How Much Scientific Research Is Actually Fraudulent?

Reason ^ | 7-9-21 | Ronald Bailey

[GBA]

I like this by Michael Crichton from his book Jurassic Park:

“”You know what's wrong with scientific power?" Malcolm said.
““It’’s a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails."

Hammond said, "What is he talking about?”
Harding made a sign, indicating delirium.
Malcolm cocked his eye.

“”I will tell you what I am talking about," he said.
"Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power.
There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years.
Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru.
Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort.
You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you.
And once you have attained it, it’’s your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you.
It is literally the result of your discipline.

Now what is interesting about this process is that,
by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands,
he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely.
So that kind of power has a built-in control.
The discipline of getting the you so that you won't abuse it.

But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline.

You read what others have done, and you take the next step.
You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast.

There is no discipline lasting many decades.
There is no mastery: old scientists are ignored.
There is no humility before nature.
There is only a get-rich-quick, make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy.
Cheat, lie, falsify--it doesn't matter.
Not to you, or to your colleagues.
No one will criticize you. No one has any standards.
They all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast.”

“And because you can stand on the shoulders of giants, you can accomplish something quickly.
You don't even-know exactly what you have done,
but already you have reported it; patented it, and sold it.”

“And the buyer will have even less discipline than you.
The buyer simply purchases the power, like any commodity.
The buyer doesn’t even conceive that any discipline might be necessary.””

Hammond said, "Do you know what he is talking about?"
Ellie nodded.
““I haven't a clue”.” Hammond said.

“”I’’ll make it simple.”” Malcolm said.
"A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands.
He does not lose his temper and kill his wife.

The person who kills is the person who has no discipline no restraint,
and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special.”

“And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits.
And that is why you think that to build a place like this is simple."

"It was simple," Hammond insisted.

“Then why did it go wrong?"

--from Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton. New York: Ballantine Books, 1990, pp.305-307.

[Trillian]

Most of it.

[Jane Long]

LOL!

[Jane Long]

Mr 💰cience

[null and void]

Aye!

Thanks!

[Nifster]

Good questions

[null and void]

Yeah. I think Dutch Boy pretty much nailed it.

[Skepolitic]

“If you do a study showing a drug has an effect, you can get that published; if you do a study showing it has no effect, you cannot.”

This only holds true if there is a buck to be made on a drug with patent protection. It’s opposite is true if Trump ever held out the possibility that the off-patent drug might have good effect.

[Widget Jr]

That's close. In sociology and other fields, there have been meta-studies, studies have studies, have shown that over half of scientific research can not be repeated. This is why “the latest research” or “recent studies” are worthless for deciding anything. It is 50/50 if they can be repeated.

[Red Badger]

5. Is there consensus?............................

[LambSlave]

This is a great post, and your suggestions are definitely long overdue. The lack of incentives/compensation for being a good peer reviewer, the plentiful rewards (including more opportunities and influence as a reviewer) for supporting the “wanted papers”, as well as the abuse of position as a reviewer or editor to derail competitors are definitely an equal part of the problem.