Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not
“I SEE a train wreck looming,” warned Daniel Kahneman, an eminent psychologist, in an open letter last year. The premonition concerned research on a phenomenon known as “priming”. Priming studies suggest that decisions can be influenced by apparently irrelevant actions or events that took place just before the cusp of choice. They have been a boom area in psychology over the past decade, and some of their insights have already made it out of the lab and into the toolkits of policy wonks keen on “nudging” the populace.
Dr Kahneman and a growing number of his colleagues fear that a lot of this priming research is poorly founded. Over the past few years various researchers have made systematic attempts to replicate some of the more widely cited priming experiments. Many of these replications have failed. In April, for instance, a paper in PLoS ONE, a journal, reported that nine separate experiments had not managed to reproduce the results of a famous study from 1998 purporting to show that thinking about a professor before taking an intelligence test leads to a higher score than imagining a football hooligan.
The idea that the same experiments always get the same results, no matter who performs them, is one of the cornerstones of science’s claim to objective truth. If a systematic campaign of replication does not lead to the same results, then either the original research is flawed (as the replicators claim) or the replications are (as many of the original researchers on priming contend). Either way, something is awry.
To err is all too common
It is tempting to see the priming fracas as an isolated case in an area of science—psychology—easily marginalised as soft and wayward. But irreproducibility is much more widespread. A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies.
The governments of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, spent $59 billion on biomedical research in 2012, nearly double the figure in 2000. One of the justifications for this is that basic-science results provided by governments form the basis for private drug-development work. If companies cannot rely on academic research, that reasoning breaks down. When an official at America’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) reckons, despairingly, that researchers would find it hard to reproduce at least three-quarters of all published biomedical findings, the public part of the process seems to have failed.
Academic scientists readily acknowledge that they often get things wrong. But they also hold fast to the idea that these errors get corrected over time as other scientists try to take the work further. Evidence that many more dodgy results are published than are subsequently corrected or withdrawn calls that much-vaunted capacity for self-correction into question. There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think.
Various factors contribute to the problem. Statistical mistakes are widespread. The peer reviewers who evaluate papers before journals commit to publishing them are much worse at spotting mistakes than they or others appreciate. Professional pressure, competition and ambition push scientists to publish more quickly than would be wise. A career structure which lays great stress on publishing copious papers exacerbates all these problems. “There is no cost to getting things wrong,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who has taken an interest in his discipline’s persistent errors. “The cost is not getting them published.”
First, the statistics, which if perhaps off-putting are quite crucial.
Go deeper with Bing News on:
- Vulnerable adults in police custody missing out on vital support, research showson October 13, 2020 at 3:33 am
Thousands of police detentions and voluntary interviews of vulnerable people may have been carried out without an 'appropriate adult' (AA) present, ...
- HOUSE COMMITTEE EXAMINES VOTING SYSTEM RELIABILITYon October 8, 2020 at 10:15 pm
professor in the Institute for Software Research at Carnegie Mellon University (R to L) participate in a House Administration Committee Hearing on the reliability of voting systems on September 28, ...
- Study Evaluates Day-to-Day Reliability of Solar Energy Under Climate Changeon October 8, 2020 at 6:19 am
Although solar power is considered a popular form of renewable energy, a new study reports that deviations in regional climates due to global warming could render areas currently deemed suitable for ...
- Aluminum Conductors Market - Actionable Research on COVID-19 | Expansion of T&D Networks to Boost the Market Growth | Technavioon October 7, 2020 at 9:00 am
Technavio has announced its latest market research report titled Global Aluminum Conductors Market 2020-2024 (Graphic: Business Wire) LONDON-- ( BUSINESS WIRE )--The global aluminum conductors market ...
- Partnership Kicks Off 5G Tech Jobs and Research in Puerto Ricoon October 7, 2020 at 4:00 am
Celeres Capital, an investment and advisory firm based in San Juan, , announced that the U.S. territory has secured ...
Go deeper with Google Headlines on:
Go deeper with Bing News on:
Science as self-correcting
- Trump’s Willful Ignorance of Science Is Killing Uson October 12, 2020 at 7:59 am
The president sees science as a servant that should further his political interests, rather than as a tool for saving lives amid the crises of the coronavirus and climate change ...
- Rosalind Franklin Saw DNA Firston October 7, 2020 at 5:01 pm
It’s a standard science trivia question: Who discovered the structure of DNA? With the basic concepts of molecular biology now taught at a fairly detailed level in grade school, and with DNA ...
- Re-imagining education in an India at 100on October 6, 2020 at 5:30 am
The reason for this is that the IIMs, as indeed the Indian Institutes of Technology, have been performing institutions with robust self-correcting systems. The greatest insurance for autonomy is ...
- The Philosophical Implications of Science Communication in the Food Industryon October 6, 2020 at 5:24 am
Applied science can pose some serious difficulties for the effective ... and then orient them into a thought process that is open, objective, critical, and self-correcting in order to better ...
- Election 2020: Looking for optimism after a disheartening debateon October 5, 2020 at 7:34 am
As a professor of political science, I asked my students to watch ... offered some confirmation that American democracy was self-correcting. I cast my first presidential vote for Jimmy Carter ...