4 ms·

I don't doubt the sentiment is true, but hasn't this kind of science always been this way? By that I mean authors inflating the importance of their work; everyo

I don't doubt the sentiment is true, but hasn't this kind of science always been this way? By that I mean authors inflating the importance of their work; everyone wants to be seen as having the biggest breakthroughs. When I think of dysfunction in 'science' I usually think of unfalsifiable hypothesis, the repeatability crisis in Psychology, p-hacking in Medicine, misuse of statistical methods in Economics and other epistemic issues, but I don't think of exaggerations like this.

dekhn 4y ago
Scientists have long been self-promoters who desire that their theories become the dominant ones and they use many techniques to achieve this. However, the trend towards maximizing the predicted outcomes of your research really took off during the human genomics project.
- YorkshireSeason 4y ago
  I would imagine that it's the metrics universities and funding agencies apply in promotion decisions. For example, my (well-known) university decided to measure impact, and takes "Twitter engagement" as one proxy metric for impact -- against my explicit recommendations. I'll leave the consequences to everybody's imagination.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Yes. In fact many scientists post to twitter but don't look at the replies (Emily Bender is an example) or even block you if you disagree with them. That's not engagement and I wonder what the dean would do about a promotion where the scientist just sort of blathered on twitter and had lots of followers, but wasn't actually providing any real scientific value (again, Emily Bender is an example).
    - YorkshireSeason 4y ago
      Deans typically lack detailed technical knowledge to evaluate candidates (not to mention time), they just go with the flow, and want to run the department smoothly. I think the real mechanism is this: those who make the decision (those with the most power, i.e. those who bring in the most funding and can threaten to leave if they don't get their way) already know whom they want and they cherry-pick data, eg "impact" figures, to bolster their case. That enables the dean then to justify the decision in public with those cherry-picked figures ... (the dean can hardly say we are hiring X because otherwise top funding getter Y will leave) I think Twitter is less important in STEM subjects than in social sciences or humanities, as STEM has more clearcut results.
- adalacelove 4y ago
  > Scientists have long been self-promoters The famous ones more than the rest, I guess. To my mind nevertheless comes Cavendish, my hero.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Any more info on the changes from the human genomics project?

dekhn 4y ago

Scientists have long been self-promoters who desire that their theories become the dominant ones and they use many techniques to achieve this. However, the trend towards maximizing the predicted outcomes of your research really took off during the human genomics project.

YorkshireSeason 4y ago
I would imagine that it's the metrics universities and funding agencies apply in promotion decisions. For example, my (well-known) university decided to measure impact, and takes "Twitter engagement" as one proxy metric for impact -- against my explicit recommendations. I'll leave the consequences to everybody's imagination.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Yes. In fact many scientists post to twitter but don't look at the replies (Emily Bender is an example) or even block you if you disagree with them. That's not engagement and I wonder what the dean would do about a promotion where the scientist just sort of blathered on twitter and had lots of followers, but wasn't actually providing any real scientific value (again, Emily Bender is an example).
  - YorkshireSeason 4y ago
    Deans typically lack detailed technical knowledge to evaluate candidates (not to mention time), they just go with the flow, and want to run the department smoothly. I think the real mechanism is this: those who make the decision (those with the most power, i.e. those who bring in the most funding and can threaten to leave if they don't get their way) already know whom they want and they cherry-pick data, eg "impact" figures, to bolster their case. That enables the dean then to justify the decision in public with those cherry-picked figures ... (the dean can hardly say we are hiring X because otherwise top funding getter Y will leave) I think Twitter is less important in STEM subjects than in social sciences or humanities, as STEM has more clearcut results.
adalacelove 4y ago
> Scientists have long been self-promoters The famous ones more than the rest, I guess. To my mind nevertheless comes Cavendish, my hero.
brutusborn 4y ago
Any more info on the changes from the human genomics project?