Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not
“I SEE a train wreck looming,” warned Daniel Kahneman, an eminent psychologist, in an open letter last year. The premonition concerned research on a phenomenon known as “priming”. Priming studies suggest that decisions can be influenced by apparently irrelevant actions or events that took place just before the cusp of choice. They have been a boom area in psychology over the past decade, and some of their insights have already made it out of the lab and into the toolkits of policy wonks keen on “nudging” the populace.
Dr Kahneman and a growing number of his colleagues fear that a lot of this priming research is poorly founded. Over the past few years various researchers have made systematic attempts to replicate some of the more widely cited priming experiments. Many of these replications have failed. In April, for instance, a paper in PLoS ONE, a journal, reported that nine separate experiments had not managed to reproduce the results of a famous study from 1998 purporting to show that thinking about a professor before taking an intelligence test leads to a higher score than imagining a football hooligan.
The idea that the same experiments always get the same results, no matter who performs them, is one of the cornerstones of science’s claim to objective truth. If a systematic campaign of replication does not lead to the same results, then either the original research is flawed (as the replicators claim) or the replications are (as many of the original researchers on priming contend). Either way, something is awry.
To err is all too common
It is tempting to see the priming fracas as an isolated case in an area of science—psychology—easily marginalised as soft and wayward. But irreproducibility is much more widespread. A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies.
The governments of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, spent $59 billion on biomedical research in 2012, nearly double the figure in 2000. One of the justifications for this is that basic-science results provided by governments form the basis for private drug-development work. If companies cannot rely on academic research, that reasoning breaks down. When an official at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings, the public part of the process seems to have failed.
Academic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think.
Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. “There is no cost to getting things wrong,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline’s persistent errors. “The cost is not getting them published.”
First, the statistics, which if perhaps off-putting are quite crucial.
Go deeper with Bing News on:
- Improving grid reliability in the face of extreme eventson May 7, 2021 at 5:50 am
The nation's power grid remains vulnerable to disruption from extreme events including wildfires, severe storms, and cyberattacks. Variable generation resources and load volatility also present ...
- Breakthrough dramatically increases the reliability of perovskite solar cellson May 7, 2021 at 3:19 am
One of the materials being investigated for use in making new types of solar cells is perovskite. The are several drawbacks to the material that researchers are working to overcome, and one of ...
- US Air Force signs research contract for ‘Bell’s High Speed VTOL’on May 5, 2021 at 6:17 pm
The US Air Force Research Laboratory has contracted Bell to research a high-speed vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
- Asset Reliability Software market size to record a substantially CAGR over 2020-2025on May 5, 2021 at 3:30 pm
Global Asset Reliability Software Market Report 2020 comes with the extensive industry analysis of development components, patterns, flows and sizes.
- Groups Say Gunshot Detection System in Chicago Is Unreliable, Seek Reviewon May 5, 2021 at 9:36 am
The gunshot detection system that set in motion the recent fatal police shooting of a 13-year-old boy in Chicago routinely reports gunshots where there are none, sending officers into predominantly ...
Go deeper with Google Headlines on:
Go deeper with Bing News on:
Science as self-correcting
- Cramer's Mad Money Recap: Papa John's, Etsyon May 6, 2021 at 8:05 pm
Jim Cramer says that between stimulus programs and vaccines, it looks like the American economy has weathered the worst of COVID.
- In a post-truth world, science is under threat — we need an inoculation against fake newson May 5, 2021 at 3:46 pm
The epidemic-like rise in alarming pseudoscience and fake news trends and associated damaging outcomes raise a crucial question: Will the scientific process survive this onslaught or will anti-vaxxers ...
- Retractions of coronavirus research show process of science working as it shouldon May 3, 2021 at 5:00 pm
But despite these short-term setbacks, the scrutiny and subsequent correction of the papers actually show that science is working. Reporting of the pandemic is allowing people to see, many for the ...
- Cory Doctorowon May 3, 2021 at 1:45 am
A lack of federal leadership left each state to figure out how to interpret the science, and many states punted public health decisions to counties or cities or even smaller units, like universities.
- Rash Of Retractions Highlight Flaws In Science, But Also Self-Correctionon April 22, 2021 at 10:41 am
“It is very important that they treat the fact of the retraction as part of a self-correcting process, not as an indictment of science either in the individual instance or science writ large,” she ...