What's best for science(and society)

What's best for science(and society): High quality research, regardless of outcome. What's best for scientists: Producing a large volume of Published results. There is a maxim in the scientific community, well more like a law Publish or PERISH!

Peter Higgs, who won a Nobel prize(2013) for correctly predicting the Higgs boson particle in 1964, finally observed in 2012. He did nothing for 5 years but work on this, he did not publish anything during this time period. He has said that he believes no university would employ him in today's academic system because he would not be considered "productive" enough" He has also said that he doubts work like Higgs boson identification achievable now as academics are expected to 'keep churning out papers'

If you don't see how this could be & is a problem, you're not paying attention!

Science gets dis-proven every day, and yet the main stream news preaches as if it's omniscient and should never be questioned. The reproducibility problem in science. The main pillar of good science is that it is reproducible. Yet, there is a huge problem in this area. Some examples: Amgens cancer researchers were only able to reproduce 11% of "Landmark" cancer studies over a 10 year period, a whopping 89% of published cancer studies (which means they passed peer reviews, the benchmark of modern science) could NOT be reproduced!

Over 50% of psychological published studies fail the reproducibility test, most likely just made up!

What happens in the scientific world becomes public policy, what happens in science becomes cancer treatments etc..etc.. Shouldn't we de-incentivize this mad rush just to publish?

Last Edited by Mathetes 2.0 on 01/09/2020 02:29 AM