3 ms·
> You have to give people less incentives and more just time to do their basic job. That was the idea behind tenure, but then tenure became the incentive. Job
by dkarl 2y ago
> You have to give people less incentives and more just time to do their basic job.
That was the idea behind tenure, but then tenure became the incentive. Job security at a socially prestigious job with solid benefits is a huge incentive to fraud even to people who don't care about science, and then for people who do care about doing science and have been directing their entire adult lives towards that end, they face a cataclysmic career bifurcation: either they get a tenured academic research position and spend their lives doing science, or they leave science behind altogether and at best end up doing science-adjacent product development which at best best, if they join a pharmaceutical company or something like that, might sometimes closely resemble scientific research despite being fundamentally different in its goals.
Given the dramatic consequences on people's lives, fraud should be expected. Academic research should acknowledge the situation and accept that it needs safeguards against fraud as surely as banks need audits and jewelry stores need burglar alarms.
- nextos 2y agoOP here. Perhaps I didn't explain it well, but I think the key is to de-incentivize bad behavior, and to make sure people publishing have some skin in the game. Right now, it's the opposite. The system rewards flashy findings with no rigor. And that's a slippery slope towards result misrepresentation and downright fraud.