On Trump "censoring science"

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Byrd

Someone who understands.

A fellow traveler I assume.

Thank you.

Yes, and a bit more.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

On a related topic, lets talk journal publication, peer review, and how that ties to grant money.

First, peer review. Its a fairly well known fact that what we call "peer review" is in fact just a nebulous group of people competing against you for grant money reading what you publish and choosing not to raise a stink about it. That is it. If no one publishes a refutation of your findings, and you don't have mass rejection based on merit alone, you are generally considered "peer reviewed". Even if a few "experts" (i.e., your competition for grant funding) still maintain you're a kook. (1)

I am confused by the "competition for grant funding" statement. I actually was involved in a peer review for a publication and I can assure you that the papers I read were certainly within my field of expertise but that the topics would hardly have been competition for a grant.

That sort of reads like 'there's only six possible things you could research in science and everyone is fighting for money'.

And lets be honest: when it comes to peer review, people are only proofreading publications.

I think that you believe this is an honest assessment. However those here who have been through the peer review process and who have done peer review would dispute this. I know that the feedback I got was certainly NOT "proofreading" for any of the things I've had published.

There are other reviews of peer review (you have an article that's over a decade old) and a number of organizations have modified processes for peer review.

The scientific principle is an ideal that we strive for.

Not really. Science is uncomfortable. It changes paradigms and people don't like the rug being pulled out from under them. Not usually. Not unless puzzles excite you. Not unless you love going where others have not gone.

Look around the boards. Read the scorn that people have - and think about what the average article here on ATS looks like. How many have a depth of knowledge about the field they're discussing (or complaining about?)

The 'comfortable' way of 'science' that people like tends to be "I thought of a cool idea and here's some stuff that supports it."

Often, we call things science that are very unscientific (psychology).

I would disagree - but I have a different understanding of science.

I think the only way to address the human condition in this regard is to leverage technology to at least review the mathematics, and then find a way to make it worthwhile to publish tests of replication on prior publications so that science is incentivized to police itself.

My most recent research (tiny as it was) took over a year to complete. Who do you think would want to spend the time repeating my tiny research which did not have any commercial value - when they could be working on their own research? Something big. Something marvelous. Look at any PhD dissertation and ask what kind of organization would redo all these dissertations every year (thousands each year, in all the languages of the world.) The universe trusts college and university committees to vet them.

The papers that you see in journals are often the result of years and years of work (like this one that took five years and involved 819,963 patients) in a specialized environment and with one specific condition. Can you imagine how slow progress would be if we had to wait for four (or even two) replications of that data? Or how hard it would be to find 819,963 people who matched exactly the ones in the first study (and that would be AFTER they got permission to do human research (which is a bloody pain in the neck and I speak from personal (and aggravated) experience) and permission from the patients themselves?)

And there are checks and balances along the way.

It's been argued that scientists need to get out of the lab and talk to the public more so they'll understand better about how science is done and reviewed...but that only works if people have a positive attitude toward science. In a hostile environment, it's impossible to explain why knowing how long an occurrence of urination is supposed to last will lead to new treatments, new diagnoses (including in the area of psychology), and new tests for drugs. The average person will see "scientists wasting their time and money over people peeing."

In America, things are increasingly hostile towards science. I'm seeing interesting stuff from Canada; I suspect research focus will shift from America to there.

a reply to: Byrd

The asssesment of peer review is not mine, and its a rather commonly held view.

RE: grants....as explained in the link i provided, tend to go to those who have published papers. You can't even get a news story published about your paper unless it has tis mystical label of peer review, which has no standard system to help maintain the demand that science has for empirical measurement.


This is not a "throw out the baby with the bath water" issue. Its more that people in the field (including some government agencies, as indicated in the links provided) see some rather alarming flaws in how the process works. Those issues can either be addressed, or we can continue to foster an environment where up to half the body of work in a particular field is thought to be invalid, error filled, or flat out fraudulent like psychology.

I do appreciate what you've said here. But it did not address my post, or what I linked.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

The asssesment of peer review is not mine, and its a rather commonly held view.

I'm not sure that it's as common as you believe. It has its purpose; I don't know about your professors but I've interacted with quite a few of them in the past decade or so and I haven't heard many professors or scientists speaking against it. Most of the ones I've talked to feel it's one of those necessary evils... like the qualifying exams for a PhD.

Admittedly that's a sample of only 30 or so scientists.

RE: grants....as explained in the link i provided, tend to go to those who have published papers.

The paper has it backwards (or sideways or something.) I know a number of grad students and professors who have gotten grants and it wasn't on the basis of published papers. Listing published papers is not part of the grant process

What does happen is that those who know how to apply for grants (and have successfully gotten them in the past) do have an edge in the process. They've been doing this for years (I helped one professor with a grant application) and it's kind of a "plug and play" since they know who to target, who's got how much money, and what kind of research they have funded before. They know sources that the average grad student has never heard of and most of all they know exactly what the grant reviewers want to see (and have bits and pieces of it ready to drop into application forms.

They also have long-term research; projects that are running (with offshoots) for years or even decades.

But if you haven't been writing grants, it's a real nightmare. I gave up on a grant application halfway through the process. I found that by the time I figured out who would possibly fund me and then written and submitted the grant -- AND if it was accepted, the money would arrive about 6 moths after my degree and research was finished and I couldn't actually get the money (because the research would be over.)

Do the grantees tend to have lots of papers? Yes, because they know how the system works. Are they getting money based on papers? No, not really.

You can't even get a news story published about your paper unless it has tis mystical label of peer review,

All it takes, actually, is a department head who wants to prove to the college (or their peers) that they've got Great Research. I've seen lots of non-peer reviewed science news stories (like this one) Many are interesting and entertaining This is typical... they are going to present a conference paper on this but haven't published anything yet.

Science By News Announcement isn't doing us any favors - but is an American phenomenon and gives an impression that a ten year old with Google could do a better job on anything than someone who's studied the field in depth for a decade. The language used is really very reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, framing scholars (as back then) as out-of-touch elitists and attacks began on teachers and scholars (some of whom were beaten to death - most were sent to work camps)

I don't fear physical violence, but scientists and scholars will look elsewhere (and collaborate with researchers overseas whose governments are not shutting down funding.)

College enrollment is declining here in America. Trump's policies (and his choice of educational consultants which now includes Jerry Fallwell's son) aren't really supportive of college education in the sciences. I think Canada will be the benefactor of much of our talent because it' s easy to get to and their attitudes are much different - and they speak English, which is a bonus.

a reply to: Byrd

I believe it to be true because of the rather widespread reporting and discussion of it. Along with my own knowledge of how statistics and mathematics works.

nm