2 ms·

From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. A few bad apples. From the outside, the public sees this as a systemic problem. Theranos, faile

From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. A few bad apples. From the outside, the public sees this as a systemic problem. Theranos, failed promises of covid vaccine efficacy, to mask or not mask, polyunsaturated fats are bad for you .. no wait, they're good for you. Science has a PR problem and like it or not, science needs the support of society at large to succeed and move forward.

mhb 3y ago
That's the opposite of what the "few bad apples" expression is intended to mean.
light_hue_1 3y ago
> From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. A few bad apples. What "inside" are you in? I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results.`
- wddkcs 3y ago
  If it is widely perceived as a massive problem, why are there no moves to change the system? The intransigence shows there is no recognition of the problem, or the perverse incentives prevent change, which is the same problem at another level.
  - bumby 3y ago
    Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." This applies to multiple levels in the publication game. Lab grants would likely dry up if the size of the problem was revealed to be massive. Publications would lose credibility, prestige, and money if the problem proved large. It can be recognized as a problem by those who's salaries don't depend on it, but still remain unchanged because those in the best position to change it have salaries that do.
  - coolhand2120 3y ago
    Perhaps you’re not looking hard enough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
- Eumenes 3y ago
  I'm glad you think this is a big issue. I'd be curious to see polling around the level of trust scientists have in the integrity of the system. I doubt its below 50% approval.
  - InSteady 3y ago
    To be fair, 55-65% trust in the integrity of scientific research among scientists is still abysmal and indicates a huge problem. If we are talking about the number of scientists who see flaws and hold skepticism, that's absolutely fine (I'd argue the number could be much higher and be quite healthy overall). But we are talking about integrity. Ethical research, lack of fraud, lack of bias, lack of perverse incentives, a system that produces high quality and trustworthy output by design, etc.
- refurb 3y ago
  I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results. As a scientist this how I always read papers. It's how I was trained. Don't just read the results, read the paper and critique it - was the method appropriate? were control tests performed? is the statistical analysis sound? And even beyond that - if a substantial claim is made, it's assumed to be an anomaly until reproduced by others. I will say that labs get a reputation. Well known labs with PIs who produce good science are usually treated with a more accepting view (i.e. this is probably true). Unknown labs are treated with a ton of suspicion.
Workaccount2 3y ago
I think the hard problem is that if science was direct, most of the population - the majority, are either not intelligent enough to understand it or not intelligent enough to understand why it is that way. Take masking for example, and here is a bomb most people are totally unaware of: You want the population to wear masks so that the sick people are wearing masks. Masks aren't going to do much to prevent healthy people from getting sick. But they will do a lot to stop sick people from getting others sick. This truth is almost never communicated though. Why? Because then wearing a mask becomes a "mark of illness" and nobody wants to label themselves as sick or potentially sick. So the solution to this is everyone wears a mask all the time. But you cannot communicate this whole scenario either because most people aren't smart enough to grasp it or not smart enough to understand why they need to wear a mask healthy or sick. So this is the kind of problem science faces, and frankly I think the best thing to do is exactly what they did: Insinuate that wearing a mask protects you and insist everyone wear a mask.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- confd 3y ago
  This way of thinking falls apart as soon as the people who are capable of effectively communicating the truth (or at least, gesturing toward evidence that the dominant narrative is being falsified) reach those who are believed to be incapable of comprehending the truth (or at least, the evidence that suggests that the dominant narrative is being falsified).
- abnry 3y ago
  > This truth is almost never communicated though. Why? Because then wearing a mask becomes a "mark of illness" and nobody wants to label themselves as sick or potentially sick. So the solution to this is everyone wears a mask all the time. But you cannot communicate this whole scenario either because most people aren't smart enough to grasp it or not smart enough to understand why they need to wear a mask healthy or sick. I can't help but think this attitude is awful. Most people are too dumb to understand that it is the sick people who should wear masks!? Like what in the world!? No. You shoot straight with the public. Then you plead with them to do what is best for everyone by wearing a mask when they are sick. The alternative, as you suggested, is extremely damaging to society longterm.
throwaway8359 3y ago
> From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. This doesn’t negate your point, but I know someone who’s an "insider" in this particular scandal and sees it as a systemic problem. This researcher/scientist was very disturbed by this scandal after learning about it, and some of their colleagues feel similarly sickened. If you're a good person, it's pretty disturbing to learn that some of your peers would be willing to risk lives by running a trial based on intentionally faked data.

mhb 3y ago

That's the opposite of what the "few bad apples" expression is intended to mean.

light_hue_1 3y ago

> From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. A few bad apples. What "inside" are you in? I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results.`

wddkcs 3y ago
If it is widely perceived as a massive problem, why are there no moves to change the system? The intransigence shows there is no recognition of the problem, or the perverse incentives prevent change, which is the same problem at another level.
- bumby 3y ago
  Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." This applies to multiple levels in the publication game. Lab grants would likely dry up if the size of the problem was revealed to be massive. Publications would lose credibility, prestige, and money if the problem proved large. It can be recognized as a problem by those who's salaries don't depend on it, but still remain unchanged because those in the best position to change it have salaries that do.
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  Perhaps you’re not looking hard enough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Eumenes 3y ago
I'm glad you think this is a big issue. I'd be curious to see polling around the level of trust scientists have in the integrity of the system. I doubt its below 50% approval.
- InSteady 3y ago
  To be fair, 55-65% trust in the integrity of scientific research among scientists is still abysmal and indicates a huge problem. If we are talking about the number of scientists who see flaws and hold skepticism, that's absolutely fine (I'd argue the number could be much higher and be quite healthy overall). But we are talking about integrity. Ethical research, lack of fraud, lack of bias, lack of perverse incentives, a system that produces high quality and trustworthy output by design, etc.
refurb 3y ago
I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results. As a scientist this how I always read papers. It's how I was trained. Don't just read the results, read the paper and critique it - was the method appropriate? were control tests performed? is the statistical analysis sound? And even beyond that - if a substantial claim is made, it's assumed to be an anomaly until reproduced by others. I will say that labs get a reputation. Well known labs with PIs who produce good science are usually treated with a more accepting view (i.e. this is probably true). Unknown labs are treated with a ton of suspicion.

Workaccount2 3y ago

I think the hard problem is that if science was direct, most of the population - the majority, are either not intelligent enough to understand it or not intelligent enough to understand why it is that way. Take masking for example, and here is a bomb most people are totally unaware of: You want the population to wear masks so that the sick people are wearing masks. Masks aren't going to do much to prevent healthy people from getting sick. But they will do a lot to stop sick people from getting others sick. This truth is almost never communicated though. Why? Because then wearing a mask becomes a "mark of illness" and nobody wants to label themselves as sick or potentially sick. So the solution to this is everyone wears a mask all the time. But you cannot communicate this whole scenario either because most people aren't smart enough to grasp it or not smart enough to understand why they need to wear a mask healthy or sick. So this is the kind of problem science faces, and frankly I think the best thing to do is exactly what they did: Insinuate that wearing a mask protects you and insist everyone wear a mask.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
confd 3y ago
This way of thinking falls apart as soon as the people who are capable of effectively communicating the truth (or at least, gesturing toward evidence that the dominant narrative is being falsified) reach those who are believed to be incapable of comprehending the truth (or at least, the evidence that suggests that the dominant narrative is being falsified).
abnry 3y ago
> This truth is almost never communicated though. Why? Because then wearing a mask becomes a "mark of illness" and nobody wants to label themselves as sick or potentially sick. So the solution to this is everyone wears a mask all the time. But you cannot communicate this whole scenario either because most people aren't smart enough to grasp it or not smart enough to understand why they need to wear a mask healthy or sick. I can't help but think this attitude is awful. Most people are too dumb to understand that it is the sick people who should wear masks!? Like what in the world!? No. You shoot straight with the public. Then you plead with them to do what is best for everyone by wearing a mask when they are sick. The alternative, as you suggested, is extremely damaging to society longterm.

throwaway8359 3y ago

> From the inside, researchers/scientists see this as a non-issue. This doesn’t negate your point, but I know someone who’s an "insider" in this particular scandal and sees it as a systemic problem. This researcher/scientist was very disturbed by this scandal after learning about it, and some of their colleagues feel similarly sickened. If you're a good person, it's pretty disturbing to learn that some of your peers would be willing to risk lives by running a trial based on intentionally faked data.