While I'm all for changing funding systems I want to point out that there fact we have these scandals is the system somewhat working. Similarly to how constant criticism of the government/large corporations isn't a sign of rot, but of a system where improvements are still possible -as long as someone is pointing out the problems you can fix them.
And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of science is supposed to uncover things like this/errors like this as part of a process. The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them.
And again, not saying the system is perfect or that calling things out is enough. But too often comments like this get turned anti-science or "we can't improve anything, slow decay is inevitable" cynicism (or FUD if you want to be less charitable)
This standard sentiment seems to me to be a machiavellian justification for the status quo and for not trying to improve anything. The costs of the problems are the problem, not whether they are eventually resolved extremely ineffiently.
Yes, we can improve things, but it is important to recognise that the scientific method and process is the best thing we have right now to figure this stuff out. Making it more open and reliable (open acces by default, data and code publication by default,more funding options that encourage public participation and replication studies etc.) is definitely possible but the core is not rotten. Especially some private interests (oligarchs and those with that ambition, "race realists" etc.) like to push the meme that something is fundamentally broken with publicly funded science and we shouldn't trust those ivory tower academics - often because those academics are actually able to go for the truth instead of following the market (i.e. create disinformation). This is what I'm pushing back against
Those oligarchs and race realists have supporters within academia, when selecting the reforms for academic process, this should be considered. Also, acknowledging the core truth these people build their lies around is fundamental to dismissing the whole ball of infectious meme.
> While I'm all for changing funding systems I want to point out that there fact we have these scandals is the system somewhat working.
After decades. The only reason there is a "scandal" is because it is medical. There is shit like this in almost every scientific field holding back progress.
I mean, the system is working but it could work better. Politics is actually working right now too -- we have roads and jobs and we aren't starving -- but it could definitely work better.
It sounds like what science needs then is a cultural shift to supporting and funding more controversial ideas, and being more content with dissent. Maybe we need to make a more intentional effort to fund the contrarians with the understanding that maybe they're dead wrong, but maybe giving them some ammunition will give us a head start down the correct path.
The US built the atom bomb so fast because we tried multiple approaches at once. We should approach basic science the same way. (In fact, writing that is seems obvious, because I guess I assume science is "supposed" to work that way anyway.)
What controversial ideas are missing funding, which dissent is missing please? What's the bar. I'm genuinely asking constructively, because I would like to find a scalable improvement on the rather slow moving funding structure (unless driven by hype). But there are hundreds of free energy, "race realist", AGW deniers etc. being blocked by the current system, as well as genuine con men.
Also, I dislike the idea that science doesn't like controversial ideas or dissent. Yes there is group think, yes there are cabals, but in general, if you find weird results, you publish and they get discussed. What else do people want to come out of the proposal controversial ideas? Controversial doesn't make it automatically good
You have to be careful with "race realist". It can mean people who believe there is only a small number of sharply divided races, such as mongoloid, negroid, and caucasoid. But it can also be used to describe hereditarians who identify meaningful classifications of people with boundaries roughly corresponding to traditional races. Those latter ideas are quite respectable scientifically even though they're demonized in popular culture.
Can you give me some examples of mainstream geneticists (not popular, just academically accepted) which will counter h ttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hereditarianism and the sources in it?
Otherwise, your comment reads to me "you have to be careful with this racist euphemism, it can refer to two different attempts of racist pseudoscience trying to appear legit"
I wouldn't count on China to provide lots of free research while it further turns into an etno-nationalist dictatorship. For India we better hope that democracy survives the next 5 years of Modi government, because the signs are they want some of that eton-nationalism themselves.
It’s not working if it takes DECADES for people to figure out that the science is wrong. And it keeps happening over and over and over again. The system is rotten and it’s not working and it’s not okay.
> The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them.
I would say that the latest Alzheimer's drug failure finally broke the camel's back. While NIH will tolerate groupthink indefinitely, biopharma eventually wants a payback.
I suspect biopharma pulling funding and causing the amyloid people to suddenly lose clout is more to blame for the come-to-Jesus party in Alzheimer's land.
Parent's example comes from a field in which the system manifestly does not work. Basic tenets of nutrition change on a regular basis. Every study is funded by commercial interests. Nothing gets better, ever.
And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of science is supposed to uncover things like this/errors like this as part of a process. The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them.
And again, not saying the system is perfect or that calling things out is enough. But too often comments like this get turned anti-science or "we can't improve anything, slow decay is inevitable" cynicism (or FUD if you want to be less charitable)