3 ms·

Science is broken. Being open could fix it

2 points by jmnicholson 12y ago

dalke 12y ago
> It was broken because it had evolved into an unrecognizable system that was incompatible with what science, in an ideal world, could have been. We don't live in an ideal world. The existing first-to-publish system went into place precisely because it is a solution for a world of people, not angels. This essay presumes we are angels, or perhaps living in a world where we've fallen from scientific grace. > Science seemed to be more about prestige and personal gain, rather than a noble collective effort to expand knowledge. Herr Leibniz? A Mr. Newton wants to have few words with you. Sanatorium warden? Could you tell Cantor that Kronecker apologizes for calling him a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth? In other words, when has it ever been 'a noble collective effort to expand knowledge' more than 'about prestige and personal gain' in the way that the author thinks is right? (That we can improve things is a given, but the author's premise is that it evolved to the current system from a better one.) > there is no immediately clear reason as to why researchers should be apprehensive about sharing their dataset alongside their results — unless they have something to hide, of course There's a clear, strong, and well-known reason. Sharing data means that others might publish new papers from your data before you've done so. There are also practical matters. The data set may contain personal information covered under various privacy laws. > Research findings should be open access - freely and immediately available online to read and reuse. While I mostly agree, there's a certain constrained view here on what "research findings" means. Does this include corporate for-profit research papers? For example, Laurent Bossavit wrote and sells "The Leprechauns of Software Engineering". This is historical research. Why should it be open access with no cost? I've been researching a topic where some of the foundational papers were written as white papers from a small consulting firm. They were never published in academic journals, but were cited by them. Another reference was in an IBM Technical Report. Do we prevent this sort of research publication? > Science should be universal. Science should be disinterested. Scientists should be asking themselves how they can move collective knowledge — not their careers — forward. Utter bollocks. Science research is guided by morals. Here's a topic that can be addressed scientifically: "what is the percentage of people who die if dropped head-first from 50 meters vs. feet-first?" Are we ever going to pursue it? I sure hope not! We absolutely must not pursue some fields of the universe of science. What if a scientist decides "I can do better science by moving my career forward so I have a larger research group and budget in order to explore the ideas I think are interesting"? How does science (or how do we) judge if this is correct or not?

2 points by jmnicholson 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

> It was broken because it had evolved into an unrecognizable system that was incompatible with what science, in an ideal world, could have been. We don't live in an ideal world. The existing first-to-publish system went into place precisely because it is a solution for a world of people, not angels. This essay presumes we are angels, or perhaps living in a world where we've fallen from scientific grace. > Science seemed to be more about prestige and personal gain, rather than a noble collective effort to expand knowledge. Herr Leibniz? A Mr. Newton wants to have few words with you. Sanatorium warden? Could you tell Cantor that Kronecker apologizes for calling him a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth? In other words, when has it ever been 'a noble collective effort to expand knowledge' more than 'about prestige and personal gain' in the way that the author thinks is right? (That we can improve things is a given, but the author's premise is that it evolved to the current system from a better one.) > there is no immediately clear reason as to why researchers should be apprehensive about sharing their dataset alongside their results — unless they have something to hide, of course There's a clear, strong, and well-known reason. Sharing data means that others might publish new papers from your data before you've done so. There are also practical matters. The data set may contain personal information covered under various privacy laws. > Research findings should be open access - freely and immediately available online to read and reuse. While I mostly agree, there's a certain constrained view here on what "research findings" means. Does this include corporate for-profit research papers? For example, Laurent Bossavit wrote and sells "The Leprechauns of Software Engineering". This is historical research. Why should it be open access with no cost? I've been researching a topic where some of the foundational papers were written as white papers from a small consulting firm. They were never published in academic journals, but were cited by them. Another reference was in an IBM Technical Report. Do we prevent this sort of research publication? > Science should be universal. Science should be disinterested. Scientists should be asking themselves how they can move collective knowledge — not their careers — forward. Utter bollocks. Science research is guided by morals. Here's a topic that can be addressed scientifically: "what is the percentage of people who die if dropped head-first from 50 meters vs. feet-first?" Are we ever going to pursue it? I sure hope not! We absolutely must not pursue some fields of the universe of science. What if a scientist decides "I can do better science by moving my career forward so I have a larger research group and budget in order to explore the ideas I think are interesting"? How does science (or how do we) judge if this is correct or not?