您當(dāng)前的位置>
會(huì)計(jì)>>
會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù)
>>【The Economist】Problems with scientific research:How science goes wrong
【The Economist】Problems with scientific research:How science goes wrong
發(fā)布:vividboy | 分類(lèi):會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù)
關(guān)于本站
人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇-經(jīng)管之家:分享大學(xué)、考研、論文、會(huì)計(jì)、留學(xué)、數(shù)據(jù)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、金融學(xué)、管理學(xué)、統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)、博弈論、統(tǒng)計(jì)年鑒、行業(yè)分析包括等相關(guān)資源。
經(jīng)管之家是國(guó)內(nèi)活躍的在線(xiàn)教育咨詢(xún)平臺(tái)!
經(jīng)管之家新媒體交易平臺(tái)
提供"微信號(hào)、微博、抖音、快手、頭條、小紅書(shū)、百家號(hào)、企鵝號(hào)、UC號(hào)、一點(diǎn)資訊"等虛擬賬號(hào)交易,真正實(shí)現(xiàn)買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方的共贏(yíng)!菊(qǐng)點(diǎn)擊這里訪(fǎng)問(wèn)】
TOP熱門(mén)關(guān)鍵詞
- 考研 | 《預(yù)測(cè)》評(píng)審還要 ...
- 專(zhuān)業(yè)排名 | 2015_中國(guó)高校_排 ...
- 專(zhuān)業(yè)排名 | 2014年中國(guó)最好的 ...
- 專(zhuān)業(yè)解讀 | 如何選擇專(zhuān)業(yè),入 ...
- 專(zhuān)業(yè)排名 | 中國(guó)熱門(mén)專(zhuān)業(yè)排名 ...
- 熱門(mén)專(zhuān)業(yè) | 目前最熱門(mén)的專(zhuān)業(yè)
- 清華大學(xué) | 清華大學(xué)經(jīng)濟(jì)管理 ...
- 國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)與貿(mào)易 | 經(jīng)綸濟(jì)世:真實(shí)國(guó) ...
專(zhuān)題頁(yè)面精選
- 經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué) 管理學(xué) 金融學(xué) 統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)
- 會(huì)計(jì)學(xué) 財(cái)政學(xué) 國(guó)際貿(mào)易 財(cái)務(wù)管理
- 工商管理學(xué) 人力資源管理 風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理
- 成本會(huì)計(jì)學(xué) 財(cái)務(wù)會(huì)計(jì) 酒店管理
- 市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷(xiāo)學(xué) 審計(jì)學(xué) 保險(xiǎn)學(xué)
- 國(guó)際金融學(xué) 企業(yè)管理學(xué) 保險(xiǎn)精算
- 精算學(xué) 心理學(xué) 哲學(xué)
OL:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709http:/ ...
免費(fèi)學(xué)術(shù)公開(kāi)課,掃碼加入 |
http://img3.douban.com/view/group_topic/large/public/p6756512.jpg
A SIMPLE idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the better.
But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity.
Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “l(fā)andmark” studies in cancer research. Earlier, a group at Bayer, a drug company, managed to repeat just a quarter of 67 similarly important papers. A leading computer scientist frets that three-quarters of papers in his subfield are bunk. In 2000-10 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.
What a load of rubbish
Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risk—and much of it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money and the efforts of some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern academic research took shape after its successes in the second world war, it was still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred thousand. As their ranks have swelled, to 6m-7m active researchers on the latest reckoning, scientists have lost their taste for self-policing and quality control. The obligation to “publish or perish” has come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full professors in America earned on average $135,000 in 2012—more than judges did. Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays verification (the replication of other people’s results) does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.
Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results. In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say, excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling”. And as more research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise. Such spurious correlations are often recorded in journals eager for startling papers. If they touch on drinking wine, going senile or letting children play video games, they may well command the front pages of newspapers, too.
Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.
The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested.
If it’s broke, fix it
All this makes a shaky foundation for an enterprise dedicated to discovering the truth about the world. What might be done to shore it up? One priority should be for all disciplines to follow the example of those that have done most to tighten standards. A start would be getting to grips with statistics, especially in the growing number of fields that sift through untold oodles of data looking for patterns. Geneticists have done this, and turned an early torrent of specious results from genome sequencing into a trickle of truly significant ones.
Ideally, research protocols should be registered in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to fiddle with the experiment’s design midstream so as to make the results look more substantial than they are. (It is already meant to happen in clinical trials of drugs, but compliance is patchy.) Where possible, trial data also should be open for other researchers to inspect and test.
http://img3.douban.com/view/group_topic/large/public/p6756516.jpg
The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need to go much further. Journals should allocate space for “uninteresting” work, and grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be tightened—or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favour of post-publication evaluation in the form of appended comments. That system has worked well in recent years in physics and mathematics. Lastly, policymakers should ensure that institutions using public money also respect the rules.
Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused—respect. But its privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work. The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to understanding.
「經(jīng)管之家」APP:經(jīng)管人學(xué)習(xí)、答疑、交友,就上經(jīng)管之家!
免流量費(fèi)下載資料----在經(jīng)管之家app可以下載論壇上的所有資源,并且不額外收取下載高峰期的論壇幣。
涵蓋所有經(jīng)管領(lǐng)域的優(yōu)秀內(nèi)容----覆蓋經(jīng)濟(jì)、管理、金融投資、計(jì)量統(tǒng)計(jì)、數(shù)據(jù)分析、國(guó)貿(mào)、財(cái)會(huì)等專(zhuān)業(yè)的學(xué)習(xí)寶庫(kù),各類(lèi)資料應(yīng)有盡有。
來(lái)自五湖四海的經(jīng)管達(dá)人----已經(jīng)有上千萬(wàn)的經(jīng)管人來(lái)到這里,你可以找到任何學(xué)科方向、有共同話(huà)題的朋友。
經(jīng)管之家(原人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇),跨越高校的圍墻,帶你走進(jìn)經(jīng)管知識(shí)的新世界。
掃描下方二維碼下載并注冊(cè)APP
免流量費(fèi)下載資料----在經(jīng)管之家app可以下載論壇上的所有資源,并且不額外收取下載高峰期的論壇幣。
涵蓋所有經(jīng)管領(lǐng)域的優(yōu)秀內(nèi)容----覆蓋經(jīng)濟(jì)、管理、金融投資、計(jì)量統(tǒng)計(jì)、數(shù)據(jù)分析、國(guó)貿(mào)、財(cái)會(huì)等專(zhuān)業(yè)的學(xué)習(xí)寶庫(kù),各類(lèi)資料應(yīng)有盡有。
來(lái)自五湖四海的經(jīng)管達(dá)人----已經(jīng)有上千萬(wàn)的經(jīng)管人來(lái)到這里,你可以找到任何學(xué)科方向、有共同話(huà)題的朋友。
經(jīng)管之家(原人大經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇),跨越高校的圍墻,帶你走進(jìn)經(jīng)管知識(shí)的新世界。
掃描下方二維碼下載并注冊(cè)APP
本文論壇網(wǎng)址:http://xalimeijing.com/thread-2688447-1-1.html
您可能感興趣的文章
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 【數(shù)據(jù)分析師分享】做大數(shù)據(jù)真的 ...
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 求助一個(gè)關(guān)于假設(shè)檢驗(yàn)的問(wèn)題
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 請(qǐng)教SAS base中的一道題
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 求問(wèn),兩個(gè)工具變量stata
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 求 新編經(jīng)濟(jì)法教程課后習(xí)題答案
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | USGAAP SOP98-1 關(guān)于企業(yè)自主開(kāi)發(fā) ...
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 如何用logistic回歸模擬數(shù)據(jù)
- 會(huì)計(jì)庫(kù) | 擬線(xiàn)性偏好的效用最大化解怎么求 ...
本站推薦的文章
- 哲學(xué)名言 | 【獨(dú)家發(fā)布】經(jīng)典哲學(xué)名言
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 求推薦一本講人生目標(biāo)的哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 ...
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 經(jīng)濟(jì)人,開(kāi)拓你邏輯思維的哲學(xué)書(shū) ...
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 經(jīng)典的哲學(xué)書(shū)籍
- 哲學(xué)書(shū)籍 | 發(fā)22本經(jīng)典的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)及哲學(xué)書(shū)籍《 ...
人氣文章
本文標(biāo)題:【The Economist】Problems with scientific research:How science goes wrong
本文鏈接網(wǎng)址:http://xalimeijing.com/jg/huiji_huijiku_2688447_1.html
2.轉(zhuǎn)載的文章僅代表原創(chuàng)作者觀(guān)點(diǎn),與本站無(wú)關(guān)。其原創(chuàng)性以及文中陳述文字和內(nèi)容未經(jīng)本站證實(shí),本站對(duì)該文以及其中全部或者部分內(nèi)容、文字的真實(shí)性、完整性、及時(shí)性,不作出任何保證或承若;
3.如本站轉(zhuǎn)載稿涉及版權(quán)等問(wèn)題,請(qǐng)作者及時(shí)聯(lián)系本站,我們會(huì)及時(shí)處理。