Why is science lost its meaning?

Portal Vox has asked American scientists about what problems hinder scientific progress. Russian scientists - participants of the Project Join the discussion

If we discard many reservations, the science - the best of what today is occupied humanity (and it is good that it is a science, not catching Pokemon or sex with a high school student). And if this is the cutting edge, it is there, it seems, we must look for the reasons why humanity is not developing as fast and fun as it would like. To say that everything is normal in science - all of humanity is like a pat on the back and filled up in a hammock reading a magazine "Caravan of stories".

Of course, the responsible people of the world can not afford such naplevatelstva. Someone may ask, whether Russian scientists, or US, or what you will, surely everyone would say that science has a big problem. It is in the best case; and someone even said that she was in a hopeless impasse.

Check this obvious hypothesis took journalists portal the Vox . They interviewed 270 scientists, mostly from English-speaking countries. Predictably, all they said that there are problems, and they are very serious. It remained only to group the answers and to formulate a consensus: the seven main problems that hinder the scientist to know the mysteries of existence.

Here are the problems:

Not enough money.
The researchers asked the wrong questions.
There is no one correct errors.
Review system does not work.
Scientific information is too expensive.
The scientific information does not reach the public.
Life of young scientists unbearably heavy. 

Now in more detail, point by point.

1. Not enough money

Nobody doubted that the scientists complain about the lack of funding: who in this fallen world have enough money? They complain; but constructively adding that the same money could be handing over a sensible way. Under the current system (which in the United States, in Russia) at least ¾ of needs (ie, in particular, three-quarters of the income of the researchers themselves) make cash grants and targeted programs. To receive a grant, you have to be competitive - for instance, at the NIH last year satisfied only every sixth application for a grant. This means, firstly, it is necessary to publish many stunning results in the best and magazines. Secondly, the application should be promising for two or three years (that is, the normal duration of funding) to solve important scientific problems.

It does not happen. Serious research continues for decades. If after a year of work you have already prepared an article in PNAS - means either you falsified data and inflated out of proportion, or deceived fund and publish the results of previous studies (performed on the money cheated another fund). In addition, this system eliminates the funding scientists who are whining about the fact that "a negative result - it is also a result." The result is something perhaps even more significant than what my colleagues are doing, but no one will publish, which means that the next grant will not.

How to treat?

Interviewees suggested different recipes until the eccentric. For example, to allocate money for the lot. Since it is still a lottery, though at least it would be honest lottery. A more conservative recipe: to give money not to solve specific problems (such as teleportation or nanobots), and the functioning of research groups with a decent reputation, and let them do what dictates them to study logic. I wonder what that was about the principle of financing science in the USSR. Nothing good came of it, but perhaps due to extraneous reasons, not because of the depravity of the principle. At the end of the article, Alexander Goldfarb expressed his opinion on why the grant principle funding may still be preferable.

1. The researchers asked the wrong questions

This problem stems from the previous one: the researcher formulates the question as to get the result, which will be for publication. The one question that they really wanted to ask, is still outside the system. No request for the truth, there is a request for "revolutionary discovery", as they are completely different things. This applies particularly to research, depending on the statistical data (for example, in medicine or psychology). As a result, the sea is published articles where the result on the verge of statistical significance . Perhaps, in fact, the scientists asked themselves very different questions, but they were "bad" answers, and readers of this will never know. Those versed in the statistics for the details better to turn to the original article.

How to treat?

The surveyed scientists propose to fundamentally change the approach to the assessment of research: not appreciate the "results" in them, and, firstly, the courage of ideas and, secondly, the accuracy of the technique. And if in the end it is impossible to formulate a statistically significant result, then it should be considered as a result. And publish, of course, that scientists do not cut off funding for the next year (see. Above).

1. There is no one correct mistakes

All students are taught that scientific results should be "reproducible". In any experimental work has the most boring "Materials and Methods" section, designed specifically for those who thinks of repeating the same experiments and verify that the writer does not lie. However, anyone and would never repeat the experiences of others: if the result is the same, it will not accept any magazine. And if the same result is not, then most likely you have a curved hands (that's twenty years ago, the author of this post, standing at a booth at the conference, answered numerous graduate students to the question: "Why can not I use your method of protoplasm transformation? "). As a result, the most important component of the study - the results of reproduction - completely dropped out of the scientific process . Recently, the journal Science published a shocking data : from papers published in the last couple of years in the best of psychological journals of the world, the vast majority are not reproducible.

How to treat?

Most of the ideas are reduced to stimulate scientists to periodically engage in foreign playback results (for example, to allocate in scientific journals relevant section). Another line of thought - to oblige the researchers write, "Material and Methods" section is duller and more, until the laboratory scans magazines and tape recorders. Tosca green, but even then you imagine ?!

1. The peer review system is not working

If someone does not know this system is as follows: a scientist sends the article to the journal, and the editor sent it to the reviewers, not telling them the name of the author. The author does not know who are the people who have called in response reviews its work "nonsense." In an even more rigid variant itself editor does not know the author's name, to any specific reviewer gets the article in question ( "triple-blind"). Thus eliminating the settling of personal accounts and the provision of mutual services: only the triumph of scientific truth.

What in practice? Reviewer receives from the article editor. If the article is really affects the area of ​​his scientific interests, he will inevitably be biased: how not to take a chance nobility media alternative concept? If this is not his subject, he is likely to read the article diagonally and displays a random verdict.

There are more bad options : for example, an article of Chinese researchers who were trying to edit the human genome, "leaked" from the office or on reviewer competing researchers who quickly fanned the media campaign against the hapless Chinese. By the time the paper is still published (in another journal), a negative background of perception was well prepared.

How to treat?

All the variety of proposals somehow reduced to the publication (or Republicanism) of all scientific papers online. In this case, an anonymous peer review can be replaced by online discussion (if you wish - also anonymous), which will decide the issue of transparency procedures and cut off from it those who virtually nothing to do with the problem under discussion.

1. Scientific information is too expensive

Some readers of scientific category confidently went on our references and found there, what kind of access to the cited article, you have to pay, for example, thirty dollars. This is not an unfortunate incident, but the norm: scientific publications - not a charity, business, and access to it is worth the money. One inquisitive author calculated that to read all the articles required for the work, a graduate student must spend about $ 1,000 a week.

How to treat?

The natural answer is to publish articles on the free resources, such as PLOS . Alas, today it requires a certain measure of unselfishness of scientists: the best and most prestigious journals are paid, and in one year the situation will not change. Another possible answer - piracy. This is the way chosen by Alexander Elbakyan , Russian neuroscientist and founder illegal resource free scientific literature Sci-Hub. "As a dedicated pirate, I believe that the concept of copyright has to die" - she commented. US courts have different, but something tells us that the future model Elbakyan.

1. The scientific information does not reach the public

It is, if you think about it, it follows from the foregoing. To get the money, the scientists have to shake the public's imagination. With regard to the scientific public, her imagination somehow protected from unreasonable disturbances review system and strict rules of scientific publications. But with the usual mundane public you can do anything you want. For example, to tell her about his work in such a broad context that she had the conviction that this is the guy who highhandedly opened everything. One such example we somehow dismantled on our pages.

Even if scientists do not suggest shadow on the fence on purpose, it can do for them popularizes: they also want to surprise the reader, but to delve into the subject of the article would not be desirable, though burst. Last Line of Defense ignorance - the very general public, distributing obscurantist nonsense is much more likely than a boring truth. A special role here is played by public figures such as Gwyneth Paltrow, with its healthy eating ideas . "It's amazing how many questions she was mistaken," - said one of the experts.

Another interesting example - a wonderful website Kill or the Cure? , Where carefully alphabetically collected substance, which, according to journalists Daily Mail, can cause or cure cancer. Most of the above - for example, aspirin, rice or milk - are present in both categories.

How to treat?

For us, popularizes, the answer is simple: it is necessary to work better. For scientists - must try harder to convey his thoughts to the profane, not falling into the sin of self-aggrandizement. Some of the respondents talked about the system of scientific publications rankings: the idea is that each scientific article evaluated fellow scientists on the subject of its interest for the masses. Such a rating will deprive popularizes opportunity to give cheap nouveau work for a revolutionary breakthrough in science. I can not imagine what they then become engaged.

1. Life of Young Scientists unbearably heavy

Money is not enough, a huge competition, success is often a matter of chance. It is strange that at all someone is doing. On the other hand, when you spend 12-14 hours a day in the laboratory, without natural light (as carried out at one time, the author of these lines), lack of money, fame and prospects may seem like a minor problem in your life: the main thing - to break out of this hell.

How to treat?

Some of those interviewed scientists argue that the main problem - the overproduction of scientific personnel. The kid is small and not enough at all; if graduate school produced smaller contenders for the scientists of bread, and then all live it would be easier. In fact, competition is terrible, of course, would go to the benefit of science, if it won the most deserving and talented, but not the best adapted to the conditions of this most perverse competition. A specific conditions of competition, as we have seen from the preceding list does not favor those who honestly wants to know the secrets of existence.

As one of the participants in the survey, sociologist Noi Grand Los Angeles: "What is the point of research? In fact, to please other professional researchers, or to learn more about the world? "