I worked in medical research for a while. I was just a lowly technical assistant with a bachelor’s degree, not a doctor or PhD.
But wow, it was eye opening. In the hunt for grant money, folks with letters after their names will massage that data and “reframe” the questions in myriad ways chasing desired outcomes.
Fortunately, peer review tears some of that bullshit apart. So, science works when done correctly. But, the replication crisis looms large, and I am skeptical of a lot of research papers and science journalism to this day.
Can we merit-restrict access to academia until the need for and availability of funding match?
Maybe have a separate verifying authority for experimental observation that need to confirm experimental data before inferences can be drawn from it?
I’m surprised that even doctor’s would need to depend on such a flawed system for funding - I suppose when the stakes are high enough, everyone starts loosening up on principles, doctor or no doctor.
I worked in medical research for a while. I was just a lowly technical assistant with a bachelor’s degree, not a doctor or PhD.
But wow, it was eye opening. In the hunt for grant money, folks with letters after their names will massage that data and “reframe” the questions in myriad ways chasing desired outcomes.
Fortunately, peer review tears some of that bullshit apart. So, science works when done correctly. But, the replication crisis looms large, and I am skeptical of a lot of research papers and science journalism to this day.
What sort of solution would work for this though?
Can we merit-restrict access to academia until the need for and availability of funding match?
Maybe have a separate verifying authority for experimental observation that need to confirm experimental data before inferences can be drawn from it?
I’m surprised that even doctor’s would need to depend on such a flawed system for funding - I suppose when the stakes are high enough, everyone starts loosening up on principles, doctor or no doctor.