4 ms·

Very well put. This is the clearest way of looking at it in my view. I’ll pile on to say that you also have the variable of how the non-scientist public gleans

Very well put. This is the clearest way of looking at it in my view. I’ll pile on to say that you also have the variable of how the non-scientist public gleans information from the academics. Academia used to be a more insular cadre of people seeking knowledge for its own sake, so this was less relevant. What’s new here is that our society has fixated on the idea that matters of state and administration should be significantly guided by the results and opinions of academia. Our enthusiasm for science-guided policy is a triple whammy, because 1. Knowing that the results of your study have the potential to affect policy creates incentives that may change how the underlying science is performed 2. Knowing that results of academia have outside influence may change WHICH science is performed, and draw in less-than-impartial actors to perform it 3. The outsized potential impact invites the uninformed public to peer into the world of academia and draw half-baked conclusions from results that are still preliminary or unreplicated. Relatively narrow or specious studies can gain a lot of undue traction if their conclusions appear, to the untrained eye, to provide a good bat to hit your opponent with.

Maxion 3y ago
A significant problem we face today is the way research, especially in academia, gets spotlighted in the media. They often hyper-focus on single studies, which can give a skewed representation of scientific progress. The reality is that science isn't about isolated findings; it's a cumulative effort. One paper might suggest a conclusion, but it's the collective weight of multiple studies that provides a more rounded understanding. Media's tendency to cherry-pick results often distorts this nuanced process. It's also worth noting the trend of prioritizing certain studies, like large RCTs or systematic reviews, while overlooking smaller ones, especially pilot studies. Pilot studies are foundational—they often act as the preliminary research needed before larger studies can even be considered or funded. By sidelining or dismissing these smaller, exploratory studies, we risk undermining the very foundation that bigger, more definitive research efforts are built on. If we consistently ignore or undervalue pilot studies, the bigger and often more impactful studies may never even see the light of day.

Maxion 3y ago

A significant problem we face today is the way research, especially in academia, gets spotlighted in the media. They often hyper-focus on single studies, which can give a skewed representation of scientific progress. The reality is that science isn't about isolated findings; it's a cumulative effort. One paper might suggest a conclusion, but it's the collective weight of multiple studies that provides a more rounded understanding. Media's tendency to cherry-pick results often distorts this nuanced process. It's also worth noting the trend of prioritizing certain studies, like large RCTs or systematic reviews, while overlooking smaller ones, especially pilot studies. Pilot studies are foundational—they often act as the preliminary research needed before larger studies can even be considered or funded. By sidelining or dismissing these smaller, exploratory studies, we risk undermining the very foundation that bigger, more definitive research efforts are built on. If we consistently ignore or undervalue pilot studies, the bigger and often more impactful studies may never even see the light of day.