Publish... and Perish?

We like to think that scientists are innately good people, spending countless hours at the bench to help catapult us into the next generation of life-saving medication or medical procedures. On the surface it seems wholesome and altruistic, but diving deeper into the scientific community it becomes apparent that there is a very large elephant in the room: the issue of bias and irreproducibility. In an article published by The Economist the author describes the cut-throat culture that academia has established and how it leads to bias; for example, the motto “publish or perish” may influence researchers to embellish their work in order to publish in high-impact journals or to even publish at all. These high-impact journals then fight back by having egregiously high rates of rejection for manuscripts, leading researchers to cherry-pick their data further to make the cut. The author then goes on to state that companies like Bayer and Amgen failed to replicate more than half of studies they found on breakthrough cancer research, a section of research that is highly esteemed by scientists and the general population alike. 

 The scientific community has created a vicious cycle that seems to keep growing. This immense amount of pressure is leading scientists to falsify or alter data to fit a specific agenda, and soon it will cost them more than their reputation in the field. Flawed research costs us time, money, resources, and the trust of the general population. This puts scientists at a bit of a crossroads, but I think it is up to us to begin making the changes necessary to fight bias. Ethics should be taken more seriously and started even before entering graduate school even though sometimes it can seem like a “no brainer.” Additionally, having a grasp on statistical analysis is imperative for all scientists and not just the PI; if more people understand statistics then it may yield more sound data or make it easier to spot falsified data instead of relying on someone’s best judgement.