Giant pandas. Self-fertilizing plants. People.
Lots of species have been proposed as “evolutionary dead ends” (though whether they actually are is another question). And now added to those ranks might be science itself.
A new paper has argued that science appears to be in something of an evolutionary cul-de-sac, mired in poor methodology and misguided objectives that have changed only for the worse over the past 60 years. Indeed, science is doing pretty much what it has evolved to do — produce a steady stream of plausible and attention-grabbing but frequently false findings.
At least, that’s what a pair of researchers at the University of California, Davis, said in their new paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science.” The authors, Paul Smaldino and Richard McElreath, argued that “some of the most powerful incentives in contemporary science actively encourage, reward, and propagate poor research methods and abuse of statistical procedures.”
Smaldino and McElreath, who posted their article on the preprint server arXiv, meaning it has not yet been through peer review, noted that the behavioral sciences in particular fail to produce statistically rigorous studies. The term of art here is “power” — an indication of the ability of an analysis to detect the outcomes it purports to find. And, according to Smaldino and McElreath, “despite over 50 years of reviews of low statistical power and its consequences, there has been no detectable increase” in the average power of studies.
Why the lack of improvement? The UC Davis researchers, like many others, believe that science is simply behaving the way it has evolved to behave: as a publishing factory. “An incentive structure that rewards publication quantity will, in the absence of countervailing forces, select for methods that produce the greatest number of publishable results. This in turn will lead to the natural selection of poor methods and increasingly high false discovery rates.” Sticking with the Darwinian metaphor, Smaldino and McElreath said that successful labs churn out “progeny” — grad students, junior faculty, future lab heads — that mimic their approach.
And the evolutionary metaphor is telling in another way. Evolutionary theory talks about the presence of “cheaters” in any population, but Smaldino and McElreath pointed out that the influence of such cheaters is even more insidious than one would think. For example, cheaters may invent ways to game the system, but others are quickly forced to mimic their methods, lest they be left behind.
The Latest on: Bad science
via Google News
The Latest on: Bad science
- Goop Lab on Netflix shows how easy it is to fall for bad scienceon January 23, 2020 at 7:08 am
In fact, it is so bad it is good – a masterclass in how to defend pseudoscience with a few logical ... The researcher rolls out another cliche – “science is just one way of knowing” – which leaves me ...
- The Goop Lab on Netflix shows how easy it is to fall for bad scienceon January 17, 2020 at 12:21 am
Why it’s time to write a national anthem for the Red Planet The Goop Lab on Netflix shows how easy it is to fall for bad science Benzodiazepine prescriptions reach ‘disturbing’ levels in the US ...
- Dirty Money and Bad Science at MIT's Media Labon January 16, 2020 at 1:00 am
but I think it is fair to say that it wasn’t based on what research was most likely to benefit science or society. Here’s the rub in trying to understand the Media Lab-Epstein story: Some defenders of ...
- Stop Hiding Behind Bad Scienceon December 21, 2019 at 4:00 pm
I’m saying “often” because it can also be someone speaking from ignorance of science. I don’t mean this to be rude. I mean that in its proper context of “lacking knowledge”.
- Maricopa County attorney is using bad science to justify locking up kids for lifeon December 2, 2019 at 6:56 am
Maricopa County attorney is using bad science to justify locking up kids for life Prosecutors spent more than a half-million dollars to defend the harshest possible treatment of children ...
- How utilities wield bad science to stunt clean energyon October 30, 2019 at 5:00 pm
Increasingly, these enormous monopolies have resorted to misleading studies and bad science. This is especially true of distributed solar — small-scale solar installations on homes and businesses.
- Bad science always loseson June 20, 2019 at 10:08 pm
And one study on one site in South Carolina, along with a predetermined outcome, cannot be considered good science. In fact, it is bad science, and bad science always loses. State legislators in ...
- 5 Most Explosive Moments in ‘Breaking Bad’, Explainedon June 18, 2019 at 7:32 am
I absolutely love the many ways that Breaking Bad embraced science. I love it so much, in fact, that I wrote a book about it–“The Science of Breaking Bad” from MIT Press–along with my co ...
- Self-Censorship on Campus Is Bad for Scienceon May 28, 2019 at 5:01 am
There is, of course, a long history of charlatans who have cited dubious “science” as proof that certain racial and ethnic groups are genetically superior to others. My approach has been to ...
- Scientist Fighting the Dumbest Kind of Bad Science Reportingon April 19, 2019 at 11:45 am
Late last week, a Twitter account highlighting one of the cardinal sins of bad science journalism popped up online, catching the eye of scientists, reporters, and the public: @justsaysinmice. The ...
via Bing News