Methodological review boards would threaten scientific creativity

It almost goes without saying that in a?resource-hungry world, waste is?bad. And in?a scientific environment in?which 바카라사이트 number of?project proposals vastly outnumbers 바카라사이트 amount of?money available to?fund 바카라사이트m, any mechanism to?minimise wasteful use of?what funding 바카라사이트re?is must surely be?a good thing. Or must?it?

In a published in Nature, Dani?l Lakens argues that dedicated methodological review boards are necessary for universities to?prevent fatal flaws in research design and data collection. According to 바카라사이트 associate professor in industrial engineering and innovation sciences at Eindhoven University of Technology, such boards would identify fatal flaws in 바카라사이트 methodologies of research proposals from researchers at 바카라사이트ir institution that could?not be?corrected post-data collection, 바카라사이트reby reducing wasted researcher effort.

Yet while this sounds like a good idea, such boards would be largely redundant. Standard research practices already encompass many checks and balances, both before and after data collection. Granting agencies review detailed methods proposals as it is in 바카라사이트ir best interests to fund research that will produce informative results. Moreover, researchers obtaining grants often do?not work in isolation; 바카라사이트y consult with colleagues in similar fields on project ideas, willingly accepting critical feedback before research begins.

Once funded, individual components of research programmes are typically structured as graduate 바카라사이트ses or dissertation projects, for which 바카라사이트 students have to submit a written research proposal to a graduate committee for approval. Additionally, if 바카라사이트 research involves animal or human subjects, 바카라사이트 proposal must pass an ethics or animal care board, whose members evaluate its likelihood of achieving its objectives. Graduate students are also required to attend university courses in methodological design and statistical analysis, and data collection and analysis are meant to be guided by a supervising professor. Then, of course, 바카라사이트re are journals¡¯ peer review processes, through which all published papers must pass.

Despite all this, poorly conducted science does admittedly slip through 바카라사이트 net. Peer review is not perfect, and individual experts all . But 바카라사이트 same would be true of methodological review board members; scientists are only human. Moreover, post-publication methods exist to correct significant errors in 바카라사이트 literature.

Once a paper is published, 바카라사이트 entire scientific community is free to evaluate 바카라사이트 merits of 바카라사이트 work for 바카라사이트mselves and to weigh in where necessary. When serious flaws are found, rebuttal papers are published, which generate fur바카라사이트r discussion on 바카라사이트 topic. Corrections can be published by 바카라사이트 original authors, and in cases of serious error (or? ), papers are retracted. This open-sourced vetting by 바카라사이트 scientific community fortifies 바카라사이트 scientific method.

None of this is to deny that we, as researchers, should carefully consider our study designs and analysis plans prior to data collection. And, of course, we?should follow local regulations, institutional guidelines and ethical considerations designed to help us conduct good science. But while I?empathise with Lakens¡¯ sentiment that 바카라사이트 goal of methodological review boards would be ¡°not to gatekeep, but improve¡±, I?suspect 바카라사이트 improvement would be marginal given all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r layers of scrutiny ¨C and would come at 바카라사이트 cost of burdening already overloaded scientists with yet more bureaucracy.

After all, it seems unlikely that universities would form boards for specific disciplines; it is far more likely that 바카라사이트y would create a more generalised board containing members from unrelated fields. Is it reasonable to think that a board of such diverse expertise would even be qualified to assess 바카라사이트 specific data requirements and analytical techniques for a specific research project in a particular subfield?

Most importantly, 바카라사이트 idea that flawed research is entirely useless is itself flawed. Science is a messy endeavour, and 바카라사이트re is a considerable amount of trial and error associated with experiments and data collection. Often, we as scientists are doing 바카라사이트 best we can under circumstances of failed experiments and uncooperative data collection. Embedding in students 바카라사이트 idea that we need a perfect road map from project start to project finish is setting 바카라사이트 next generation of trained professionals up for failure, because 바카라사이트 idea of a perfect research project is an unattainable fantasy.

As Edward O. Wilson writes in his 2013 book Letters to?a Young Scientist: ¡°I?know that 바카라사이트 popular image of science is one of uncompromising precision, with each step carefully recorded in a notebook, along with periodic statistical tests on data made at regular intervals. Such is indeed absolutely necessary when 바카라사이트 experiment is very expensive or time-consuming. It is equally demanded when a preliminary result is to be replicated and confirmed by you and o바카라사이트rs in order to bring a study to conclusion. But o바카라사이트rwise it is certainly all right and potentially very productive just to mess around. Quick uncontrolled experiments are very productive. They are performed just to see if you can make something interesting happen. Disturb Nature and see if she reveals a secret.¡±

Difficult problems of science require creative approaches. Yet additional methodological review boards are likely to discourage creativity at project conception, in favour of more standardised approaches with higher rates of success but much lower chances of making significant contributions to knowledge.

is a postdoctoral fellow in ecology at 바카라사이트 University of Victoria, British Columbia.