Clearly, neuroscience is in trouble given some of the flawed experiments being published in high-profile journals such as Science and Nature (e.g. see recent scandal of Shigeaki Kato of the University of Tokyo).
In the old days (the 60s and early 70s) an investigator like Peter Schiller of MIT, for example, could plunge his recording electrode into any part of the brain and come up with something that was novel and even publishable. Sharing his philosophy of science with me one day, Peter Schiller declared, “I refuse to read the literature for it may bias the creative process. This is in keeping with the way David Hubel (a Nobel Prizer) does things.”
Today, a new student with a freshly minted PhD often has come up with a finding so that he can go on to do a post-doctorate in his field of study which will yield a professorship down the road. If this student adopts the mentality ‘I refuse to read the literature for it may bias my creativity’, we all know where such laziness will lead: to the creation of clever (as a fox) investigators who can pull the wool over the student’s eyes with the latest bewilderment.
The field is now populated with PhDs who do not have the skill-set to evaluate a scientific work that goes beyond their PhD studies. This propensity is further reinforced by the mantra ‘publish or perish’ where publish means putting out a novel piece of experimental work, which often requires more doing than thinking. In the USA this is done as fast as possible so one gets published before the thinking process by peers can even commence. The good old days of assuming that an article in Science or Nature can be cited automatically (with no critical evaluation) will end soon given the new climate (see: British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Peer Review in Scientific Publications, July, 2011).
A publication in Science or Nature today should be viewed as the beginning (not the end) of the peer-review process. The sooner that students with freshly minted PhDs realize this, the sooner will the field of Neuroscience start cleaning up the mess that it has produced for itself. And remember, we are responsible for having created investigators who deceive us.
Science and Nature should NEVER be considered the last word on anything! Publications that cater to new, novel, unexpected findings will, by design, often publish things that are wrong. As you say, such publications are beginnings, not ends.
Science and Nature should NEVER be considered the last word on anything! Publications that cater to new, novel, unexpected findings will, by design, often publish things that are wrong. As you say, such publications are beginnings, not ends.
This is a good question. I generally agree with what Dr. Tehovnik is suggesting. It is important to view any finding that has not been replicated as tentative, even if it appears in Science or Nature. I also agree that the pressure publish and publish quickly does make it more likely that sloppy, or even fraudulent, research will get published. However, I must defend PhD students and newly minted PhDs a little. Since I've started my PhD in psychology, I've seen the unfolding of the Diederik Stapel debacle, challenges to several classical social psychological findings (going as far back as the 1950's) that are taught as gospel truth in college courses, and new pushes from organizations like the Association for Psychological Science towards putting at least some emphasis on replicability. Hence, I don't think new researchers are unable to critical evaluate research from areas beyond what are relevant to their PhD. If anything, the emergence of websites like retractionwatch.com and the bad press caused by major scandals may actually be increasing awareness that we need to be skeptical of scientific findings in general. It might be that the good old days when you could uncritically cite Nature or Science were actually the not so good old days when researchers weren't as sensitive to things like fraud, sloppy research, and the decline effect.
I would first like to thank Eric Prichard for his defense of PhD students; though I'm sure there are some with insufficient/poor supervision who might not know all they need to know, in general PhDs are just as informed as the general academic community. Even more so since the chances of finding a job in one specific area are so slim that we have to be flexible. There is no "road to professorship" anymore, just lots of little windy roads.
Anyway, the main problem with publications such as Science or Nature is that they promote novel, sensational findings over solid research. What we need more of in terms of publications are replications, collaborations, with a rigid review of statistics etc. Unfortunately replications are often dismissed as not being newsworthy enough. In this way, the media has a lot more influence on science than one would think. On the plus side, with the advent of blogging and comment sections for articles, the review progress is increasingly only starting once an article has been published. I believe Science and Nature have thus been losing their status as the single voice on science for some time already.
Let me shift to a different focus: nowadays neither science nor nature (sic) do have the last word to say. For, in spite of a number of universities around the world, current science does not pontificate; i.e. knowledge does not follow pontifical limits any longer. (Thanks God, by the way!).
In good science we say: "as long as research has gone…"; "So far we believe that…"; "We have come to these conclusions and yet…". Science as well as nature have come to be recognized as open systems; hence, never closed or concluded (concluding).
Truth, in other words s not a possession any more. The appropriate name fir truth is research, precisely. And research is an open, never-ending, continually-improving system.
Science & Nature both go hand in hand is the elements of nature which help the scientist to look into & to create & innovation for the welfare of the people .Even though both are essential & valuable for the scientific development but in comparison of science nature is obviously more powerful where the will of scientist has to keep their hand closed .
Nature is omni potent ,& its entire control remains in the hands of unknown elements whatever the name we may call depending on our belief & whatever the faith we have carry out by virtue of action .
For the science & so to say scientist there are chances of their experiments & their hard labor of working may gets nourished without coming to their notice which we may call either a luck or destiny .
In above line it is very uncertain that scientist may draw a line of demarcation in the case that science & nature have a last word on scientific issue
Hello Edward, I think it is a pure coincidence as I touched on something a bit similar in one of my recent questions... If anybody is interested, please follow the link below.
Generally, I think it is of utmost importance to have doubts and ask questions tapping into ethics of work and research.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Publishing_quantitative_research_when_it_is_often_detached_from_clinical_and_real_world_context_is_hardly_excused_Can_we_do_anything_about_it
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience