Saving Science from the Scientists - Radio 4

[Hope]

A fascinating progamme - Part 1 of 2 - reminding us that science can be abused by those of its followers who want to gain money and influence.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072jdqm  A valuable addition to the debate.

[Shaker]

No human endeavour can ever be entirely free of the darker motivations of human beings, but you can have a process such as science that has built-in checks and balances to reduce the risk of such things to an absolute minimum. That doesn't mean it can never and will never happen, but it should mean, and evidence shows, that it happens very rarely indeed and is quickly picked up on.

[Hope]

No human endeavour can ever be entirely free of the darker motivations of human beings, but you can have a process such as science that has built-in checks and balances to reduce the risk of such things to an absolute minimum. That doesn't mean it can never and will never happen, but it should mean, and evidence shows, that it happens very rarely indeed and is quickly picked up on.

The material presented in the programme linked to suggests that such built-in checks and balances are less effective than many would like to claim, and that it happens more often that you like to claim and that it ISN'T picked up on very quickly.

The suggestion is that the need to satisfy grant-applications, and the requirement of achieving X papers in Y months will often see people fixing results, cherry-picking experiment outcomes to suit a pre-conceived theory, etc.

I'd suggest listening to the programme before you make comments you might prefer you hadn't.

[Shaker]

No, I'm quite happy with the comments I've made.

[Hope]

No, I'm quite happy with the comments I've made.

I just hope that you don't come to regret your high-handed dismissal of what this science reporter reports.   

[Shaker]

I just hope that you don't come to regret your high-handed dismissal of what this sceince reporter reports.   

Nothing high-handed about it; it's just based on a good acquaintance of science and the ways of scientists. The most recent high-profile example of explicit falsification of results that people may remember was the South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk who fabricated stem cell data about a decade ago, a deliberate fraud soon piled upon by the scientific community.

After all, those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't do either end up as journalists about it

[Bubbles]

Sometimes I think an idea ( built on raw data) gets accepted because the time is right, and people are ready for it.

Even now.
 Scientists are human after all.

[Hope]

By the way, this is the write-up attached to the BBC's programme page.

Is science quite as scientific as it's supposed to be?

After years of covering science in the news, Alok Jha began to wonder whether science is as rigorous as it should be, and in this two-part series, he will try to find out.

Many of us might be forgiven for assuming that the pursuit of scientific knowledge is a precise and controlled process, one that involves detailed experiments, careful analysis, peer review and demonstrable evidence. But what if it's not as simple as that?

Scientists are human beings after all, so what if they are prone to the same weaknesses, failings and uncertainties as everyone else? And what would that mean for their findings?

Alok delves into dodgy data, questionable practices and genuine ambiguity to ask if human decision making is impeding scientific progress, and if anything can be done about it.

Along the way he hears from academics who think almost all science is wrong, scientists who think the system is in crisis and those who say error and uncertainty are actually an integral part of science's creative process. He'll also talk to a former professor caught out after going to the ultimate extreme - faking his data - to find out what drives someone to betray their entire field.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree Shaker is over optimistic about science and incredibly naive to think that it is not prone to be directed by money for money or by political power for political power I'm thinking of weapons programmes and pharmaceutical research.

[Shaker]

I agree Shaker is over optimistic about science and incredibly naive to think that it is not prone to be directed by money for money or by political power for political power I'm thinking of weapons programmes and pharmaceutical research.

Where did I say any of that?

Amongst many others, Vlad, you have an unfortunate habit of commenting on what you think somebody has said rather than what they actually did say.

[Jack Knave]

No human endeavour can ever be entirely free of the darker motivations of human beings, but you can have a process such as science that has built-in checks and balances to reduce the risk of such things to an absolute minimum. That doesn't mean it can never and will never happen, but it should mean, and evidence shows, that it happens very rarely indeed and is quickly picked up on.

The real problem comes when it is mixed too heavily with politics.

[Jack Knave]

No human endeavour can ever be entirely free of the darker motivations of human beings, but you can have a process such as science that has built-in checks and balances to reduce the risk of such things to an absolute minimum. That doesn't mean it can never and will never happen, but it should mean, and evidence shows, that it happens very rarely indeed and is quickly picked up on.

What about regression analysis? Some claim it makes for meaningless results as it is creates a state of actuality, through a kind of averaging, which may not really be so. Or at least suspect.

[Shaker]

The real problem comes when it is mixed too heavily with politics.

That does sometimes happen; but for every instance of that, there are just as many - probably more - where politics and science are at loggerheads.

You couldn't get a clearer example than with the UK's current drug policy. The government went to an expert neuropsychopharmacologist (try saying that when you're pissed) - Prof. David Nutt - for a scientific perspective on the use of recreational drugs. When he came back with hard evidence that the government didn't like (legal because massively revenue-raising substances such as alcohol and tobacco cause infinitely more debility, illness and death than illegal drugs have ever done; the death-risk of taking Ecstasy is statistically less than riding a horse), he was summarily sacked.

That was a political decision, not a scientific one. As one of the foremost experts in his particular field I think we can take it that Prof. Nutt knows what he's talking about when it comes to the science, but the government has a sociopolitical agenda to push of which he fell foul.

[OH MY WORLD!]

"We journalists...are also extremely impressed with scientists, and we will, frankly, print just about any wacky thing they tell us, especially if it involves outer space."   Dave Barry quotes

Here is an article on the corruption of science. I wonder if anything has changed, for better or worse, in the last 6yrs.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490481.stm

[Shaker]

See #5

[Hope]

Where did I say any of that?

I suspect that he has read the second sentence of your first post on the thread.

[Shaker]

I suspect that he has read the second sentence of your first post on the thread.

... which doesn't say what he thinks it says. But then that's usual with Vlad.