Reliable science takes time. But the current system rewards speed
https://theconversation.com/reliable-science-takes-time-but-the-current-system-rewards-speed-249497
INTRO: Lately, there have been many headlines on scientific fraud and journal article retractions. If this trend continues, it represents a serious threat to public trust in science.
One way to tackle this problem – and ensure public trust in science remains high – may be to slow it down. We sometimes refer to this philosophy as “slow science”. Akin to the slow food movement, slow science prioritises quality over speed and seeks to buck incentive structures that promote mass production.
Slow science may not represent an obvious way to improve science because we often equate science with progress, and slowing down progress does not sound very appealing. However, progress is not just about speed, but about basing important societal decisions on strong scientific foundations. And this takes time.
Unfortunately, the pressures and incentives modern scientists face are almost universally against slow science. Secure, permanent university jobs are scarce, and with budget cuts, this appears to be getting worse. As a result, the pressure to publish has never been higher... (
MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Should meta-scientists hold themselves to higher standards?
https://metaresearch.nl/blog/2025/3/19/should-meta-scientists-hold-themselves-to-higher-standards
INTRO: As a
meta-scientist, I research research itself. I systematically examine the scientific literature to identify problems and apply the scientific method to design and test solutions. Inherent to meta-science is that it can also include critique of other people’s research and advice on how to improve.
But what if meta-scientists don’t always follow the very best practices they promote?
This question came up recently at an event where a high-profile meta-scientific paper was retracted due to misrepresentations of what had and hadn’t been preregistered. The backlash on social media included concerns that the authors had lost (at least some) credibility as advocates of responsible and transparent research.
That reaction stuck with me because it seemed to suggest that, for a meta-scientist to be credible and for their advice to be taken seriously, their own work must be flawless.
So I began to wonder: Should meta-scientists hold themselves to higher standards to maintain credibility? Should I? And how would it affect my own credibility as a meta-researcher if I dropped the ball somewhere along the way? (
MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NU Prof. Michael Bailey faces backlash over retracted gender dysphoria study
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2025/...cklash-over-retracted-gender-dysphoria-study/
EXCERPT: “I’ve published on issues of free speech before in various contexts, and so to see something that appeared to be in opposition to that value, I felt like I just couldn’t look myself in the mirror and be a part of that anymore,” he said. “Where they had made a decision that was diametrically opposed to a foundational value that I have, I felt like I couldn’t be a part of that team any longer.”
Ferguson said Springer’s original retraction was based on a “technicality” that is not applied reliably across psychology papers.
He added that there is little consistency with how retraction standards are applied. The standards are officially decided by the Committee on Public Ethics, which state that retraction is “warranted” if there is “clear evidence” of major errors, fabricated statements or falsification affecting the results, as well as if there are “unethical research practices” or if the findings were plagiarized. Henchley said in an email to The Daily that Springer follows COPE standards and that they are done to “correct the publication record.”
As a video games specialist, Ferguson said he knows of multiple pivotal papers in his field that meet COPE standards for retraction but remain unaffected. Even in the extremes, Ferguson said there is “no reliability.”
“If you were to apply retraction decisions to (Bailey’s original) article to social science at large, it would be a bloodbath,” he said. “A majority of articles would have to be retracted. If the standards for retraction that we use in that article applied, it would be an absolute disaster for social science, because most articles couldn’t meet the standards that were applied to this article.” (
MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Trump Administration Cancels NIH Scientific Integrity Policy
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tion-cancels-nih-scientific-integrity-policy/
EXCERPTS: The policy was rescinded [...] to “ensure alignment with the administration’s priorities,” according to a notice posted by NIH. The notice says NIH, which is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world, will now follow the Department of Health and Human Services' broader scientific integrity policy. NIH, the notice says, “remains committed to upholding the principles of scientific integrity.”
The NIH policy, which was last updated during the final months of the Biden administration, included a commitment that “diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) are integral components of the entire scientific process.” [...] No such diversity language is included in the HHS policy NIH is now meant to follow.
HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the policy was pulled due to the diversity language. The NIH policy, he said, had been “weaponized” by the Biden administration to “inject harmful DEI and gender ideology into research.”
[...] The move has alarmed scientists and public health experts who argue that the Trump administration has already politicized science by eliminating HHS offices focused on health equity and climate change, canceling research grants on racial health disparities and other topics the administration does not like... (
MORE - details)
COMMENT:
A round and round scenario: Repealing science policies supposedly driven by ideological preferences is likewise political interference itself. Maybe the only solution is to define the human-related sciences as fundamentally open to political influences, something putatively supported by history according to past opinion pieces in SciAm and other science outlets themselves.
Yes, science is political - SciAm (2020)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-science-is-political/
Science and politics are inseparable - Nature (2020)
https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-02797-1/d41586-020-02797-1.pdf
Scientists have always been political - JSTOR (2017)
https://daily.jstor.org/scientists-have-always-been-political/
Science has always been political - Science.org (2020)
_
