Scientific American on "How to Fix Science"

The October 2018 issue of Scientific American features a set of articles under the umbrella, "How to Fix Science."  It begins with a prologue describing "antiscience currents" and arguing that one of the ways to "fight back" is to "tackle its own problems" and "shore up their enterprise from the inside."  The articles in the feature are as follows.

• "Rethink funding" by John. P. A. Ioannidis.
• "Make research reproducible" by Shannon Palus.
• "End harassment" by Clara Moskowitz.
• "Help young scientists" by Rebecca Boyle.
• "Break down silos" by Graham A. J. Worthy and Cherie L. Yestrebsky.

The middle three articles are by science journalists, while the first and last are by academic scientists. Readers of DTLR will recognize that the first two articles discuss topics that have been kicked around on this blog over the years.  DTLR readers will also notice that I have been castigating Dr. Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS, recently, for avoiding these very issues.  Holt believes science is just fine the way it is.  DTLR has previously made a similar argument as the prologue of the Scientific American feature:  we need to clean up our own house before we can, with any good conscience, ask the public to continue financially supporting our endeavors.  Thus, I view the Scientific American piece as a rebuke to the Rush Holt model for responding to the "significant erosion of trust in science over recent years" (a phrase used by Worthy & Yestrebsky).

The leading piece by Ioannidis is a good starting point for this conversation.  Perverse incentives stimulate perverse outcomes.  His piece not only touches on funding issues, but hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions. While I disagree with many of the details in his proposed solutions, I believe the spirit of his piece is absolutely on target.  We need to fix the incentive systems in the scientific enterprise, and this is fundamental infrastructure.  Unfortunately the elites who thrive in the current scientific infrastructure have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and would oppose all Ioannidis' proposed reforms.


The article by Palus is a decent introduction to the non-reproducibility issue for the general reader, but lacks the space to delve into the methodological details of good experimental design, experimental quality control, and adequate reporting that are discussed, for instance, in Richard Harris' recent book, Rigor Mortis.

Moskowitz states that sexual harassment is more prevalent in academia than in any other arena except the military.  I am not surprised by this.  Having worked in various sectors of the economy - academia, industry, and government - my personal preference for a setting conducive to scientific research is the private sector, not academia.  In fact, the academic tenure system protects 'assholes' including those who practice harassment.

Boyle's article consists of comments by various young scientists on the following issues:  moving, money, culture, family, industry vs. academia, getting jobs/fellowships/into school, and representation and inequality.  I agree with the writer as well as Ioannidis that the treatment of young scientists in today's science ecosystem is appalling, and needs to be drastically reformed.

Finally, the article on interdisciplinary research is really another reflection of the perverse incentive systems for academic science.

I mentioned that I agreed with the spirit, but not many of the details of Ioannidis' piece.  Readers, what problems do you see in the incentive structure for scientists, and what solutions would you propose?