In a world filled with manufactured crises, it is crucial to direct attention towards real issues such as climate change and healthcare [39b44507]. Climate change is a pressing concern, with Pope Francis calling for urgent action and record-low levels of sea ice in the Antarctic [39b44507]. The consequences of global warming, including rising sea levels and the destabilization of ice shelves, cannot be ignored [39b44507]. The COVID-19 pandemic is another significant crisis, highlighting the importance of vaccination and the risks of waning immunity [39b44507].
Controversial columns and discussions also play a role in addressing real crises. Jonathan Knutson reflects on his controversial columns, covering topics such as COVID-19 vaccines, GMOs, freer trade, and climate change [26f50f0d]. He emphasizes the importance of relying on established science rather than dubious internet information [26f50f0d]. Knutson acknowledges both positive and negative feedback and highlights the need for critical thinking and education on various topics [26f50f0d].
In the realm of healthcare, Gilbert Keith Chesterton's views provide valuable insights. Chesterton opposed government involvement in healthcare, considering it anti-democratic and compulsory [c11c7953]. He criticized the worship of health and the pervasiveness of health-care officials [c11c7953]. Dale Ahlquist, in his speech on Chesterton's views, emphasized the importance of treating the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and the need for self-control [c11c7953]. He also highlighted the Catholic Church's role in creating schools and hospitals and the potential dangers of state and market involvement in healthcare [c11c7953].
Addressing real crises and controversial topics requires a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand and a commitment to relying on established science and critical thinking. By doing so, we can work towards finding effective solutions and making a positive impact on society.
A recent survey reveals that interference in scientific research still occurs, although it has lessened compared to a decade ago [015291b8]. The survey, which included hundreds of scientists, found that nearly one in 10 researchers have experienced political or workplace pressure to alter their findings [015291b8]. Interference can manifest as pressure to change results, withdrawal of funding, restrictions on communicating findings, or self-censorship [015291b8]. Environmental scientists, female or young scientists, and those from marginalized communities were particularly vulnerable to interference [015291b8]. The survey also found that 92% of respondents had experienced one of these constraints at some point in their careers [015291b8]. About 9% of respondents felt pressure to alter their conclusions, with a quarter being asked to downplay environmental risk and 18% asked to conform to existing policy [015291b8]. Additionally, 16% of respondents had been restricted from communicating their results to the public, and a third agreed that interference had created health and safety risks [015291b8]. The findings align with the experiences reported by Evidence For Democracy, a group that promotes science education and science-informed policy [015291b8].
The survey highlights the importance of maintaining scientific rigor and integrity, avoiding biases and conflicts of interest, and ensuring transparency in the communication of findings [015291b8]. It underscores the need for collaboration and open data sharing among scientists to accelerate progress and address urgent global issues [015291b8]. The survey also acknowledges that self-selection and language limitations may have influenced the results [015291b8]. Overall, the survey serves as a reminder of the challenges and pitfalls scientists face in conducting research amidst real crises and the ongoing need to protect the independence and objectivity of scientific inquiry [015291b8].
The world could use more jerks, according to an opinion piece in The Washington Post [4e699c4e]. The author argues that knowledge-making fields such as journalism and academia need more people who are willing to ask uncomfortable questions and challenge conventional wisdom, even if they are labeled as jerks [4e699c4e]. The author cites a study that highlights the rising pressures for academic censorship, including self-censorship, driven by a desire to be nice and avoid offending colleagues [4e699c4e]. The author also mentions the controversy surrounding former Harvard President Larry Summers' speculation about sex differences in elite science and engineering programs, which led to hurt and outrage among many female academics [4e699c4e]. The author suggests that the emphasis on niceness and the suppression of dissenting views can hinder truth-seeking and make science more vulnerable to censorship, fraud, and corruption [4e699c4e].
The opinion piece adds another dimension to the discussion on interference in scientific research, highlighting the importance of dissenting voices and the potential consequences of self-censorship in academia and journalism [4e699c4e]. It raises questions about the balance between being respectful and challenging established norms and the impact on the pursuit of knowledge and truth [4e699c4e]. By encouraging more open and critical dialogue, knowledge-making fields can foster a more robust and inclusive environment for intellectual growth and progress [4e699c4e].
Recent revelations of research fraud in social science highlight the need for stronger remedies to address the issue [64330aa8]. Many researchers and faculty admit to engaging in questionable research practices, including fraud [64330aa8]. The problem of fraud and questionable scientific practices is widespread and undermines the credibility of social science [64330aa8]. Measures such as data sharing, statistical experts, and open science practices have been implemented, but they are not enough to catch all instances of misconduct [64330aa8]. The problem is a 'tragedy of the commons' where individual self-interest undermines the collective benefit [64330aa8]. To address this, universities should impose severe punishments for fraud, journals should relax methodological standards, and unreliable claims should be retracted and authors blacklisted [64330aa8]. Social sanctions should also be imposed to stigmatize fraud and misconduct [64330aa8]. These measures, combined with others, may reduce research misconduct and reinforce the credibility of social science's knowledge claims [64330aa8].
The credibility of scientific research is facing a crisis due to the rise of fake scientific papers [4969f536]. Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals, jeopardizing research credibility [4969f536]. Last year, over 10,000 papers were retracted, but experts believe this is just the tip of the iceberg [4969f536]. The rise in fake papers is rooted in China, where paper mills supply fabricated work for publication [4969f536]. The practice has spread to India, Iran, Russia, and eastern Europe [4969f536]. Editors and peer reviewers are not fulfilling their roles properly, and some are being paid large sums of money [4969f536]. The products of paper mills often look like regular articles but are based on templates with fictitious data [4969f536]. Watchdog groups have noted retractions by journals that were forced to act when fabrications were uncovered [4969f536]. Wiley, a major publisher, has identified hundreds of fraudsters and removed them from its systems [4969f536]. However, publishers say they cannot tackle the crisis alone [4969f536]. Academics are incentivized to publish, and the growing number of journals making money from publishing exacerbates the problem [4969f536]. Poor or fabricated research can have harmful consequences, as seen with the case of ivermectin and its use in treating Covid-19 [4969f536]. Researchers are trying to develop protocols to reveal the authenticity of studies [4969f536]. The rise of paper mills and fraudulent research papers is polluting scientific knowledge and jeopardizing the integrity of the system [4969f536].
The Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) is working to improve the scientific research process [59cf7972]. METRICS conducts research on research, focusing on the logistics of conducting research across all fields [59cf7972]. They study methods, reporting, evaluation, reproducibility, and incentives in research [59cf7972]. One of their initiatives is the development of a new CV framework to recognize research progress even if a paper has not been completed [59cf7972]. METRICS also emphasizes the importance of reproducibility in research, as many research results are exaggerated and there are biases and conflicts of interest in the peer review process [59cf7972]. Their goal is to improve the efficiency, transparency, rigor, reproducibility, accuracy, credibility, and trustworthiness of science [59cf7972]. They advocate for standardized research protocols and methods to prevent research fraud and ensure research is credible and objective [59cf7972]. The work of METRICS aligns with the ongoing efforts to address the challenges and pitfalls scientists face in conducting research and to protect the independence and objectivity of scientific inquiry [59cf7972].
The Intensive Mobile Treatment (IMT) initiative in New York City aims to treat severely mentally ill people on the streets [e7e261c2]. However, an opinion piece by John MacIntosh questions the effectiveness of the IMT program and suggests the need for future-looking, constructive, outcome-focused reviews [e7e261c2]. MacIntosh proposes five elements for such reviews: reporting, baselining, systems, incentives, and context [e7e261c2]. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding results and making improvements rather than focusing solely on reporting and reviewing activities [e7e261c2]. MacIntosh, the managing partner of SeaChange Capital Partners, highlights the need for ongoing evaluation and improvement to ensure the success of the IMT initiative [e7e261c2].
Improving the Intensive Mobile Treatment initiative in New York City requires a comprehensive review process that goes beyond reporting and includes elements such as baselining, systems, incentives, and context [e7e261c2]. By focusing on outcomes and making necessary improvements, the IMT program can better serve the severely mentally ill population on the streets of New York City [e7e261c2]. The ongoing efforts of organizations like METRICS to improve the scientific research process can provide valuable insights and frameworks for evaluating and enhancing programs like IMT [e7e261c2]. By combining evidence-based approaches and a commitment to continuous improvement, we can work towards addressing real crises and making a positive impact on society [e7e261c2].