you know, I'm a Popperist...
"People are frustrated by, on the one hand, their dependence on scientific experts in so many areas but then they are confronted with troubling instances of humanity among the scientific practitioners."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely. The classic image of a scientist as someone completely aloof from the affairs of mortal men has got to change. I think it is changing, slowly, but it takes a long time to shake off a deep-seated cultural image.
(Similarly, politicians are sometimes held to an impossibly high standard that wouldn't be required in almost any other profession)
That is not to say that most scientists aren't experts in their field with a great deal of knowledge about their own particular subject - they are. Moreover, there are some statements it's possible to make with absolute certainty. One problem is that some scientists then confuse excellent theories with hard facts. Another is that some prominent public figures have a tendency to speak about subjects which are far removed from their field of expertise.
"I do wish there were more visible advocates to call scientists on the carpet when there are problems."
As far as cases of fraud and deception go, without numbers it's impossible to say if this is a major problem in certain research areas or if the cases which do go public are just highly visible exceptions. As for more general public outreach, again I think much more care needs to be taken to explain the problems of current theories as well as their successes.
"Btw, this lay person has noticed how "accepted" science, in many "disciplines" (I hesitate to use that word) radically change their stands every few decades."
That's the major thrust of my recent blog post : theories are not facts, nor is evidence the same as proof. NGT and the National Academy of Sciences would like to define a "scientific fact" as being something which can change. This is a nonsense. Very few scientists (in my experience) use the term in this highly contrived sense. I use "certainty" and "fact" only in the strongest possible way - something that has been measured and can never be disproved (e.g. the Earth is round). To say that "facts" can change seems carefully designed to utterly baffle not only the general public, but almost all scientists as well. It's just dumb.
Theories, however, do change. "Accepted theory" usually only means "best theory currently available". Often it may have a mountain of evidence supporting it, but that still doesn't constitute proof. The whole point of doing research is not to dot the i's and cross the t's of some particular model, but to establish whether it's true or not. Sometimes, a problem may be because some subtle factor has not been accounted for, occasionally it may turn out to be a fly in the ointment - an ugly fact can slay a beautiful theory (the precession of Mercury and Newtonian gravity, for example).
We have to be equally careful not to simply dismiss a theory that fails a single predictive test if it's been shown to work very successfully in other circumstances. Modifying a theory to fit the data is not an inherently bad thing, though of course there comes a breaking point at which the underlying assumptions behind the theory have to be questioned.
It may make for less dramatic television to say, "we think this is the case" rather than "we know this is the case", but it is infinitely more accurate. Most (probably nearly all) people actually doing research, in my experience, are acutely aware of this, but I don't think we always do a good enough job of communicating it to the public. Which is why I think people doing research should (when possible) also do outreach, as they are the people most aware of the difficulties of the research.
Rhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteAs far as cases of fraud and deception go, without numbers it's impossible to say if this is a major problem in certain research areas or if the cases which do go public are just highly visible exceptions
In the case of the CRU not providing and destroying their raw climate data I mentioned earlier, not a thing happened to those Scientists.
That may not be fraud or deception, but it's very sloppy Science and it should have some impact.
I actually believe they were hiding something, but we'll never know.
At least the British Chemical Society called them on the carpet when they the CRU scientists insisted that it was common practice to share raw data.
Theories, however, do change. "Accepted theory" usually only means "best theory currently available".
Yes. I wasn't really thinking of Astronomy when I posted the rant above. I'm thinking of the Soft Sciences like Sociology.
In the hard Sciences, those that really adhere to the Scientific Method - experiments with controls -, the new accepted theory is typically a refinement of older theories. In some Sciences, the new theories are completely unrecognizable to former practitioners.