Is The Scientific Method In Danger?
I came across an excellent article the other day about an informal study highlighting The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists. More accurately… the problems involve the process of scientific study.
As the authors state, the published results were not the result of a scientific poll and the findings could be interpreted in many different ways. With these caveats in mind, the study does uncover some potentially serious problems in the way the system rewards researchers for their work. Problems that at the very least require a deeper analysis.
…the gold standard for how research is done… consistent, unbiased, repeatable, peer reviewed.
Many years ago, back when I first became interested in science, I remember both my biology and chemistry teachers emphasizing the value of consistent procedures, quality questions, process repeatability, integrity in reporting, and quality results that could stand up to scrutiny. I was taught that when your working theories did not pass muster, which happens often in real science, you go back to the table, re-evaluate your theories and methods, and try again. A passion for the truth, whatever that might be, keeps you going. For me, that was when I fell in love with the scientific method, the gold standard for how research is done… consistent, unbiased, repeatable, peer reviewed. It is the roadmap for how hypotheses become theories and eventually scientific truths. To hold to this standard, studies can’t just claim repeatability, they must be actually repeated. They can’t just be available for peer review, they must be actually reviewed. In today’s economic environment, we all understand that not every study can be funded. On the other hand, we can’t let this limitation affect the quality of our science. Good scientific study is not about choosing “safe” topics… but having the courage to choose the risky topics and doubling down in the hope of making that huge discovery. It is the risky, difficult, and challenging topics that push the limits of human understanding.
The scientific method is simply how quality science is done, and the reward system should reinforce it.
To hold true to the scientific method, the system must reward researchers based on quality of their reporting and the thoroughness of their methods, not the results themselves. More often than not, you won’t make that big discovery… but if your research project is sound and your methods rigorous, proving your hypothesis to be wrong has value too. It is one more “untruth” that you eliminate on your path to finding that one truth. Even inconclusive results are important as they indicate a need to go back and revaluate your questions, your methods, and your data. The scientific method is simply how quality science is done, and the reward system should reinforce it.
*cover image from http://www.workforceinstitute.org/blog/scientific-method-isnt-just-scientists/
