3 ms·
All science is poisoned by conflicts of interest, as the authors are always incentivized to have people believe the results of the paper, regardless of the vali
by karpierz 5y ago
All science is poisoned by conflicts of interest, as the authors are always incentivized to have people believe the results of the paper, regardless of the validity of it.
Whether that be because they want to get tenure, enact change in the world, build prestige for their company to improve hiring/stock prices, or get a book deal.
- pphysch 5y agoYou're omitting two of the main historical motivations for science: 1) Solving concrete problems (desalination, energy storage, flying like a bird, getting to the moon, etc) 2) Discovery for its own sake, sense of power over nature Both of these can be pursued safely without a toxic CoI.
- karpierz 5y agoYes, if the people researching it aren't subject to pressures that humans are normally subject to. If have any desires beyond 1/2, then there's a conflict of interest. For example, if you need money to eat. Or, if you want to solve a concrete problem/discover things, and believe that if you got funding you could do so. Or if getting tenure would mean you get to solve more concrete problems, and fudging one paper would let you do that. It's not possible to avoid conflicts of interest categorically. It is possible to manage the impact of them. For example, the peer review process makes it harder (but not impossible) for a lone researcher to publish inaccurate findings. The question isn't whether there's a conflict of interest in the research, the question is whether the system publishes solid research despite the conflicts of interest.