5 ms·

I think it’s a fairly interesting story over all, and it feels like exactly how science should happen. We are humans and easily deluded. We fall easily for thin

I think it’s a fairly interesting story over all, and it feels like exactly how science should happen. We are humans and easily deluded. We fall easily for things we wish to be true. The fascinating story behind LK99 is incredibly human - including the rushing a preprint out to secure a noble prize by one of the researchers who was being excluded. The fascinating part to me was the fact engineers and scientists could on their own time try to replicate and did so in the open. People were excited and eager for it to be true and found hope in the ambiguity and excitement in the partial successes, and dreamed of what could be. Then, through careful analysis by experts who know their subjects well, we learned it was not the magic we dreamed it might be but a magic that we already knew about. A negative result of something so many people wished to be true is an ultimate victory of science, and to me more exciting than a positive result in many ways. It tells me we are on the right track on a great many things in the world, when it feels often we are on a wrong track on most things.

laserbeam 3y ago
I disagree. The paper should never have been published. Science should not happen in the news with people making wild claims about non peer reviewed papers. More so about papers that were getting lots of negative public peer review in real time. The only reason this story has a happy ending is the authors included manufacturing instructions. But everything else about the paper is not a good model of how to publish (wild claims that you will revolutionise the world, the title, the bad graphs, the 2nd paper that was published with different authors...). The fact that papers get retracted is nothing new. Science as a field is already generally good at retractions. Science is generally bad at incentivising reproduction... But this case was extreme and not a good model. It should not require sensationalist news and dozens of labs to reproduce a paper that was failing peer review.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  > The paper should never have been published. The paper wasn't published, despite the phrasing in the nature article. arXiv is effectively a moderated blog
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I think we disagree about what science is. Science isn’t something that is a optimal condition process. It’s a process resilient to human nature. Everything you hold up as a failure is in my mind a victory for science. The failures of science are the papers that are outright fraud and as such are cunningly crafted to deceive and it actually works, and we believe falsehoods to this day - which I think we agree on being the failure of science. This however was not. Yes the paper shouldn’t have been published. But it was. Etc. As humans are wont to do. Science didn’t happen in the news - excitement happened in the news. Human failures and bias reigned. Yet Science happened in the lab. That is victory. Yet, the fact there are failures in no way impugns the victories.
- tony69 3y ago
  Agree except on the peer review part. Peer review is a farce perpetrated by the journal industry, both of which are an unnecessary burden and tax on science. What “peer review” pretends to accomplish should happen after publication (comments or the sort).
- beowulfey 3y ago
  None of this WAS published.
ThePhysicist 3y ago
No, this was just bad science from the beginning. I've done experimental physics research and the way this team published their results and how sloppy everything looked is definitely not how science should happen, it's just a great way to ruin your reputation as a scientist (which the original authors thoroughly did). Every PhD student learns to e.g. include proof that an observed effect is not caused by a different mechanism than the one claimed (i.e. ferromagnetism instead of superconductivity), this is sorely lacking from the original publication. That paper would never have made it through peer review. The paper producing single crystal LK-99 and refuting the claims [1] is good science, read it and you'll immediately notice the differences in the quality of the text, the diagrams, presentation of methods, overall structure and conclusions. 1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I don’t think you got my point. I didn’t say their science was well done. I said science worked the way it’s supposed to work. Science can’t depend on everyone being flawless or above board, being unbiased, etc. the entire process - end to end - is built around the idea that we are all flawed, but through collaboration and rigor, we can see past the flaws to some deeper truth. That’s a collective effort. It’s perhaps easier when everything is done really really well. But it’s more impressive when everything is off the rails.
- PhazonJim 3y ago
  > the way this team published their results The results weren't formally published.
globular-toast 3y ago
Wow, so in the end you still think science is going to save us? We're completely ignoring science every single day when we go about our thoroughly unsustainable lives. We only like science when it gives us more (like LK-99). We ignore it otherwise. There is no reason to believe science will give us anything more apart from simply wanting it to be true.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I don’t know if anything will save us. I don’t know that’s the job of science regardless. But I believe when science works, it’s amazing and starkly so in a world of so much broken.
svara 3y ago
A lot of people, myself included, are disappointed about how "science happened" here and absolutely don't share the view that it should be like this. You're right that the system ultimately worked. But doing things "well" isn't just to win some aesthetics contest. It's essential precisely because, due to all our human flaws, it's too easy to delude yourself by doing sloppy work. In this case, doing sloppy work has won the authors international fame and attention -- an insult to all those who do their experiments properly. The LK-99 authors probably didn't do themselves any favors in the long run, but it is easy to think of examples where sloppy work leads to some quick social media wins, but the topic is not as sexy so ultimately isn't scrutinized in the same way. Social media clout is already playing a role in hiring decisions, and social media is only becoming more important. If they haven't already done so, it's just a matter of time before funding agencies factor it into their decisions. Performative show science designed to wow a mass public is exactly what we don't need. These things actually require real, deep study, talent, and tens of thousands of hours of hard work to do and assess properly. The people doing that need to be able to do their work in peace without needing to pander to crowds.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Right - it would certainly make science easier if we weren’t human, but we are, so we devised a system that is eventually resilient to quackery and hysteria. It’s impractical to lament our fate as hairless apes driven by the need to preen in public and dream of bigger better shinies. The truth doesn’t have to come with fanfare. It just has to dominate in the end.

laserbeam 3y ago

I disagree. The paper should never have been published. Science should not happen in the news with people making wild claims about non peer reviewed papers. More so about papers that were getting lots of negative public peer review in real time. The only reason this story has a happy ending is the authors included manufacturing instructions. But everything else about the paper is not a good model of how to publish (wild claims that you will revolutionise the world, the title, the bad graphs, the 2nd paper that was published with different authors...). The fact that papers get retracted is nothing new. Science as a field is already generally good at retractions. Science is generally bad at incentivising reproduction... But this case was extreme and not a good model. It should not require sensationalist news and dozens of labs to reproduce a paper that was failing peer review.

nickelpro 3y ago
> The paper should never have been published. The paper wasn't published, despite the phrasing in the nature article. arXiv is effectively a moderated blog
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I think we disagree about what science is. Science isn’t something that is a optimal condition process. It’s a process resilient to human nature. Everything you hold up as a failure is in my mind a victory for science. The failures of science are the papers that are outright fraud and as such are cunningly crafted to deceive and it actually works, and we believe falsehoods to this day - which I think we agree on being the failure of science. This however was not. Yes the paper shouldn’t have been published. But it was. Etc. As humans are wont to do. Science didn’t happen in the news - excitement happened in the news. Human failures and bias reigned. Yet Science happened in the lab. That is victory. Yet, the fact there are failures in no way impugns the victories.
tony69 3y ago
Agree except on the peer review part. Peer review is a farce perpetrated by the journal industry, both of which are an unnecessary burden and tax on science. What “peer review” pretends to accomplish should happen after publication (comments or the sort).
beowulfey 3y ago
None of this WAS published.

ThePhysicist 3y ago

No, this was just bad science from the beginning. I've done experimental physics research and the way this team published their results and how sloppy everything looked is definitely not how science should happen, it's just a great way to ruin your reputation as a scientist (which the original authors thoroughly did). Every PhD student learns to e.g. include proof that an observed effect is not caused by a different mechanism than the one claimed (i.e. ferromagnetism instead of superconductivity), this is sorely lacking from the original publication. That paper would never have made it through peer review. The paper producing single crystal LK-99 and refuting the claims [1] is good science, read it and you'll immediately notice the differences in the quality of the text, the diagrams, presentation of methods, overall structure and conclusions. 1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06256

fnordpiglet 3y ago
I don’t think you got my point. I didn’t say their science was well done. I said science worked the way it’s supposed to work. Science can’t depend on everyone being flawless or above board, being unbiased, etc. the entire process - end to end - is built around the idea that we are all flawed, but through collaboration and rigor, we can see past the flaws to some deeper truth. That’s a collective effort. It’s perhaps easier when everything is done really really well. But it’s more impressive when everything is off the rails.
PhazonJim 3y ago
> the way this team published their results The results weren't formally published.

globular-toast 3y ago

Wow, so in the end you still think science is going to save us? We're completely ignoring science every single day when we go about our thoroughly unsustainable lives. We only like science when it gives us more (like LK-99). We ignore it otherwise. There is no reason to believe science will give us anything more apart from simply wanting it to be true.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
I don’t know if anything will save us. I don’t know that’s the job of science regardless. But I believe when science works, it’s amazing and starkly so in a world of so much broken.

svara 3y ago

A lot of people, myself included, are disappointed about how "science happened" here and absolutely don't share the view that it should be like this. You're right that the system ultimately worked. But doing things "well" isn't just to win some aesthetics contest. It's essential precisely because, due to all our human flaws, it's too easy to delude yourself by doing sloppy work. In this case, doing sloppy work has won the authors international fame and attention -- an insult to all those who do their experiments properly. The LK-99 authors probably didn't do themselves any favors in the long run, but it is easy to think of examples where sloppy work leads to some quick social media wins, but the topic is not as sexy so ultimately isn't scrutinized in the same way. Social media clout is already playing a role in hiring decisions, and social media is only becoming more important. If they haven't already done so, it's just a matter of time before funding agencies factor it into their decisions. Performative show science designed to wow a mass public is exactly what we don't need. These things actually require real, deep study, talent, and tens of thousands of hours of hard work to do and assess properly. The people doing that need to be able to do their work in peace without needing to pander to crowds.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Right - it would certainly make science easier if we weren’t human, but we are, so we devised a system that is eventually resilient to quackery and hysteria. It’s impractical to lament our fate as hairless apes driven by the need to preen in public and dream of bigger better shinies. The truth doesn’t have to come with fanfare. It just has to dominate in the end.