When applying for government funding for scientific research in the United States, most agencies require a section describing the novelty of the project. If it isn't very innovative or ground breaking, chances of being funded are very slim; our government prioritizes the promise of new discoveries and breakthroughs over repetition. Scientific journals also focus on novel research and rarely publish papers that describe the replication of an older study. In general, the scientific community does not care to read about negative findings. This is reinforced by popular culture, which likes to emphasize the exciting and dramatic bioscience findings rather than remain objective and guarded about new discoveries until they are verified by other research groups.
These expectations in academic institutions also contribute to the emphasis on novel findings. In order to be awarded tenure, a junior faculty member must receive multiple large grants and be senior author on publications in respected journals. These pressures and the competition for funding mean that most scientists don't have the time or the money to further verify their results by independent verification. Scientists have little incentive, and do not face much scrutiny even if later studies call into question the original results. However, this is becoming a crisis as more and more research indicates that only a small fraction of scientific papers can be easily replicated by other laboratories.
Recently, organizations have formed that are trying to address these issues. The most notable is a program run by the Science Exchange Network called the Reproducibility Initiative. Scientists can pay to have their studies replicated by an independent and skilled group of researchers, who are then able to publish their results (positive or negative) in a PLOS journal. While this is expensive, it may ultimately save money by shifting research away from false leads.
No comments:
Post a Comment