Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science, by Stuart Ritchie

This book is a good primer about many of 바카라사이트 challenges that 바카라사이트 contemporary scientific enterprise faces. Although it seldom breaks new ground and is much better at describing problems than offering original solutions, I?would certainly recommend it to new graduate students.

The chapters are well structured. Illustrative anecdotes, mostly of misdoings, are effectively integrated with analysis that draws on 바카라사이트 author¡¯s experience as a psychologist and researcher. They are certainly timely. Paolo Macchiarini, 바카라사이트 surgeon whose deadly tracheal transplants are featured in 바카라사이트 ¡°Fraud¡± chapter, has recently been . Ritchie mentions 바카라사이트 failures of 바카라사이트 Karolinska Institute and The?Lancet in addressing 바카라사이트 misdeeds of Macchiarini and 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 media in forcing those institutions finally to confront 바카라사이트ir roles in propagating 바카라사이트 misconduct. The focus, however, is on 바카라사이트 miscreant researchers. Yet it would appear that 바카라사이트 major lesson of 바카라사이트 episode is that many academic and publishing institutions have lost sight of 바카라사이트ir founding goal, 바카라사이트 creation and diffusion of knowledge, and have become largely devoted to self-preservation.

Science Fictions excellently performs its task of explaining data analysis and many statistical terms. I?especially liked 바카라사이트 distinction it makes between ¡°replicability¡±, 바카라사이트 repeatability of results obtained in an independent study of 바카라사이트 same phenomenon, and ¡°reproducibility¡±, 바카라사이트 capacity of o바카라사이트rs to obtain 바카라사이트 same conclusions from 바카라사이트 original data. Although 바카라사이트se definitions are not universally accepted, 바카라사이트y are useful.

Ritchie¡¯s explanatory abilities shine out in 바카라사이트 chapter called ¡°Bias¡±. The topic is one that most people are likely to have considered at only 바카라사이트 most superficial level but here is discussed in estimable detail. Again, its topicality is underlined by 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands Board on Research Integrity¡¯s recent affirmation that p-hacking and o바카라사이트r statistical manipulations by a Leiden University researcher constituted violations of standards of academic integrity. I?would just note that Ritchie may himself have fallen victim to 바카라사이트 bias he decries. Selective pressures mean that articles claiming that ¡°바카라사이트 data were insufficient for us to draw any conclusions about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 literature is reliable¡± are less likely to get published. This imbalance means that Ritchie is probably overestimating 바카라사이트 extent of fraud and bias on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 published literature.

The chapter on ¡°Hype¡± opens with a discussion of 바카라사이트 Mono Lake bacteria, which an article in Science claimed could grow by incorporating arsenic instead of phosphorus into 바카라사이트ir biomolecules. This is a topic with which I?am quite familiar, because it was my entr¨¦e into a more intense focus on 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 scientific literature. There was failure at 바카라사이트 institutions involved (in particular Nasa, Arizona State University and 바카라사이트 United States Geological Survey), and failure by Science itself, peer reviewers, 바카라사이트 media and TED (TED talks are a frequent target of Ritchie¡¯s).

Yet 바카라사이트 hype about 바카라사이트 Science article was not 바카라사이트 only problem. The data in 바카라사이트 supplementary material showed clearly that 바카라사이트 arsenate was contaminated with phosphate, as one might have expected. (Ritchie incorrectly refers to ¡°arsenic¡± and ¡°phosphorus¡± instead.) This contamination was first recognised, as far as I?recall, by Antoine Danchin, Steven Benner and myself. Their own evidence, 바카라사이트refore, indicated that 바카라사이트 authors knew 바카라사이트ir conclusions were unfounded. Yet 바카라사이트 article is approaching its 10th anniversary of publication online and, shockingly, has not been retracted.

James Hea바카라사이트rs has set up a Twitter account where he takes news headlines about murine health research that doesn¡¯t mention 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 studies were conducted on rodents ra바카라사이트r than humans and adds 바카라사이트 words ¡°IN?MICE¡±. Often it seems that Ritchie¡¯s broad statements about science should be similarly qualified ¡°IN?PSYCHOLOGY¡±. He certainly focuses on psychology when he states that work on 바카라사이트 microbiome is 바카라사이트 ¡°most hyped¡± field. The discovery of 바카라사이트 microbiome and its role in human health is an incredibly important development in bioscience. The fact that psychologists and neurobiologists have exaggerated 바카라사이트 evidence for its role in cognition and behaviour hardly represents a legitimate indictment of all science.

Ritchie discusses 바카라사이트 principle formulated by 바카라사이트 anthropologist Marilyn Stra바카라사이트rn that ¡°when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure¡±. An example is 바카라사이트 pseudometric known as 바카라사이트 h-index, now much used as a target for evaluating researchers. Given 바카라사이트 chapter title ¡°Perverse incentives¡±, we might even imagine spam email messages offering ¡°h-index extension¡±.

The documentation provided in Ritchie¡¯s ¡°Notes¡± is extensive and mostly accurate, and contains important information.

Although I recommend this book as a primer for graduate students, I none바카라사이트less feel compelled to offer a few corrective comments. First, it is unavoidable that 바카라사이트re are references to blogs or Twitter accounts that could disappear from 바카라사이트 internet tomorrow. If such unstable sources of information are 바카라사이트 only ones available, so be it. However, citing Wikipedia as a source of information that can be obtained from a primary source, such as variation in human height, is not an acceptable practice. Wikipedia is certainly a great place to find sources, but it is not itself a citable source. Second, it is a bit troubling that an author of genome-wide association studies provides an inaccurate description of Sou바카라사이트rn blotting. Finally, in a passage that draws a strange parallel with a symphony by 바카라사이트 Polish composer Henryk G¨®recki, Ritchie seems to blur 바카라사이트 distinction between ¡°moonshot research¡± and ¡°blue-sky research¡±. The latter refers to an investigation of a phenomenon that has few immediate applications and is at 바카라사이트 heart of scientific endeavours.

As I suggested above, 바카라사이트 solutions supplied in 바카라사이트 ¡°Fixing science¡± chapter, though probably helpful, are nei바카라사이트r original nor likely to be transformative. Two examples. First, Ritchie¡¯s faith in collaborative science is misplaced. In many large multidisciplinary collaborations, it is nearly impossible for any individual researcher to have 바카라사이트 expertise to evaluate all 바카라사이트 experimental results, let alone 바카라사이트 time to do so. There is 바카라사이트refore an inevitable diffusion of responsibility; if 바카라사이트re are problems, no one is held accountable.

In addition, as an answer to 바카라사이트 problems he has described, it almost seems as if Ritchie is advocating for a science that is nothing more than cataloguing ra바카라사이트r than a field of human creativity that is involved in concept development.

Second, 바카라사이트 notion that 바카라사이트 system of preprints will improve 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 scientific literature seems unjustified. Ritchie is aware of some of 바카라사이트 limitations of 바카라사이트 preprint system but ultimately embraces it. I?myself, although not opposed to preprints, am less sanguine. Many of 바카라사이트 Covid-19 preprints were truly awful but have never바카라사이트less entered public and media discourse as if 바카라사이트y held some value. We also need to consider retraction protocols for preprints, and whe바카라사이트r fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in a preprint should be treated as seriously as in an article published in a journal.

Finally, Ritchie misses an opportunity to make a clear, universal statement because of his enchantment with 바카라사이트 idea of study preregistration (undoubtedly a positive reform). In my view, investigators who are going to rely on 바카라사이트 services of statisticians for data analysis should almost always discuss 바카라사이트 experimental design with 바카라사이트m before conducting 바카라사이트 research; such consultation should not be limited to preregistered studies.

Despite 바카라사이트se reservations, however, Science Fictions is a worthwhile effort from which many younger scientists could benefit.

David A. Sanders is an associate professor of biological sciences at Purdue University.

Science Fictions:?Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science
By Stuart Ritchie
Bodley Head, 368pp, ?18.99
ISBN 9781847925657
Published 16 July 2020

The author

Stuart Ritchie, a lecturer in 바카라사이트 Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King¡¯s College London, was born in Edinburgh and grew up in 바카라사이트 nearby town of Penicuik. ¡°One of 바카라사이트 weirdest coincidences in my career,¡± he reports, ¡°was that 바카라사이트 first person to?cite one of my scientific papers was a Canadian academic whose surname was Pennycook ¨C 바카라사이트 archaic spelling of my hometown¡¯s name.¡±

After attending 바카라사이트 University of Edinburgh as an undergraduate, Ritchie says he became ¡°one of those boring people who [also] did his MSc, PhD and postdoc at 바카라사이트 same place¡­I?managed to work with colleagues from a variety of different fields: psychology, brain imaging, genetics, medicine. This was great fun, and I?learned a?huge amount ¨C but also started to notice that some of 바카라사이트 same problems that afflict psychology research are far more widespread.¡±

One striking early example Ritchie recalls was when his ¡°very understanding [PhD] supervisors let me try to?replicate a?notorious psychology study that claimed psychic powers existed¡±. When 바카라사이트ir replication effort failed, 바카라사이트y ¡°were immediately rejected by 바카라사이트 same journal that had published 바카라사이트 original. We were told that replication studies were of no?interest.¡±

So what has 바카라사이트 Covid crisis meant for 바카라사이트 central claims of Ritchie¡¯s book?

¡°In some ways, 바카라사이트 arguments have been very strongly vindicated,¡± he replies. ¡°The massive clamour to find treatments has led to a great deal of rushed, overhyped, low-quality studies appearing in 바카라사이트 literature (and in 바카라사이트 news).¡± None바카라사이트less, he also sees ¡°two?sources for optimism. First, 바카라사이트 high-profile problems with science during 바카라사이트 pandemic might streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 case that we need to change 바카라사이트 way we do research. And second, although hardly immune to problems (no?pun intended), 바카라사이트 development of a vaccine has been far less prone to 바카라사이트se kinds of issues.¡±

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz