At almost every decision-making point, humans are innately
biased beings. Our unique capacity for pattern recognition has allowed us to make
great scientific strides, but undoubtedly has resulted in bias and false
positives when interpreting scientific data; and the “publish or perish”
culture in academia promotes novel findings and positive results over
reliability of findings. These are things that most scientists are aware of,
but very few take adequate measures to minimize the effects of bias; including
myself. Many of the articles reveal the daunting commonality of the false
positive, but Horvath presents it as a reality of science; a statement which
resonated with me. It is our responsibility as scientists to conduct
investigation and report findings as ethically as possible. But with that said,
we are humans and therefore fallible. It would be impossible to expect that
every reported finding would be true. To obtain such a goal, there would need
to be a shift in the current expectations of the publication “race”. A slower
pace of review and publication would promote greater validation of studies and
an in-depth peer review process. But, a slower pace of publication could prevent
a rapid rate of discovery. I am in the “self-correcting “science camp. I think
that false theories can be filtered out if validation studies fail to replicate
the results. I know if I’ve tried a technique and failed to replicate the
result after a few attempts, I move on to a different methodology. The emerging
trend toward post-publication review will be a great tool for this weed-out
process and will ultimately lead to better science. I believe that we as
scientists know to take scientific findings with a grain of salt. However, the
size of that grain can vary based on whether it corroborates or contradicts our
own theories, something that should give all of us pause for reflection.
No comments:
Post a Comment