The paper on “Cargo Cult Science”, (Feynman, R) explores scientific integrity and how it is constantly under attack in our so-called scientific society. This is sufficiently indicated by the overwhelming popularity enjoyed by phenomena like astrology, mysticism, etc. which have never been scientifically proven.

Theories in the educational and psychological field, too, are implemented and followed long after the expected results fail to materialize. Researchers working on purely scientific data may also succumb to a tendency to “fool themselves”.

Several scientists, for example, ignore details which may cast doubt on their results or monitor their results based on previously published data or a linear framework of thinking which stubbornly clings to self referential dogma.

Constraints of money or time also prevent many scientists from verifying the details of those studies that form the basis of their hypotheses and often promote those students who acquire the “required” results rather than those who perform conscientiously.


Link (http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html) to original article.

Your thoughts?

The paper on “Cargo Cult Science”, (Feynman, R) explores scientific integrity and how it is constantly under attack in our so-called scientific society.Our society is technological but it is hardly scientific. America, at least, has made a complete turn away from science since the Hippie Enlightenment ended in the mid-1970s. It has become fashionable to know absolutely no science, and in order to succeed in some milieus one must be not just unscientific but actually antiscientific.This is sufficiently indicated by the overwhelming popularity enjoyed by phenomena like astrology, mysticism, etc. . . .These have always been popular in America but only some people took them seriously, much like their religion. Today people actually believe in both past-life regression and a six-thousand-year-old Earth.. . . .which have never been scientifically proven.I'm on a crusade to tighten up our language, especially since it's more important than ever for scientists to be able to communicate with laymen. Nothing is ever "scientifically proven." Only mathematical theories can be proven true. Perhaps what you mean to say is that some hypotheses of astrology and other pseudosciences have been proven false. Or perhaps you mean that they have no supporting evidence that satisfies the scientific method, and therefore they are extraordinary assertions which, by the Rule of Laplace, deserve no respect.Theories in the educational and psychological field, too, are implemented and followed long after the expected results fail to materialize.This was a predicted result when the "soft" sciences achieved so much prominence. Many steps in the scientific method cannot be applied to these disciplines, particularly experimentation, which ranges from merely unethical to completely impossible.Researchers working on purely scientific data may also succumb to a tendency to “fool themselves”.And this is why peer review is a key step in the scientific method. Regardless of how a hypothesis was formulated and/or tested, peer review is supposed to identify the weaknesses in the work. Peer review is an elegant principle because a peer-reviewing scientist does not have to be nearly as much of an expert as the scientist whose work he reviews. What you seem to be saying is that the peer review process is beginning to fail more than occasionally. This indicates that the people we call scientists are not scientists, if they're not even good enough to do a decent peer review!Several scientists, for example, ignore details which may cast doubt on their results or monitor their results based on previously published data or a linear framework of thinking which stubbornly clings to self referential dogma. Constraints of money or time also prevent many scientists from verifying the details of those studies that form the basis of their hypotheses and often promote those students who acquire the “required” results rather than those who perform conscientiously.This is often, if not usually, the result of scientists having sold out to corporate sponsorsip. The goal of science is always to find the truth. But corporate scientists have to work toward the goal of proving the hypothesis that will make a profit for their employer.

Of course there are still many honorable scientists, but they don't end up holding these jobs very long, so the bulk of science is slowly being placed in the hands of "former scientists" who have sold out.

My diatribe against the artifact of the corporation--an invention of government to fill the role of the aristocracy in the age of democratic capitalism--is well known on this website. As is my prediction that the role of the corporation will diminish in the post-industrial era. We need to be on the lookout for the new artifact that government will invent to supplant it, and how it might perturb science--and all the rest of civilization.

Fraggle:

On peer review:



In an analysis reported in a News story in Nature this week, 222 NIH grants: 22 researchers (Nature 452, 258-259; 2008), it emerges that 200 scientists received six or more grants each from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2007. One principal investigator was awarded 32 grants, and many others got eight or nine. This is counter to the recommendation last month by the advisory panels reviewing the NIH peer-review system that researchers should devote at least 20% of their time to any project awarded a research grant (see Nature 451, 1035; 2008).
According to the Nature news story, NIH director Elias Zerhouni says that the inequities between the haves and have-nots were caused by a doubling of NIH funding between 1998 and 2003. As funding levels rose, many new PhD positions were created. Established investigators, using data produced by the new PhDs, were able to submit better grant proposals. But hordes of these grant-hungry PhDs were left standing when NIH funding flattened out after 2003. The agency now funds significantly more people over the age of 70 than under the age of 30. “We're eating our seedcorn,” says Zerhouni. Changes to the NIH peer-review system will be unveiled in mid-April.

See the related article by Gene Russo in NatureJobs (Nature 421, 381; 2008 (http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2008/080320/full/nj7185-381a.html)).

Fraggle: On peer review: [citation provided.]Well although my ire was directed at "corporate science" in my first post, you can all guess what this Libertarian thinks of "government science." :)

There is a tremendous sense of an ole boys club in grant review sessions. New researchers must collaborate with "recognised" faculty or no one will consider their grants. The same grant will get immediately accepted with a recognised name on the list.

Even for poster sessions where students compete, organisers who hire newer faculty and older students to supervise events have a strong political influence on the outcome. Much of it has become shabby and undermines real research to a great degree. e.g. many of these "top" researchers also perform as editors of peer recognised journals and determine the direction of what constitutes hot topics and acceptable research.

A researcher from Korea for instance would find it impossible to publish internationally without a co-PI from a "recognised" lab. Similarly, publishing studies that contradict/challenge popular dogma which facilitates such elite groups is almost impossible.

Yeah, while science has lofty goals, and a lot of framework set up to keep it science, it often gets bogged down in politics. People will be people, you know.

But the cool thing about science is that, even though it may only advance as fast as old scientists dies, it still advances!

In the 19th century, painters got tired of spending lots of money on a certain blue paint (traditionally the color used to paint the Virgin Mary's cloak with) that was made out of crushed lapis lazuli. So they asked some chemists if they had a solution. And they did. Using science.

Thats one way to look at it. The way I see it is that there is a conventional viewpoint of academia vs a principled viewpoint.

The conventional dogma is that you can investigate anything you want as long as it is irrelevant or supports the majority view. The principled viewpoint should be that you should be free to study anything as long as you are able to defend and justify it academically. Scientists and faculty members have an extraordinaty position in society, they are trusted to investigate and relay their findings accurately and ethically. The ethics should not include only that which supports a major political position or the most popular dogma in academia, but also everything that challenges them, including everything that challenges your own work. Every information, no matter how confusing, contradictory or elusive, should be public domain, and people should be allowed to judge your work on its own merits and draw their own conclusions.

Without this transparency and self criticism and the freedom to go public with it, science is seriously handicapped.

Thats one way to look at it. The way I see it is that there is a conventional viewpoint of academia vs a principled viewpoint.

The conventional dogma is that you can investigate anything you want as long as it is irrelevant or supports the majority view. The principled viewpoint should be that you should be free to study anything as long as you are able to defend and justify it academically. Scientists and faculty members have an extraordinary position in society, they are trusted to investigate and relay their findings accurately and ethically.

The ethics should not include only that which supports a major political position or the most popular dogma in academia, but also everything that challenges them, including everything that challenges your own work. Every information, no matter how confusing, contradictory or elusive, should be public domain, and people should be allowed to judge your work on its own merits and draw their own conclusions.

Without this transparency and self criticism and the freedom to go public with it, science is seriously handicapped.

The biggest joke then is that academics and scientists pursuing their careers in the responsible (principled) sense are the most likely to get labeled as irresponsible (in the conventional sense).

Thats one way to look at it. The way I see it is that there is a conventional viewpoint of academia vs a principled viewpoint.

The conventional dogma is that you can investigate anything you want as long as it is irrelevant or supports the majority view.

What the fuck? Do you know any real scientists? Thats not how it works at all. Unfortunately, due to the capture of universities by moneyed interests, it is more like "Do any research you like as long as you think it will lead to money". However scientists actually get judos for going against the majority view. Its how it works. Its why you get Nobel prizes.



The principled viewpoint should be that you should be free to study anything as long as you are able to defend and justify it academically. Scientists and faculty members have an extraordinaty position in society, they are trusted to investigate and relay their findings accurately and ethically. The ethics should not include only that which supports a major political position or the most popular dogma in academia, but also everything that challenges them, including everything that challenges your own work. Every information, no matter how confusing, contradictory or elusive, should be public domain, and people should be allowed to judge your work on its own merits and draw their own conclusions.

Without this transparency and self criticism and the freedom to go public with it, science is seriously handicapped.



This is an ecedingly naieve view. It assumes that firstly we are living in a communist utopia, where people can spend time putting their work out where people can see it, without any loss to their status or income or future earnings, and secondly that science works by everyone being able to draw their own conclusions.
As is clear with evolution and climate change, what actually happens is that a significant proportion of the populace cannot and deliberately do not want to understand the science. This is why access to everything is self defeating. I personally want all scientific papers to be freely accessible to everyone, however wanting all information to be made freely available will only gum things up. Science has developed so much in the last 50 years that in general, the only people capable of properly critiquing one scientists work are his peers. The general public have neither the time nor the background education to be able to do so.
Its called division of labour. Get used to it.

What the fuck? Do you know any real scientists? Thats not how it works at all. Unfortunately, due to the capture of universities by moneyed interests, it is more like "Do any research you like as long as you think it will lead to money". However scientists actually get judos for going against the majority view. Its how it works. Its why you get Nobel prizes.




This is an ecedingly naieve view. It assumes that firstly we are living in a communist utopia, where people can spend time putting their work out where people can see it, without any loss to their status or income or future earnings, and secondly that science works by everyone being able to draw their own conclusions.

As is clear with evolution and climate change, what actually happens is that a significant proportion of the populace cannot and deliberately do not want to understand the science. This is why access to everything is self defeating. I personally want all scientific papers to be freely accessible to everyone, however wanting all information to be made freely available will only gum things up. Science has developed so much in the last 50 years that in general, the only people capable of properly critiquing one scientists work are his peers. The general public have neither the time nor the background education to be able to do so.
Its called division of labour. Get used to it.

Clearly, repressing scientific information is the way to go. You must be the scientist who got the Nobel Prize for lobotomy (http://www.livescience.com/health/ap_050714_lobotomy.html).

My diatribe against the artifact of the corporation--an invention of government to fill the role of the aristocracy in the age of democratic capitalism--is well known on this website. As is my prediction that the role of the corporation will diminish in the post-industrial era. We need to be on the lookout for the new artifact that government will invent to supplant it, and how it might perturb science--and all the rest of civilization.
Ye whit? Government is corporations. YOu know that. The destruction of all possible alternatives over the past 30 years has been at times deliberate, at others accidental. It is fuelled by the way money is made, and by the concentration upon pure efficiency. The Kleptocracy has no need to create anything to supplant the corporation, because it has already proven and still proves its worth today.
There might indeed be a backlash against Wal-Mart and others, but it is not driving them back. The corporation keeps on getting bigger.

Clearly, repressing scientific information is the way to go. You must be the scientist who got the Nobel Prize for lobotomy.

No, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go here:

www.scienceblogs.com

and start reading some of the blogs there. Almost everyone on there is a real functioning scientist. True, they have something of a liberal bias, but I think you might feel right at home with some of them.

Go to your nearest university, find out what they are up to. What country are you in? Here in the UK, the university sector is well known for a number of things, and inventions and discoveries. They have become too commercialised, and are always vulnerable to funding cuts, but we have people looking into everything from genetics to alternative energy.

And don't throw the occaisional problem at me. I am well aware that the modern system is not the best thing ever. It is merely the best one we currently have worked out how to work. If you have any real issues to discuss, rather than moaning, please provide specific examples.

No, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Go here:

www.scienceblogs.com

and start reading some of the blogs there. Almost everyone on there is a real functioning scientist. True, they have something of a liberal bias, but I think you might feel right at home with some of them.

Go to your nearest university, find out what they are up to. What country are you in? Here in the UK, the university sector is well known for a number of things, and inventions and discoveries. They have become too commercialised, and are always vulnerable to funding cuts, but we have people looking into everything from genetics to alternative energy.

And don't throw the occaisional problem at me. I am well aware that the modern system is not the best thing ever. It is merely the best one we currently have worked out how to work. If you have any real issues to discuss, rather than moaning, please provide specific examples.

What is the position of Oxford on hiring theists in chair positions in science and philosophy departments?

What is the position on publishing "negative data"?

What is the position on funding grants for new PhD's?

I'm not aware about the UK system, though I'll know more after next year.

/yeah I like the gene expression blog on scienceblogs.
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/


Here is an example of principled vs conventional ethics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/12/usa.highereducation

Those are questions you can find out for yourself.
I can guess at several answers.

Oxford will allow anyone a chair as long as they are academically capable.
Negative data will probably not get published, but it would be helpful if it was.
Grants for new PhDs is a labyrinthine process which varies depending on which funding council you apply for.

I note that you have retreated from your previous abstract, hysterial and black and white view.

Those are questions you can find out for yourself.
I can guess at several answers.

Oxford will allow anyone a chair as long as they are academically capable.
Negative data will probably not get published, but it would be helpful if it was.
Grants for new PhDs is a labyrinthine process which varies depending on which funding council you apply for.



So any practicising Christian, Jew or Muslim will have absolutely no problem getting tenure or a chair at Oxford?
Why does negative data not get published?
Does an established researcher as a co-PI make it easier to get funding on the same grant?




I note that you have retreated from your previous abstract, hysterial and black and white view.

Since I am discussing modern cargo cult science, the hysterics are all yours. :p

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/policy/cop.shtml

Selection criteria will be clearly defined and reflected in the further particulars sent to candidates, which will also include details of the University's commitment to equality of opportunity. Job qualifications or requirements which would have the effect of inhibiting applications from members of particular groups, such as those of one gender, religion or belief, persons of a particular age or marital status, civil partnership status, or sexual orientation, persons of a particular racial group, or those with a disability, will not be demanded or imposed except where they are justifiable in terms of the job to be done, and wherever possible, this will be made clear in the advertisement and/or further particulars.

Now, if you are a devout theist who thinks evolution is bunk and apply for a job working with evolution, you won't get very far. And this is entirely correct.

So, that is their policy. Would you like to try and find some examples of Oxford Dons who have been hounded out for being theists?

So any practicising Christian, Jew or Muslim will have absolutely no problem getting tenure or a chair at Oxford?

See my post. They would first of all have to exhibit the desired qualities in terms of background, knowledge, etc etc.




Since I am discussing modern cargo cult science, the hysterics are all yours. :p


Since you never made any specific examples, it was unclear as to what you were refering to. At the moment you appear to be attacking all of modern science, indiscriminately, and are now trying to narrow it down to the admissions policy.

Did you read the paper in the OP?

I read Feynmans article years ago. He is entirely correct about the dangers etc. This is all well known. Would you like to explain why you think it relevant? So far you have not done so.
And you still havn't answered my earlier points.

Here is an example of principled vs conventional ethics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/12/usa.highereducation

MMmm, politics. Can you be more specific in your critiscisms? Hard sciences have their own funding issues, but I have yet to come across someone building a career upon lies, whereas in the soft "sciences" this is all too possible.
Taking even Chomsky as an example, his work in the 60's has still to the bes tof my knowledge, neither been proven nor disproven.

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/eop/policy/cop.shtml

Now, if you are a devout theist who thinks evolution is bunk and apply for a job working with evolution, you won't get very far. And this is entirely correct.

So, that is their policy. Would you like to try and find some examples of Oxford Dons who have been hounded out for being theists?

Sure:

According to the report, what is on offer at Wycliffe does not resemble "an Oxford experience in its essentials" and is not "a suitable educational environment for the full intellectual development of young undergraduates".

Wycliffe and St Stephen's House, an Anglo-Catholic theological college at Oxford, have been told that they can no longer admit school-leavers to study undergraduate degrees. This will cut the number of students by as much as a quarter. This could have a "critical" effect on the department, the review admits.

Wycliffe has this year been at the centre of a dispute between different traditions in the Church.

In an unprecedented breach of normal academic protocol, the new principal, Dr Richard Turnbull, a conservative evangelical, was attacked in a letter by three former principals, who were from a more "open" evangelical tradition and demanded his resignation. At least five out of thirteen academics are no longer on the staff. The review, commissioned before the row at Wycliffe became public, could signal a sea change in the status accorded to theology at Oxford. It is an indication that the atheistic creed, preached by dons such as Richard Dawkins, is in the ascendancy.


"There are plenty of academics at Oxford who would like to see no theology taught there at all," said one source.

According to the review to be published later this week, all seven private halls are to have their licences reviewed if they are "shown to be departing from the values of a liberal education." If the halls lost their licences, the three Protestant bodies that currently do so would still be able to train ordinands. But they would not be able to describe themselves as part of the university or admit students for Oxford degrees.


And this is the theological college!:p

I read Feynmans article years ago. He is entirely correct about the dangers etc. This is all well known. Would you like to explain why you think it relevant? So far you have not done so.
And you still havn't answered my earlier points.

Because of what I see around me, in labs; I see how the politics of funding undermines scientific integrity. How graduate students and post-docs are exploited as data miners.

MMmm, politics. Can you be more specific in your critiscisms? Hard sciences have their own funding issues, but I have yet to come across someone building a career upon lies, whereas in the soft "sciences" this is all too possible.
Taking even Chomsky as an example, his work in the 60's has still to the bes tof my knowledge, neither been proven nor disproven.


Thats neither here nor there. Denying tenure because of uncollegiality stinks to high heaven, its the kind of excuse that is used by men who don't want to work with women or prefer to put them in dark corners offices without windows (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html). Its also the kind of attitude that denies tenure to excellent teachers on the pretext that they are clearly taking time away from research and funds. I've seen good scientists denied tenure because they did not get "enough" funds and really mediocre ones who get funds because they get into the ole boys club (see the post on the Nature articel 222 grants, 22 scientists).

I think very few people pay attention to this kind of stuff, when its very important to consider and criticise.

Hmm Sam now come on..... there is more to this story than you are posting, isn't there? I do believe that the main objection to Wycliffe was the anti-female ordination stance - the 'dispute between different traditions'? Wycliffe is at the centre of a unlawful dismissal dispute.... which puts a slightly different slant on things doesn't it?

Because of what I see around me, in labs; I see how the politics of funding undermines scientific integrity. How graduate students and post-docs are exploited as data miners.




Thats neither here nor there. Denying tenure because of uncollegiality stinks to high heaven, its the kind of excuse that is used by men who don't want to work with women or prefer to put them in dark corners offices without windows (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html). Its also the kind of attitude that denies tenure to excellent teachers on the pretext that they are clearly taking time away from research and funds. I've seen good scientists denied tenure because they did not get "enough" funds and really mediocre ones who get funds because they get into the ole boys club (see the post on the Nature articel 222 grants, 22 scientists).

I think very few people pay attention to this kind of stuff, when its very important to consider and criticise.

Yes this is important but it happens in probably most other professions not just science-based ones. A 'better the devil you know' attitude that persists?

Hmm Sam now come on..... there is more to this story than you are posting, isn't there? I do believe that the main objection to Wycliffe was the anti-female ordination stance - the 'dispute between different traditions'? Wycliffe is at the centre of a unlawful dismissal dispute.... which puts a slightly different slant on things doesn't it?

What does that have to do with stopping admission of new students (school-leavers) or reviewing the licences of all seven halls?

Yes this is important but it happens in probably most other professions not just science-based ones. A 'better the devil you know' attitude that persists?

So we should just ignore it because it happens everywhere?:confused:

Licences should be reviewed periodically, don't you think? Especially where a theology for males only bias has been exposed! It was felt that the curriculum being offered was too narrow for school leavers who should have the opportunity to study a broader curriculum before becoming undergraduates as is the case with other subjects.

Licences should be reviewed periodically, don't you think? Especially where a theology for males only bias has been exposed! It was felt that the curriculum being offered was too narrow for school leavers who should have the opportunity to study a broader curriculum before becoming undergraduates as is the case with other subjects.

Uh, have you looked at the rest of the world lately?:D

Erm ja! I would think you would be commending the action taken to route this sort of thing out.....

Erm ja! I would think you would be commending the action taken to route this sort of thing out.....

That there are more "liberal" evangelicals campaigning against the conservative one is a good sign don't you think? Will closing the halls down empower the liberals or the conservatives? I find this kind of thinking to be very short sighted.

They won't close it down! Cage rattling. But if they do they should hand it over to some scientists to do some proper science.....

Anyway, for the record, Church and state and education should be kept seperate. That makes way for clearer waters. It's the muddying that causes problems.

They won't close it down! Cage rattling. But if they do they should hand it over to some scientists to do some proper science.....

Anyway, for the record, Church and state and education should be kept seperate. That makes way for clearer waters. It's the muddying that causes problems.


I hope you are kidding. If you separate theological colleges from academia, they can turn into cesspools of fundamentalism without oversight. What you should try for is diversity in teaching theology instead. Add teachings of other religions for instance. Make it more open, more available. Not shut it away into cliques.

Anyway, my intent was to show how scientists are pursuing dogma rather than knowledge. Undermining theological colleges creates mroe schisms and gives power to nutjobs at both ends.

But I am more interested in the kind of dogma that has made it impossible to publish negative results for instance and which makes it difficult for new PhDs to establish themselves.

I see how the politics of funding undermines scientific integrity. How graduate students and post-docs are exploited as data miners.
I do not see how that relates to funding. From the viewpoint of a senior scientist this is the most effective way to publish things.

I prided myself that the diploma and phd students that I trained tended to be far more autonomous and knowledgeable in their field than the others in the department. However that required that I let them do and explore their own mistakes. The result is that the data-mining students, who were often not able to write the publications without extensive help from their respective PIs or withstand serious discussions in their field graduated with more publications. I also do not see how integrity is threatened by that. Maybe quality of training, though.

Regarding dogmatism, it is not so hard to publish papers which challenge current assumptions if the field is not politically charged (e.g. stem cell research) and the data provided is solid. I have published myself during my phd papers that were controversial and I showed a visiting big-shot professor data that challenged one of the common assumptions in a specific area of prokaryotic regulation. Granted, it was not something big and he was pretty dismissive when he first heard of my theory. But after showing the data he was pretty much convinced.

Now regarding negative results, it depends what you mean with that in the article are nice examples but I do not think it is the rule. If it simply challenges already published results then it must be even better in the methodology than the first published ones and it has to point out, why there are differences. Simply publishing that something has no effect whatsoever is only interesting if it was believed that it had one. Otherwise it is not interesting enough. What is true though, is that many (especially phd students, unfortunately often with the support from the PI) are less rogorous about the experiment setup than they should be. There are a lot of papers around whose validity I would challenge based on the setup (and again, during my phd I actually invalidated a number of them in one go). On the other hand, it it is not in a high profile field no one bloody cares.

And the problems of junior scientists establishing themselves, well that is related to another factor. It is true that becoming successful as a scientist is often a mixture of luck and networking. Only few can distinguish themselves purely by virtue of brilliance (if any). This, however is also related to the fact that there are so bloody many scientists around and so few actual positions.

The biggest joke then is that academics and scientists pursuing their careers in the responsible (principled) sense are the most likely to get labeled as irresponsible (in the conventional sense).And of course this plays right into the hands of the crackpots. They can compile a list of real scientists who have been discriminated against and ask us how we can be so sure that they too do not belong on that list.Ye whit? Government is corporations. YOu know that. The destruction of all possible alternatives over the past 30 years has been at times deliberate, at others accidental. It is fuelled by the way money is made, and by the concentration upon pure efficiency. The Kleptocracy has no need to create anything to supplant the corporation, because it has already proven and still proves its worth today. There might indeed be a backlash against Wal-Mart and others, but it is not driving them back. The corporation keeps on getting bigger.True but commentators have noticed that this is starting to change. The projects of the Industrial Era required massive concentrations of capital. The projects of the Information Age, not so much. Americans are starting up software houses in Estonia with nothing more than their life savings. Of course there are some key corporations that keep the Information Age running, such as Microsoft and FedEx, but Walmart is an opportunist profiting from the economic differential between the USA and China, and that gap will probably close in my lifetime. In Third World countries where the markets are more or less free, such as Uruguay, individual producers are contracting with individual boutiques in America via the internet and FedEx. Take a look at a broad cross-section of America's corporations and you'll find that many of them are prospering temporarily by scavenging: feeding on the carcasses of the ones that have already failed in a post-industrial economy.Go to your nearest university, find out what they are up to. What country are you in? Here in the UK, the university sector is well known for a number of things, and inventions and discoveries. They have become too commercialised, and are always vulnerable to funding cuts, but we have people looking into everything from genetics to alternative energy.In America (which is where I guess Sam is still physically located) things aren't so rosy. The problems you speak of in the UK are of greater magnitude here, and they are augmented by the loss of respect science has suffered in this country over the past 30 years. Everyone loves technical gadgetry and science fiction stories, but they don't understand science at all and they think scientists are out of touch with the rest of the populace. One of the major problems our universities have is that there really aren't enough American students to fill the classes in serious subjects. They're all getting MBAs (the master's degree for the student not quite good enough to get a real one) or majoring in junk scholarship like "political science." If it isn't true already, it soon will be true that the majority of our scientists are immigrants who came for an education and decided to stay. Against our current culture of militant nativism, this is not going to help improve science's reputation.Now, if you are a devout theist who thinks evolution is bunk and apply for a job working with evolution, you won't get very far. And this is entirely correct.Don't confuse "devout" with "fundamentalist." Devout Catholics, Methodists and Jews all accept evolution without comment. (If Sam is a fair representative of the Muslim community then it's the same for them.) It's only the wacky Evangelical Protestants in America who went so far as to coin the oxymoron "Creation Science."So, that is their policy. Would you like to try and find some examples of Oxford Dons who have been hounded out for being theists?We're always told that religion is not such a big deal in Europe as it is here. For example, candidates for political office rarely even mention their religion, whereas it's de rigueur over here. I don't think they have quite such a strong religious extremist movement over there so the issue just doesn't come up. Of course this will surely change with the arrival of a new religious community who never underwent the Reformation, Enlightenment and Renaissance.

If you separate theological colleges from academia, they can turn into cesspools of fundamentalism without oversight. In this case,the problem is:
What does one do about a cesspool of fundamentalism, after it has arisen within academia ?
Anyway, my intent was to show how scientists are pursuing dogma rather than knowledge. Undermining theological colleges creates mroe schisms and gives power to nutjobs at both ends. I don't see how even undermining all the theological colleges in that fashion would have much to do with teaching dogma as science.
Taking even Chomsky as an example, his work in the 60's has still to the bes tof my knowledge, neither been proven nor disproven. Some of it has been accepted as standard, some not. There is at least one researcher who claims to have discovered counterexample languages in the Amazon rain forest, with implications elsewhere, but those findings are always presented as minority views.

That seems more or less the same as what happens in other sciences.

Sure:



And this is the theological college!:p

So lets see. An unnamed source, presumably with an axe to grind, claims lots of people hate believers. Meanwhile, the actual root cause of the problems, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE, are

"Wycliffe has this year been at the centre of a dispute between different traditions in the Church."

internal religious issues.
Would you like to re-name this thread?

Because of what I see around me, in labs; I see how the politics of funding undermines scientific integrity. How graduate students and post-docs are exploited as data miners.
You work in a lab? HAHAha. How do you have so much time to post on here?
The thing is, I know perfectly well that politics of funding can undermine things. This is a well known issue, but you havn't come up with any actual examples yet. Bashing the way science is carried out is old hat. It would be more interesting if you were to discuss ways of making it better.




Thats neither here nor there. Denying tenure because of uncollegiality stinks to high heaven, its the kind of excuse that is used by men who don't want to work with women or prefer to put them in dark corners offices without windows (http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html). Its also the kind of attitude that denies tenure to excellent teachers on the pretext that they are clearly taking time away from research and funds. I've seen good scientists denied tenure because they did not get "enough" funds and really mediocre ones who get funds because they get into the ole boys club (see the post on the Nature articel 222 grants, 22 scientists).

I think very few people pay attention to this kind of stuff, when its very important to consider and criticise.
Yawn. Do you want to say something new? Meanwhile, here in the UK, women are working their way up the career ladder. Unfortunately it takes a long time- I have a book of personal experiences from women in science in the 60's through to 90's. Many of them faced sexism of the stupidest kind, and fortunately some have won through. Unfortunately the current set up benefits certain kinds of people more than it should. unfortunately I don't see any cargo cult science in this, I see normal sexism.

True but commentators have noticed that this is starting to change. The projects of the Industrial Era required massive concentrations of capital. The projects of the Information Age, not so much. Americans are starting up software houses in Estonia with nothing more than their life savings. Of course there are some key corporations that keep the Information Age running, such as Microsoft and FedEx, but Walmart is an opportunist profiting from the economic differential between the USA and China, and that gap will probably close in my lifetime. In Third World countries where the markets are more or less free, such as Uruguay, individual producers are contracting with individual boutiques in America via the internet and FedEx. Take a look at a broad cross-section of America's corporations and you'll find that many of them are prospering temporarily by scavenging: feeding on the carcasses of the ones that have already failed in a post-industrial economy.
I do not think things are as rosy as you are painting them. These corporations still produce stuff that is necessary for the economy. Don't mistake sheer dollars with actual necessity, or you'll fall into the trap of economists who think the USA can survive a contraction in its farming sector, because they are too stupid to work out what people will eat.
Remember there are more than USA'ian corporations. Here in the UK we used to have British steel. It was then "privatised", i.e. sold off the friends of the gvt. They proceeded to mismanage and shut it down in the pursuit of profit, and whats left was sold to an Indian Steel conglomerate a year or three ago. Maybe it is different in the USA, but here major conglomerates from across the world control just about everything. The high streets look the same, the shopping malls are like those in the USA. The internet makes it easier for small businesses to reach their customers, and indeed small businesses are still the important job cretors, but in terms of actual clout and turnover, the corporations still rule.




In America (which is where I guess Sam is still physically located) things aren't so rosy. The problems you speak of in the UK are of greater magnitude here, and they are augmented by the loss of respect science has suffered in this country over the past 30 years. Everyone loves technical gadgetry and science fiction stories, but they don't understand science at all and they think scientists are out of touch with the rest of the populace. One of the major problems our universities have is that there really aren't enough American students to fill the classes in serious subjects. They're all getting MBAs (the master's degree for the student not quite good enough to get a real one) or majoring in junk scholarship like "political science." If it isn't true already, it soon will be true that the majority of our scientists are immigrants who came for an education and decided to stay. Against our current culture of militant nativism, this is not going to help improve science's reputation.
SAM is in the USA? That would explain a lot. Remind them there is more to the world than the USA. You might like to ask why everyone wants MBA's- answer- because the USA culture now values money over anything else.




Don't confuse "devout" with "fundamentalist." Devout Catholics, Methodists and Jews all accept evolution without comment. (If Sam is a fair representative of the Muslim community then it's the same for them.) It's only the wacky Evangelical Protestants in America who went so far as to coin the oxymoron "Creation Science."We're always told that religion is not such a big deal in Europe as it is here. For example, candidates for political office rarely even mention their religion, whereas it's de rigueur over here. I don't think they have quite such a strong religious extremist movement over there so the issue just doesn't come up. Of course this will surely change with the arrival of a new religious community who never underwent the Reformation, Enlightenment and Renaissance.

I was using devout to mean stronly attached, I should have used fundamentalist to make it more obvious. You mean devout and non-fundamentalist? (Although I've noticed SAM stirring things up in the evolution thing) You have heard of Harun Yahyah have you?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/creationist_amorality.php

The baptists and others in Norther Ireland are swinging strongly towards YEC as a way of aggrandising themselves:
http://community.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1709

You do knwo about the various "Academic freedom bills" being run through legislatures just now as trojan horses? The USA's problem is more than just wacky evangelical protestants. They have managed to take over a good chunck of the republican apparatus, despite never being rewarded for their voting.

CharonZ

I do not see how that relates to funding. From the viewpoint of a senior scientist this is the most effective way to publish things.

I prided myself that the diploma and phd students that I trained tended to be far more autonomous and knowledgeable in their field than the others in the department. However that required that I let them do and explore their own mistakes. The result is that the data-mining students, who were often not able to write the publications without extensive help from their respective PIs or withstand serious discussions in their field graduated with more publications. I also do not see how integrity is threatened by that. Maybe quality of training, though.


You've outlined the problems pretty much as I have seen them. e.g. students who can work independently are set to work designing new proposals and optimising protocols, while those who cannot work independently (what I call the data miners) and who as you say are less rigorous about method (and oftentimes, accuracy), are put to work generating results for the publication machinery. I've seen several students (not from any single university or department) who have been generating proposals for several years so their investigators can get grants but unable to put together a coherent thesis. And several data miners generate a thesis based on proposals and protocols devised by their frustrated predecessors (who are frequently held back to generate ideas for grants). Have you seen this?


Regarding dogmatism, it is not so hard to publish papers which challenge current assumptions if the field is not politically charged (e.g. stem cell research) and the data provided is solid. I have published myself during my phd papers that were controversial and I showed a visiting big-shot professor data that challenged one of the common assumptions in a specific area of prokaryotic regulation. Granted, it was not something big and he was pretty dismissive when he first heard of my theory. But after showing the data he was pretty much convinced.


I was referring to papers where the field is politically charged. See my argument on conventional vs principled research.


Now regarding negative results, it depends what you mean with that in the article are nice examples but I do not think it is the rule. If it simply challenges already published results then it must be even better in the methodology than the first published ones and it has to point out, why there are differences. Simply publishing that something has no effect whatsoever is only interesting if it was believed that it had one. Otherwise it is not interesting enough.

Personally I don't understand why interesting is a factor. Isn't it important to have the work done out there? I've seen several papers that have been published in high impact journals solely because they use "exciting" new techniques, even if the design makes very little sense.


What is true though, is that many (especially phd students, unfortunately often with the support from the PI) are less rogorous about the experiment setup than they should be. There are a lot of papers around whose validity I would challenge based on the setup (and again, during my phd I actually invalidated a number of them in one go). On the other hand, it it is not in a high profile field no one bloody cares.

I've had the same experience. To me it looks more and more like the tools are given greater emphasis than the design and logic of the experiments.

And the problems of junior scientists establishing themselves, well that is related to another factor. It is true that becoming successful as a scientist is often a mixture of luck and networking. Only few can distinguish themselves purely by virtue of brilliance (if any). This, however is also related to the fact that there are so bloody many scientists around and so few actual positions.

And there are little ole boys clubs in the departments who control who gets in and who doesn't. :m:

iceaura

In this case,the problem is:
What does one do about a cesspool of fundamentalism, after it has arisen within academia ?
I don't see how even undermining all the theological colleges in that fashion would have much to do with teaching dogma as science.

That was a side bar on people being hounded out of Oxford for being religious.

I doubt anyone would openly discriminate against anyone for religion. Not yet anyway. Still officially illegal.

guthrie

You work in a lab? HAHAha. How do you have so much time to post on here?
The thing is, I know perfectly well that politics of funding can undermine things. This is a well known issue, but you havn't come up with any actual examples yet. Bashing the way science is carried out is old hat. It would be more interesting if you were to discuss ways of making it better.

I have limited knowledge of the system except what I hear anecdotally. Which is why I put it out for discussion. I would like to hear what other people think of it and candidness is not easy to come by within the system.

What I do see is that people appear to be more focused on publication as much as possible so as to keep the money flowing in; rather than focus on research quality. I've seen some fluid ethics in this regard and I find the system really counter productive.

How do you think it can be improved?




Yawn. Do you want to say something new? Meanwhile, here in the UK, women are working their way up the career ladder. Unfortunately it takes a long time- I have a book of personal experiences from women in science in the 60's through to 90's. Many of them faced sexism of the stupidest kind, and fortunately some have won through. Unfortunately the current set up benefits certain kinds of people more than it should. unfortunately I don't see any cargo cult science in this, I see normal sexism.

You don't see undermining the efforts of women (and theists) as cargo cult science? Sounds like dogma to me.



SAM is in the USA? That would explain a lot. Remind them there is more to the world than the USA. You might like to ask why everyone wants MBA's- answer- because the USA culture now values money over anything else.

I'm interested to hear how it is elsewhere.


I was using devout to mean stronly attached, I should have used fundamentalist to make it more obvious. You mean devout and non-fundamentalist? (Although I've noticed SAM stirring things up in the evolution thing)

What have you seen me stirring up in the evolution thing?


You have heard of Harun Yahyah have you?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/creationist_amorality.php


Harun Yahya is connected to the Christian creationist movement in the US.

You do knwo about the various "Academic freedom bills" being run through legislatures just now as trojan horses? The USA's problem is more than just wacky evangelical protestants. They have managed to take over a good chunck of the republican apparatus, despite never being rewarded for their voting.

Thats politics, not science.;)

You've outlined the problems pretty much as I have seen them. e.g. students who can work independently are set to work designing new proposals and optimising protocols, while those who cannot work independently (what I call the data miners) and who as you say are less rigorous about method (and oftentimes, accuracy), are put to work generating results for the publication machinery. I've seen several students (not from any single university or department) who have been generating proposals for several years so their investigators can get grants but unable to put together a coherent thesis. And several data miners generate a thesis based on proposals and protocols devised by their frustrated predecessors (who are frequently held back to generate ideas for grants). Have you seen this?


Yes, over and over. The main problem here is simply that the field is so fiercely competitive so that PIs are almost forced to abuse their work force. Moreover around 80% of all students starting a phd are, in my opinion, not suited for that kind of job. But as essentially everyone should get a phd at some point (otherwise the PI looks bad) one is forced to let them publish something, even if it is not done correctly or of good quality. I can lament that all day, but there is no easy solution to it. Remember non-facutly PIs usually only got ~5 years to get tenure. A phd student needs around 3-5 years (depending on country) to get a phd. That means that the PI cannot easily switch the students and is forced to let them publish. Only more established PIs can allow themselves to raise the bar and require higher quality research before allowing the student to write up the thesis. One solution would be a more rigorous selection of phd students, as well as having fewer but less restricted PI positions. I imagine a whole bunch of new problems with that, though.

I was referring to papers where the field is politically charged. See my argument on conventional vs principled research.

Well once political or corporate interests get involved all bets are off. Funding should be ideally not related to that, unfortunately no one is willing to invest millions for nothing (if only I were rich enough to build an own institute...).


Personally I don't understand why interesting is a factor. Isn't it important to have the work done out there? I've seen several papers that have been published in high impact journals solely because they use "exciting" new techniques, even if the design makes very little sense.


No. It is not about what has been done in the lab, but it is all about furthering scientific knowledge. A new technique can be interesting, even if it is only presented as proof of principle, because others might adopt it for more interesting uses. There are plenty of examples out there. If you are talking about PNAS papers, though, well, a number of papers published there circumvent peer-review, so I'd be careful.
Again, I understand your viewpoint, and I know a lot of students that think, that I have invested work and should get something in return, however, if it does not in any way adds to knowledge, why should anyone bother to read it, much less to quote it?

And there are little ole boys clubs in the departments who control who gets in and who doesn't.
Well, yes you got to have name to get in, however, how else would you appoint someone? It is all about about getting known via publications, and getting funding, networking on conferences and so on. Unless, of course you are a woman and there is an equal opportunity position. At least the chances of getting invited are better.
You have to realize that on average for every faculty position there are ~200 applicants. How would you select the right one?

Yes, over and over. The main problem here is simply that the field is so fiercely competitive so that PIs are almost forced to abuse their work force. Moreover around 80% of all students starting a phd are, in my opinion, not suited for that kind of job. But as essentially everyone should get a phd at some point (otherwise the PI looks bad) one is forced to let them publish something, even if it is not done correctly or of good quality. I can lament that all day, but there is no easy solution to it. Remember non-facutly PIs usually only got ~5 years to get tenure. A phd student needs around 3-5 years (depending on country) to get a phd. That means that the PI cannot easily switch the students and is forced to let them publish. Only more established PIs can allow themselves to raise the bar and require higher quality research before allowing the student to write up the thesis. One solution would be a more rigorous selection of phd students, as well as having fewer but less restricted PI positions. I imagine a whole bunch of new problems with that, though.

Sounds tough. One thing I have often wondered is why so many students who are clearly not suited for academia get a PhD.
Well once political or corporate interests get involved all bets are off. Funding should be ideally not related to that, unfortunately no one is willing to invest millions for nothing (if only I were rich enough to build an own institute...).

Also, half the funding is given to the university and spent (in my opinion) in a lot of pointless stuff.:p


No. It is not about what has been done in the lab, but it is all about furthering scientific knowledge. A new technique can be interesting, even if it is only presented as proof of principle, because others might adopt it for more interesting uses. There are plenty of examples out there. If you are talking about PNAS papers, though, well, a number of papers published there circumvent peer-review, so I'd be careful.

But a lot of information gets lost in this process, people repeat stuff that they don't know has already been tried unsuccessfully, miss out on ideas that may have helped them to overcome a hurdle, etc.

Again, I understand your viewpoint, and I know a lot of students that think, that I have invested work and should get something in return, however, if it does not in any way adds to knowledge, why should anyone bother to read it, much less to quote it?

But a PhD without a publication does not receive the same consideration as one with a publication. Regardless of who may have designed or optimised the protocols and how much actual real work is put into the thesis (as you say, some just have to be let go of).

Well, yes you got to have name to get in, however, how else would you appoint someone? It is all about about getting known via publications, and getting funding, networking on conferences and so on. Unless, of course you are a woman and there is an equal opportunity position. At least the chances of getting invited are better.

You have to realize that on average for every faculty position there are ~200 applicants. How would you select the right one?

But its not really based on merit, is it? I've seen faculty denied tenure, who were excellent and replaced by someone not as good.

But a lot of information gets lost in this process, people repeat stuff that they don't know has already been tried unsuccessfully, miss out on ideas that may have helped them to overcome a hurdle, etc.

So what? If you optimize it in some significant way, you can publish it. If you apply it to a new question, you can too.

But a PhD without a publication does not receive the same consideration as one with a publication. Regardless of who may have designed or optimised the protocols and how much actual real work is put into the thesis (as you say, some just have to be let go of).

First, in order to receive a PhD in my book you have to have at least one publication. Exceptions are fields that are notoriously long-winded (e.g. clincal studies) on the other hand, in fast fields (e.g. environmental microbiology) one should easily have three publications. Generally, in most biological field every phd student should be able to think of a project, make the experiments, publish it within three years. More so if the PI is actually doing the thinking and writing.
Second, just merely optimizing protocols only merits to count as scientific work if it is really a significant improvement. Just cutting down incubation times, for instance, does not. Unless you can shorten down the time from, say a couple of hours to a few minutes. However, it has been always the case that unless you are PI work is hardly attributed to you. Moreover at some point, if you one of those hard-working 14-18h per day, seven days a week working guys who actually hardly communicate with the PI except to show finalized data, you will realize that you will not a headstart compared to those that only do as they are told. You will know more than the others, but other than that you will get the same title as everyone else.
This is one of the reasons why I stopped training my students the way I did.

Moreover at some point, if you one of those hard-working 14-18h per day, seven days a week working guys who actually hardly communicate with the PI except to show finalized data, you will realize that you will not a headstart compared to those that only do as they are told. You will know more than the others, but other than that you will get the same title as everyone else.
This is one of the reasons why I stopped training my students the way I did.

Bingo! Thats exactly what happens! Its always surprising why the ones who know the least appear to do better.

So how do you train your students now?

You don't see undermining the efforts of women (and theists) as cargo cult science? Sounds like dogma to me. A less misleading name than "cargo cult" would be better, if you are objecting to dogma and discrimination - the usual reference of "cargo cult" is to the imitation of the form of a cause to invoke its effect as a matter of ritual - it's one of the more common theistic approaches to science.

See the Creationist Museum in North Carolina, and notice the scientific equipment, graphs and charts, computer technology, endorsements from people with academic credentials etc, for example.

Denying tenure to good researchers, replacing them with bad, is a different kind of wrongdoing.