Scientists Weigh in on the Biggest Challenges Facing Science Today
“If you could change
one thing about how science works today, what would it be and why?”
This basic question was at the heart of a recent survey conducted by
journalists at Vox.com intended to gain insight into the issues
contributing to growing concern among scientists about the current
state of academic science. They received answers from 270 scientists
at all levels representing a variety of disciplines (though the
majority were in biomedical fields) who in large part felt that
current pressures and incentives for career survival are leading to
bad science. The survey identified a number of major problems facing
academic science. Here we summarize their conclusions, focusing on the
most commonly cited issues.
Money Problem
All research requires financial support, and the
struggle to find and maintain funding has long been the central
obstacle most scientists face in their careers. Yet, recent trends
have only made funding more difficult to obtain. The NIH budget
plateaued in the early 2000’s, and a combination of budget cuts,
sequestration and inflationary losses since has resulted in a 22%
decrease in the capacity of the NIH to fund research over the period
from 2003-2015. The direct result of this funding shortage has been a
dramatic increase in competition for grants. While 30% of NIH
proposals were funded in 2000, currently less than 18% are successful,
and survey respondents felt this intense competition for grants is
having a profound effect on the science being conducted. Many argued
that the pressure to publish and secure grant funding pushes
scientists towards safer, more predictable studies and further from
the type of long-term, riskier studies that tend to produce truly
novel and important findings.
As Gary Bennett, a neuroscientist at Duke
University, put it, funding “affects what we study, what we publish,
the risks we (frequently don’t) take.” A number of respondents also
pointed out that when federal and university funding is scarce,
researchers tend to turn more to private industry for funding,
creating ample opportunity for conflicts of interest. Marion
Nestle, a food politics professor at New York University said,
“With funding from NIH, USDA and foundations so limited...researchers
feel obligated, or willingly seek, food industry support. The frequent
result? Conflicts of interest.”
Misguided Incentives
Many survey respondents argued that perverse incentives
seriously undermine the quality of scientific research. The current
state of both ultra-competitive funding and job markets has scientists
under tremendous pressure to publish frequently and in high profile
journals that require flashy results. This pressure can lead to
subtle biases that can influence all phases of a research project from
study design to data analysis and interpretation. A number of
respondents felt that the current incentive structure rewards those
who over-hype their findings and chase statistical significance.
One such scientist, Joseph Hilgard, a postdoc at
the Annenberg Public Policy Center, commented, “The current system has
done too much to reward results. This causes a conflict of interest:
The scientist is in charge of evaluating the hypothesis, but the
scientist also desperately wants the hypothesis to be true.” The
research of meta-analysts supports these feelings. A 2005 study
published in JAMA found that as much as 30% of the most influential
and highly cited studies later turned out to be wrong or exaggerated1.
Additionally, a recent study in the Lancet argued that 85% of total
global research funding is wasted on poorly designed and redundant
studies2.
Publishing
System Broken
Another problem area frequently cited by survey
respondents was the peer review and publishing system. Many expressed
the view that the current peer review process fails to prevent
low-quality research from being published. At the same time, a number
of respondents took issue with the fact that for the majority of
journals, editors and reviewers know the identity of authors while
referees remain anonymous. This allows biases against individuals or
institutions to come into play. Finally, many complained that far too
many journals keep publications behind restrictive and costly paywalls,
arguing that important findings should be free for all to access.
Ben Goldacre, a British epidemiologist known for his reporting on
bad science, summed up the general consensus on the current publishing
model, “We need to recognize academic journals for what they are: shop
windows for incomplete descriptions of research, that make
semi-arbitrary editorial [judgements] about what to publish and often
have harmful policies that restrict access to important
post-publication critical appraisal of published research.”
Poor Science
Communication
Another topic repeatedly listed as a top concern among
survey respondents was effective science communication. Many felt
that both scientists and journalists were doing a poor job
communicating important scientific ideas and findings with the
public. They complained about the influence of uninformed and
misguided celebrities, and the tendency of science journalists and
scientists themselves to exaggerate findings. Daniel Molden,
an associate professor of psychology at Northwestern University
described how the current state of science communication undermines
scientists’ efforts. “You have this toxic dynamic where journalists
and scientists enable each other in a way that massively inflates the
certainty and generality of how scientific findings are communicated
and the promises that are made to the public. When these findings
prove to be less certain and the promises are not realized, this just
further erodes the respect that scientists get and further fuels
scientists desire for appreciation.”
Can Science Be Saved?
In the end, the authors of the study conclude that
despite all the all the negativity, science is not doomed. After all,
the system more or less still works. Great and important discoveries
are still being made, and efforts to improve the way we do science and
even address some of these issues are underway. They offer three main
areas to focus on to make the greatest impact.
1.
Address
the financial problem and find a way to create incentives for
researchers to undertake longer, less predictable studies that offer
the opportunity for bigger discoveries.
2.
Address
the incentive structure within the system by finding ways to reward
failure and negative results from rigorous, well-designed studies.
3.
Increase
transparency. Methods and findings need to be made available in
greater detail and more easily accessible to anyone who may want to
analyze or replicate their findings.
To read more about their impressions and conclusions
from the survey, see the original article here:
https://tinyurl.com/joyw7xx
In addition you can view a list of the Vox journalists’ favorite
survey responses here:
https://tinyurl.com/zr3m2ml
1.
https://tinyurl.com/hozkm9t
2.
https://tinyurl.com/gmm6d6m ■
|