Science on Trial

Science on Trial, Part 1​

Yves here. KLG discusses a new paper which dissects the problems with science, with the investigation of and efforts to prevent and treat Covid as the object lesson.

Since KLG plans to return to this topic soon, I hope he addresses dogmatism, which was aggressively enforced with invocations of The Science and threats (and in some cases successes) in ruining careers of apostates.

By KLG, who has held research and academic positions in three US medical schools since 1995 and is currently Professor of Biochemistry and Associate Dean. He has performed and directed research on protein structure, function, and evolution; cell adhesion and motility; the mechanism of viral fusion proteins; and assembly of the vertebrate heart. He has served on national review panels of both public and private funding agencies, and his research and that of his students has been funded by the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and National Institutes of Health.

The current pandemic has exposed various flaws in how scientific research is conducted in the United States and other countries in the so-called Global North. Some of this can be attributed to the urgency of the task presented by COVID-19 as it emerged four years ago. Getting a handle on the science of the pandemic is difficult. The Covid literature is exceedingly large and fragmented and the political response to the pandemic has been worse. But a paper published online on 8 December 2023 presents a framework for beginning to understand where we are: The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in “Sped up Science”: Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype in the COVID-19 Pandemic (henceforth Lipworth et al.; the journal website is here; alas, the paper is behind a paywall for most readers). The authors are from the Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University, the University of Sydney/Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney Law School, and the University of Toronto. Although practicing scientists tend to ignore outside voices, this is always a mistake. This paper is comprehensive, and I look forward to digging deeper into this very useful contribution to the current literature on the exigencies under which modern science, commonly understood, is practiced.

More:

Science isn't the problem, it never was and never will be.

What is the problem is that the criminals packaged up fear, irrationality and belief and presented it to the world as "science".
They did use science though, by means of the research and development needed to create the above mentioned package and use it to unleash psychological warfare on the world.

The paper in question

Science on Trial, Part 2: An Immodest Proposal​

In the previous post of this series, Science on Trial, Part 1, we discussed the perceived necessity of a new ethics of scientific research in the “sped-up and scaled up world of science during a global pandemic.” In my view the answer is, “No, we do not need new ethics.” But we do need to change how research is supported if we are going to take advantage of the advances that have inarguably improved the speed, efficiency, reach, and goal-directedness of Biomedical Science, when properly practiced. And by “we,” as always, I mean all of us as members of a polity and society. How we have gotten to this point was considered in our previous discussion of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and the relative contributions of publicly supported research and private, i.e., corporate, activities in the advancement of Biomedical Science over the past 30+ years. It is clear that the results of publicly supported research form the essential foundation upon which all biomedical science rests.

More:

chieftain said:

Science isn't the problem, it never was and never will be.

What is the problem is that the criminals packaged up fear, irrationality and belief and presented it to the world as "science".
They did use science though, by means of the research and development needed to create the above mentioned package and use it to unleash psychological warfare on the world.

Click to expand...

Yep, Science doesn't declare itself the "Truth". Science puts forth hypothesis and asks people to point out its flaw.

Everything else is PROPAGANDA

With little knowledge comes great confidence: Study reveals relationship between knowledge and attitudes toward science​

Overconfidence has long been recognized as a critical problem in judgment and decision making.

According to Dr. Cristina Mendonça, one of the lead authors of a new study published in Nature Human Behavior, "Overconfidence occurs when individuals subjectively assess their aptitude to be higher than their objective accuracy [and] has long been recognized as a critical problem in judgment and decision making. Past research has shown that miscalibrations in the internal representation of accuracy can have severe consequences but how to gauge these miscalibrations is far from trivial."

In the case of scientific knowledge, overconfidence might be particularly significant, as the lack of awareness of one's own ignorance can impact behaviors, pose risks to public policies, and even jeopardize health.

More:

A once-ignored community of science sleuths now has the research community on its heels​

A community of sleuths hunting for errors in scientific research have sent shockwaves through some of the most prestigious research institutions in the world — and the science community at large.

High-profile cases of alleged image manipulations in papers authored by the former president at Stanford University and leaders at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have made national media headlines, and some top science leaders think this could be just the start.

“At the rate things are going, we expect another one of these to come up every few weeks,” said Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of the Science family of scientific journals, whose namesake publication is one of the two most influential in the field.

The sleuths argue their work is necessary to correct the scientific record and prevent generations of researchers from pursuing dead-end topics because of flawed papers. And some scientists say it’s time for universities and academic publishers to reform how they address flawed research.

More:

Humor:

The Universe Is Nothing Without Us​

When I was a kid, I dreamed of transcendence even if I didn’t know to call it by that name. I walked through the world with my head in the stars, trading the industrial wastelands of New Jersey for pictures of distant galaxies, my leaky roof for books about the solar system. I spent hours in my room dreaming of space-suited astronauts bounding over alien landscapes.

Whenever things were bad, I retreated into space and science. When I was 9 years old, a drunk driver careened over the centerline and killed my 15-year-old brother. The shock of his sudden, irrevocable disappearance propelled me deeper into my astronomy books. I devoured telescopic images of interstellar clouds and star fields. They showed me a cosmos in which my story, my pain, was just one narrative in an infinite book of stories.

I yearned to follow my heroes, such as Newton and Einstein, into the rarefied realms of mathematical physics, a desire that only deepened as I learned more about physics through old texts I found on solo trips to Greenwich Village. In the mathematical proofs underpinning Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s relativity, I saw an invisible skeleton on which the flawed flesh of the world had been hung. I also learned that once you discover the precise mathematical laws governing atoms and their subatomic particles, everything in the universe can be predicted and explained. To me, this reductionism, along with the supposedly timeless reality of mathematics, meant that human experience could be overcome through a higher, more complete perspective. I left for college wanting to join in the effort to climb those heights, to pierce the veil of this messy world and find a view of the universe free of human bias and tragedy.

More:

Awaiting a decision on new research regulations, scientists pen dueling articles to shape ‘gain-of-function’ policies​

Nearly 14 months have slipped by since an influential group of government science advisors recommended reforming rules governing the funding of US pathogen research. According to the group’s chair, Gerald Parker, that’s too many months. Parker, an associate dean at Texas A&M University, expected quicker action on the proposals to more stringently review experiments that make dangerous viruses more transmissible or virulent, estimating that it should have taken the government about six months to address the recommendations.

As they await a decision on policies for potential pandemic pathogen research, dueling camps of scientists have emerged, weighing in through a journal article, responses to the article, and even responses to the responses. Those camps are seeking to undercut or boost the advisory recommendations developed in the wake of the COVID pandemic—and to bolster or diminish the suspicion that a lab accident could have caused it.

Broadly speaking, the proposed recommendations—put forward by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, or NSABB—build on current government policy, established in 2017, that calls for a high-level review of research that risks creating potential pandemic pathogens, sometimes called gain-of-function research. Among scientists, the key question is: Will the proposals slow down research important for pandemic preparedness or ensure the adequate vetting of research that could spark a pandemic.

fwiw (dyodd)

Biomedical Scientist Answers Pseudoscience Questions From Twitter | Tech Support | WIRED​

May 28, 2024

Biomedical scientist Dr. Andrea Love answers your questions about pseudosciences and false health claims from Twitter. What red flags should you look out for when gauging trust in health influencers? How harmful are cell phone towers to our health? Are organic foods actually free from pesticides? Answers to these questions and many more await—it's Pseudoscience Support.

22:07

I think they meant the Trouble with Gaslighting.

How many papers have been retracted already this year?

Research to Ruin: The Worsening Spectre of Academic Fraud​

Jonathan Pruitt saw spiders do remarkable things. The evolutionary ecologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario won international recognition for his research on the habits of colony-dwelling African social spiders. His work showed that the “personalities” of individual spiders played a major role in the tasks they performed and the overall performance of their colony. Bold and aggressive spiders, for example, were more likely to be hunters and group leaders. And the introduction of a new spider could dramatically change the colony’s dynamics, depending on the tendencies of other “shy” spiders.

Pruitt’s fascinating observations rocketed him to prominence as an academic dynamo. He accumulated a long list of journal publications and was named a Canada 150 Research Chair, one of the youngest academics in Canada to be given the prestigious honour. A skilled self-promoter, Pruitt also boasted that his work on spiders, ants and wasps had application far beyond the invertebrate world. “This new research evaluates whether the rise and fall of societies could be contingent on having just one or a few…key individuals,” he declared grandiosely in 2018.

In fact, Pruitt’s research did nothing of the kind. It was all bunk.

More: