4 ms·
I think a number of things contribute to the rise(?) of groupthink in the sciences (particularly in biology). One is the increasing age [0] of the peers in the
by biomcgary 10y ago
I think a number of things contribute to the rise(?) of groupthink in the sciences (particularly in biology). One is the increasing age [0] of the peers in the peer review systems. Younger people are typically willing (and able) to perform more risky novel research. However, the biggest single factor is the drop in science funding, which leads to fear and an inherently conservative response (on the part of both grant applicants and reviewers).
[0] http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2009/12/03/nih-grants-by-age/ http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2009/12/03/nih-grants-by-...
- digi_owl 10y agoThere is also the whole NPM-ish attempts at using things like publication frequency and number of references to gauge the ROI on research, and therefore the performance of the scientists involved. All this runs smack into Cambell's law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_law
- dnautics 10y agowow, thanks, I had never heard of Campbell's law, and it really puts into a concise form what I believe about a lot of things (from science publishing to interest rate manipulation).
- digi_owl 10y agoI think i originally ran into a British variant, called Goodheart's Law, while reading about reforms to their National Health Service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law The particular example being of how hospitals where given a negative rating based on how many patients were left waiting on stretchers (the rating system being introduced in an attempt at producing market like forces within the NHS). To get around this, the staff started removing the wheels on the stretchers while the patient was waiting. That way it was a bed, not a stretcher...