3 ms·

> Doesn’t it make more sense to revisit how the existing funding is spent? i don't know what you'd find in a financial audit that a scientific audit wouldn't t

by a-dub 5y ago

> Doesn’t it make more sense to revisit how the existing funding is spent? i don't know what you'd find in a financial audit that a scientific audit wouldn't tell you, but a passing financial audit won't tell you if a scientific finding actually sticks. therefore, seems like a better deal to audit the results, no?

Eelongate 5y ago
> "i don't know what you'd find in a financial audit that a scientific audit wouldn't tell you" Financial audits would uncover financial fraud. > "seems like a better deal to audit the results, no?" Better to audit both.
- a-dub 5y ago
  i suppose. i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions. accounting and best practices around it have been around for a long time. this discussion is about ensuring scientific velocity by increasing the rigor required to declare success and add new knowledge to the commons. unless there's large scale fraud going on, i honestly don't think bringing in additional auditors to look at books that are already professionally kept is going to benefit anyone other than said auditors.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    > i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions. If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
  - a-dub 5y ago
    > If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits. these are all nonprofit institutions, some are government run, i'm pretty sure they're required to engage independent professional auditing firms just as a condition of their tax exempt status, let alone acceptance of federal grant dollars.
bmitc 5y ago
I didn't mean spent in a financial sense. I meant in how the research itself is performed (or maybe how it's granted and re-upped), as that seems to be the issue. If research continues as it is, won't most reproduction studies still fail if this posted study is accurate? It makes more sense to treat the cause and not the symptom.
- tsbischof 5y ago
  Part of this is being addressed through increased reporting requirements for data, software, analysis pipelines, pre-registered protocols, and the like. This has led anecedotally to some improvements in quality, and at minimum it makes initial due diligence on the publication significantly more impactful.

by a-dub 5y ago

Eelongate 5y ago

> "i don't know what you'd find in a financial audit that a scientific audit wouldn't tell you" Financial audits would uncover financial fraud. > "seems like a better deal to audit the results, no?" Better to audit both.

a-dub 5y ago
i suppose. i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions. accounting and best practices around it have been around for a long time. this discussion is about ensuring scientific velocity by increasing the rigor required to declare success and add new knowledge to the commons. unless there's large scale fraud going on, i honestly don't think bringing in additional auditors to look at books that are already professionally kept is going to benefit anyone other than said auditors.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  > i suspect most financial fraud would be caught by the accountants and grant administrators at respective institutions. If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits.
- a-dub 5y ago
  > If it was only their money on the line, that would probably suffice. But when researchers (and by extension the institutions they work at) are receiving government grants, I think there need to be independent audits. these are all nonprofit institutions, some are government run, i'm pretty sure they're required to engage independent professional auditing firms just as a condition of their tax exempt status, let alone acceptance of federal grant dollars.

bmitc 5y ago

I didn't mean spent in a financial sense. I meant in how the research itself is performed (or maybe how it's granted and re-upped), as that seems to be the issue. If research continues as it is, won't most reproduction studies still fail if this posted study is accurate? It makes more sense to treat the cause and not the symptom.

tsbischof 5y ago
Part of this is being addressed through increased reporting requirements for data, software, analysis pipelines, pre-registered protocols, and the like. This has led anecedotally to some improvements in quality, and at minimum it makes initial due diligence on the publication significantly more impactful.