Sensationsforskning ofta fel

I en artikel i The Economist liknar författaren publicering av forskningsrapporter vid en auktion. De bästa placeringarna går till de forskare som lyckas sälja sig på bästa sätt. Därmed inte sagt att deras forskningsresultat stämmer.

”With so many scientific papers chasing so few pages in the most prestigious journals, the winners could be the ones most likely to oversell themselves—to trumpet dramatic or important results that later turn out to be false. This would produce a distorted picture of scientific knowledge, with less dramatic (but more accurate) results either relegated to obscure journals or left unpublished.”

Med hundratusentals forskare som får betalt inte bara efter hur mycket resultat de producerar utan var deras studier publiceras blir det en riktig strid om de bästa tidskrifterna, sådana som de ytterst selektiva Nature och Science.

”The group’s more general argument is that scientific research is so difficult—the sample sizes must be big and the analysis rigorous—that most research may end up being wrong. And the “hotter” the field, the greater the competition is and the more likely it is that published research in top journals could be wrong.”

En mycket intressant artikel som onekligen för tankarna till klimatforskningen, helt klart ett ”hett” ämne.

(Tips: Lars W)

Dela detta inlägg

2 reaktion på “Sensationsforskning ofta fel

  1. 2
    Peter Stilbs

    tack – får mig att tänka på dessa citat:

    ”I believe we scientists are responsible for complicity in presenting to the public a false image of how science works ….. I like to call it the Myth of the Noble Scientist. …Scientists are not disinterested truth seekers, they are more like players in an intense, winner-take-all competition for scientific prestige, or perhaps merchants in a no-holds-barred marketplace of ideas. The sooner we learn to admit to those facts ….. the better off we will be.”  (Gross, quoted in Science, 276, May 2, 1997, p.751)

    och

     Misrepresentation, suppression, non-disclosure, selective use and statistical massaging of data is common in environmental issues. In postmodern science, normal scientific standards are subordinate to the higher purpose of saving the planet. Walter Starck, 2008

Kommentarer inaktiverade.