3 ms·

It makes sense when you look at other industries from car manufacturing to IT. In the west people moved to more and more specialized, cutting edge stuff (Tesla,

by jayzee 15y ago

It makes sense when you look at other industries from car manufacturing to IT. In the west people moved to more and more specialized, cutting edge stuff (Tesla, developing new dbs) while the bread and butter moved to places where it was more economic. Makes sense that the trend would continue in science as well.

joe_the_user 15y ago
Yes, But the thing with science is that a scientist has historically been considered as not just someone competent enough to run a given experiment but also as a "seeker after truth". And this does mean something, it means that the scientist someone who you can trust to some degree to run experiments honestly. And that trust has been broken on regular intervals and that trust gets verified by repetition sure. But the basic "integrity" might just be something that is hard to outsource in the fashion of IT outsourcing. But then again, it might also involve a loss that various companies are happy to accept.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  If it is a lot cheaper then maybe you can have parallel testing of the same experiments by different organizations with no relation to each other. If results not the same within a certain margin of error then somebody screwed up.
- elizabethiorns 15y ago
  The current system for evaluating a scientists reputation and integrity is hardly perfect - it is estimated that fewer than 50% of data in published papers can be reproduced (http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/ http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/). By creating a marketplace that has feedback and reputation it might be possible to actually improve basic "integrity" in scientific research
  - jseliger 15y ago
    it is estimated that fewer than 50% of data in published papers can be reproduced (http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/ http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/). I wonder if that data has been reproduced. I also have a sudden inspiration for an XKCD strip.

by jayzee 15y ago

joe_the_user 15y ago

Yes, But the thing with science is that a scientist has historically been considered as not just someone competent enough to run a given experiment but also as a "seeker after truth". And this does mean something, it means that the scientist someone who you can trust to some degree to run experiments honestly. And that trust has been broken on regular intervals and that trust gets verified by repetition sure. But the basic "integrity" might just be something that is hard to outsource in the fashion of IT outsourcing. But then again, it might also involve a loss that various companies are happy to accept.

felipemnoa 15y ago
If it is a lot cheaper then maybe you can have parallel testing of the same experiments by different organizations with no relation to each other. If results not the same within a certain margin of error then somebody screwed up.
elizabethiorns 15y ago
The current system for evaluating a scientists reputation and integrity is hardly perfect - it is estimated that fewer than 50% of data in published papers can be reproduced (http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/ http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/). By creating a marketplace that has feedback and reputation it might be possible to actually improve basic "integrity" in scientific research
- jseliger 15y ago
  it is estimated that fewer than 50% of data in published papers can be reproduced (http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/ http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/). I wonder if that data has been reproduced. I also have a sudden inspiration for an XKCD strip.