Is It Tough Love Time For Science?

Is "science broken" or self-correcting? And who is going to do the grown-up thing and fix the game (instead of scoring points within it)?

Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions
Illustration by Julia Suits, The New Yorker cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions

1. Science needs some tough love (fields vary, but some enable and encourage unhealthy habits). And “good cop” approaches aren't fixing “phantom patterns” and “noise mining” (explained below).

2. Although everyone’s doing what seems “scientifically reasonable” the result is a “machine for producing and publicizing random patterns,” statistician Andrew Gelman says.

3. Gelman is too kind; the “reproducibility crisis” is really a producibility problem—professional practices reward production and publication of unsound studies.

4. Gelman calls such studies “dead on arrival,” but they’re actually dead on departure, doomed at conception by “flaws inherent in [their] original design” (+much that’s “poorly designed” gets published).

5. Optimists say relax, “science is self-correcting.” For instance, Christie Aschwanden says the “replication crisis is a sign that science is working,” it’s not “untrustworthy,” it’s just messy and hard (it’s “in the long run… dependable,” says Tom Siegfried).

6. “Science Is Broken” folks like Dan Engber ask, “how quickly does science self-correct? Are bad ideas and wrong results stamped out [quickly]... or do they last for generations?” And at what (avoidable) cost?

7. We mustn’t overgeneralize—physics isn’t implicated, instructively it’s intrinsically less variable, (all electrons behave consistently). Biology and social science aren’t so lucky: People ≠ biological billiard balls.

8. Richard Harris’s book Rigor Mortis argues “sloppy science… wastes billions” (~50% of US taxpayer-funded biomedical research budget, ~$15 billion squandered).

9. Harris blames ultra-competitive “publish first, correct later games, and heartbreakingly abysmal experimental design, that can threaten lives (Gelman concurs, “Clinical trials are broken.”).

10. Harris sees “no easy” fix. But a science-is-hard defense doesn’t excuse known-to-be-bad practices.

11. Engber’s “bad ideas and wrong results” are dwarfed by systemic generation-spanning method-level ills. For instance, Gelman calls traditional statistics “counterproductive”—badly misnamed “statistical significance” tests aren’t arbiters “of scientific truth," though they’re widely used that way.

12. Psychology brought “statistical significance” misuse to light recently (e.g.,the TED chart-topping “power pose”), but Deirdre McCloskey declared "statistical significance has ruined empirical… economics" in 1998, and traced concerns to 1920s. Gelman wants us to “abandon statistical significance.”

13. Yet “noise mining” abounds. Fields with inherent variability, small effects, and noisy measurements drown in datasets with phantom patterns, unrelated to stable causes (see Cornell’s “world-renowned eating... expert”)

14. No “statistical alchemy” (Keynes, 1939) can diagnose phantom patterns. Only further reality-checking can. “Correlation doesn’t even imply correlation” beyond your data. Always ask: Why would this pattern generalize? By what causal process(es)?

15. Basic retraining must emphasize representativeness and causal stability. Neither bigger samples, nor randomization necessarily ensure representativeness (see, mixed-type stats woes, pattern types).

16. Journalism that showcases every sensational-seeming study ill-serves us. Most unconfirmed science should go unreported—media exaggerations damage public trust.

17. Beyond avoidable deaths, and burned dollars, there’s a substantial “social cost of junk science” (e.g., enabling the science is bogus” deniers).

18. Great science is occurring, but the “free play of free intellects” game, fun though it is, is far from free of unforced errors.

19. “Saving science” (Daniel Sarewitz) means fixing the game—not scoring points within it.


Illustration by Julia SuitsThe New Yorker cartoonist & author of The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions

2 new ways to find aliens, according to a Nobel Prize winner

Physicist Frank Wilczek proposes new methods of searching for extraterrestrial life.

Alien spaceships.

Adobe stock
Surprising Science
  • Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek thinks we are not searching for aliens correctly.
  • Instead of sending out and listening for signals, he proposes two new methods of looking for extraterrestrials.
  • Spotting anomalies in planet temperature and atmosphere could yield clues of alien life, says the physicist.
Keep reading Show less

An Olympics without fanfare: What would the ancient Greeks think of the empty stadiums?

In ancient Greece, the Olympics were never solely about the athletes themselves.

Photo by Despina Galani on Unsplash

Because of a dramatic rise in COVID-19 cases, the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2021 Olympics will unfold in a stadium absent the eyes, ears and voices of a once-anticipated 68,000 ticket holders from around the world.

Keep reading Show less

Bad at math? Blame your neurotransmitters

A new brain imaging study explored how different levels of the brain's excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters are linked to math abilities.

Signal burst illustration

Mind & Brain
  • Glutamate and GABA are neurotransmitters that help regulate brain activity.
  • Scientists have long known that both are important to learning and neuroplasticity, but their relationship to acquiring complex cognitive skills like math has remained unclear.
  • The new study shows that having certain levels of these neurotransmitters predict math performance, but that these levels switch with age.
Keep reading Show less