5 ms·

Riddle me this, what has the Republican party done to alleviate replication crisis in scientific research?

mike_hearn 2y ago
How about this move that we're discussing? Getting rid of openly ideological research grants will help the replication rate quite a bit, as that stuff is riddled with basic replication problems, much worse than the median paper. It's just too easy to take some grant money then publish something pseudo-scientific which sounds good to left wing ears, knowing that nobody will double check because they want it to be true. As an example, a lot of research into "misinformation" is like that. It's not replicable out of the gate because the papers don't describe their procedure for deciding whether a claim is true or false. They just present random lists of things that conservatives tend to believe, assert that none of them are true / they're conspiracy theories, then do a survey and use the results to conclude that conservatives are dumb / Russian bots. That's it, that's the entire field. There's no methodology, no theories, nothing to be refined or refuted. There are thousands of papers like this, it's astonishing to witness. I've been writing for years on the topic of bad science, and the fact that universities/granting bodies claim to care about science whilst simultaneously funding and celebrating this stuff is why their reputation has gone down the drain. The consequences were absolutely predictable. Nobody can claim they didn't see it coming. Right now, there's just a grant freeze combined with a review to find the really nakedly partisan DEI stuff. That's nothing. Much more intense stuff is well within the Overton Window of possibilities by this point, like ramped up prosecutions or large scale defunding.
- esalman 2y ago
  You're making so many vaporous claims that I doubt if it's even worth engaging.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    I've been on HN for a decade and worked (tangentially) with the individual you're responding to- I don't think you should take the effort to respond at all. He's made up his mind that the current approach will improve things, and believes he has "data" to support it, but also seems absolutely naive about the intent and effects of the current administration's approaches.
    - esalman 2y ago
      Agreed. I myself was involved in academia close to a decade as well and participated in studies funded by NIH and NSF during Obama, Trump#1 and Biden era. This person has no clue how rigorous and competitive the grant review process is. If appealing to DEI was so successful in getting your study funded, everyone would do it. But it was never the case at least in my experience.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        Great job on making a sub-thread that says nothing. If the process is so rigorous, why is it so easy to find non rigorous outputs? I'm hardly unique in pointing this out: if the best you can do is say everything is fine, despite clear evidence it's not, you can't be surprised at the consequences. If you don't like the current approach that's fine, but where's the alternative? There was a Trump free four years, but nothing was done.

How about this move that we're discussing? Getting rid of openly ideological research grants will help the replication rate quite a bit, as that stuff is riddled with basic replication problems, much worse than the median paper. It's just too easy to take some grant money then publish something pseudo-scientific which sounds good to left wing ears, knowing that nobody will double check because they want it to be true. As an example, a lot of research into "misinformation" is like that. It's not replicable out of the gate because the papers don't describe their procedure for deciding whether a claim is true or false. They just present random lists of things that conservatives tend to believe, assert that none of them are true / they're conspiracy theories, then do a survey and use the results to conclude that conservatives are dumb / Russian bots. That's it, that's the entire field. There's no methodology, no theories, nothing to be refined or refuted. There are thousands of papers like this, it's astonishing to witness. I've been writing for years on the topic of bad science, and the fact that universities/granting bodies claim to care about science whilst simultaneously funding and celebrating this stuff is why their reputation has gone down the drain. The consequences were absolutely predictable. Nobody can claim they didn't see it coming. Right now, there's just a grant freeze combined with a review to find the really nakedly partisan DEI stuff. That's nothing. Much more intense stuff is well within the Overton Window of possibilities by this point, like ramped up prosecutions or large scale defunding.

esalman 2y ago
You're making so many vaporous claims that I doubt if it's even worth engaging.
- dekhn 2y ago
  I've been on HN for a decade and worked (tangentially) with the individual you're responding to- I don't think you should take the effort to respond at all. He's made up his mind that the current approach will improve things, and believes he has "data" to support it, but also seems absolutely naive about the intent and effects of the current administration's approaches.
  - esalman 2y ago
    Agreed. I myself was involved in academia close to a decade as well and participated in studies funded by NIH and NSF during Obama, Trump#1 and Biden era. This person has no clue how rigorous and competitive the grant review process is. If appealing to DEI was so successful in getting your study funded, everyone would do it. But it was never the case at least in my experience.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Great job on making a sub-thread that says nothing. If the process is so rigorous, why is it so easy to find non rigorous outputs? I'm hardly unique in pointing this out: if the best you can do is say everything is fine, despite clear evidence it's not, you can't be surprised at the consequences. If you don't like the current approach that's fine, but where's the alternative? There was a Trump free four years, but nothing was done.