3 ms·

I disagree with this. Academics don't have too much trouble wading through research and synthesizing results. Laypeople so rarely interface with actual research

I disagree with this. Academics don't have too much trouble wading through research and synthesizing results. Laypeople so rarely interface with actual research that the quality of an individual paper is not going to contribute to an overall opinion of academics. Virtually no layperson is forming a coherent opinion of academic research based on an in depth understanding of the replication crisis. Further, the criticism of academia as being full of egg-headed elites who are completely disconnected from the public need has been around for decades - far longer than the current systemic funding and tenure problems.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
I think it's more that the "publish or perish" model has emphasised important/newsworthy results, which has then fed a model of science reporting (and I include the journals in this) that have exaggerated results to the point where trust is strained and science reporting is incredible (in the other sense of the word). The public have been bombarded with ridiculous, counter-intuitive "science" for decades, only for a lot of it to be quietly withdrawn or superceded later. It erodes trust. And that's without taking into consideration the shady corporate-science bullshit like the fat vs sugar debate in nutrition science. If a company can buy a paper that says whatever it wants, and get it peer-reviewed and published in a journal, why would we trust science? Should we even?
- JJMcJ 5y ago
  > newsworthy In medicine, the Journal of the AMA and the New England Journal of Medicine seem to be the main sources of articles that reach the public's eye. The editor of the New England Journal once complained that it was troubling how papers that had only tentative results, more suggestions for further research than conclusions, would get blown out of proportion in the mainstream news media. Some of the burden is on the journalists, not the researchers.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    Agree completely, but the journals do have some power here - they could stop the journalists writing bullshit. But they like the attention the media coverage brings so they don't do that (and then they blame the journos). And of course the journals could make the scientists reframe their papers so they're not catnip for journos.
    - JJMcJ 5y ago
      > they could stop the journalists writing bullshit How do they do that? Start suing news outlets?
not_a_shill 5y ago
It sets up an endless amount of "legitimate" strawmen that any side knock down to delegitimize/"debunk" their opposition. So the media plays a role in this too. But I do agree that at least one of the main problems is that academics have the ability to sift through research while others don't. So better self policing and an easier way for the public to digest the information is probably what's needed here. I think the problem here is that the public don't trust the scientific community to self police. >Further, the criticism of academia as being full of egg-headed elites who are completely disconnected from the public need has been around for decades - far longer than the current systemic funding and tenure problems. I think the internet and social media just really took the mask off for a lot of people. The tribalism probably kicked into overdrive when they can just look researchers up and actually confirm that the scientists are part of their outgroup.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > So better self policing and an easier way for the public to digest the information is probably what's needed here. I'm not sure that better self policing is a good idea. I think we want academics to be exposed to a sea of research, much of which is half baked or has big flaws. Preventing the "probably wrong, but maybe something is here" papers from being discussed limits the ability to actually make big things happen. There is simply an education problem where laypeople (and media) have decided that peer review is something that it has never been and a huge amount of misunderstanding (deliberate or accidental) of the scientific community derives from this. > I think the internet and social media just really took the mask off for a lot of people. The tribalism probably kicked into overdrive when they can just look researchers up and actually confirm that the scientists are part of their outgroup. I think this is definitely true. When TPUSA can basically publish an "enemies list" of academics they don't like the end result is a stream of harassment.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

marcus_holmes 5y ago

I think it's more that the "publish or perish" model has emphasised important/newsworthy results, which has then fed a model of science reporting (and I include the journals in this) that have exaggerated results to the point where trust is strained and science reporting is incredible (in the other sense of the word). The public have been bombarded with ridiculous, counter-intuitive "science" for decades, only for a lot of it to be quietly withdrawn or superceded later. It erodes trust. And that's without taking into consideration the shady corporate-science bullshit like the fat vs sugar debate in nutrition science. If a company can buy a paper that says whatever it wants, and get it peer-reviewed and published in a journal, why would we trust science? Should we even?

JJMcJ 5y ago
> newsworthy In medicine, the Journal of the AMA and the New England Journal of Medicine seem to be the main sources of articles that reach the public's eye. The editor of the New England Journal once complained that it was troubling how papers that had only tentative results, more suggestions for further research than conclusions, would get blown out of proportion in the mainstream news media. Some of the burden is on the journalists, not the researchers.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Agree completely, but the journals do have some power here - they could stop the journalists writing bullshit. But they like the attention the media coverage brings so they don't do that (and then they blame the journos). And of course the journals could make the scientists reframe their papers so they're not catnip for journos.
  - JJMcJ 5y ago
    > they could stop the journalists writing bullshit How do they do that? Start suing news outlets?

not_a_shill 5y ago

It sets up an endless amount of "legitimate" strawmen that any side knock down to delegitimize/"debunk" their opposition. So the media plays a role in this too. But I do agree that at least one of the main problems is that academics have the ability to sift through research while others don't. So better self policing and an easier way for the public to digest the information is probably what's needed here. I think the problem here is that the public don't trust the scientific community to self police. >Further, the criticism of academia as being full of egg-headed elites who are completely disconnected from the public need has been around for decades - far longer than the current systemic funding and tenure problems. I think the internet and social media just really took the mask off for a lot of people. The tribalism probably kicked into overdrive when they can just look researchers up and actually confirm that the scientists are part of their outgroup.

UncleMeat 5y ago
> So better self policing and an easier way for the public to digest the information is probably what's needed here. I'm not sure that better self policing is a good idea. I think we want academics to be exposed to a sea of research, much of which is half baked or has big flaws. Preventing the "probably wrong, but maybe something is here" papers from being discussed limits the ability to actually make big things happen. There is simply an education problem where laypeople (and media) have decided that peer review is something that it has never been and a huge amount of misunderstanding (deliberate or accidental) of the scientific community derives from this. > I think the internet and social media just really took the mask off for a lot of people. The tribalism probably kicked into overdrive when they can just look researchers up and actually confirm that the scientists are part of their outgroup. I think this is definitely true. When TPUSA can basically publish an "enemies list" of academics they don't like the end result is a stream of harassment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]