3 ms·
As an ex-scientist, I’m sad to say this is true of most research. It starts in grad school- your research is most likely going to advance an agenda set by your
by in_cahoots 5y ago
As an ex-scientist, I’m sad to say this is true of most research. It starts in grad school- your research is most likely going to advance an agenda set by your professor. Then when you apply for a post-doc your network consists of collaborators who think like your professor and are more familiar with your work. Same thing with applying for a tenure-track position. In my sub-field I could tell what line of thought a paper was going to advance just by reading the list of schools that the authors came from.
The idea of the pioneering research who establishes a reputation through novel work and rigorous experiments is mostly a myth. You advance when your peers like your work, which creates all the wrong incentives.
- im3w1l 5y agoI'm sure you are right, but it would seem to me that those agendas are usually so much insider baseball that it doesn't really harm the public.
- shadilay 5y agoUsually isn't much good if you let something like thalidomide slip through.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThe less than stellar public policies that have come to us as a result of circle jerks within the fields of sociology and criminal justice (and others) are probably better examples.
- shadilay 5y agoBetter but less obvious.
- gadders 5y agoThat's the thing when people say "Trust the science." Yes, the scientific method is absolutely the best way to advance human knowledge. However, like any process mediated by humans its administration is fallible.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 5y agoWhen I say "trust the science" I mean that almost nobody but the actual scientists has a chance to provide actual counter arguments, so unless you hold a PhD in the field, you better believe the majority opinion. Generally people who don't "trust the science" get their information from social media, not by studying the actual papers and finding flaws.