GoKawiilOPINION - It is not surprising that a case of scientific fraud occasionally comes to light, according to associate professor Empirical Political Science Alex Lehr. ‘Many of us are doing our stinking best to maintain scientific integrity and produce rigorous research. But we do that mostly despite the incentives created by the academic system, not because of them.’
A recent case of scientific fraud by a – now dismissed – colleague at Radboud University prompted me to go off on a long rant on social media. Vox asked me to share it here in slightly edited form. This is not something I would normally be inclined to do, but in light of current trends in science and society, I guess it is good to speak openly and clearly about these things. So, here it goes, with the provision that I am not a methodologist and not a philosopher of science, just a practicing researcher.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game
A very understandable reaction to academic integrity violations is to view them as idiosyncratic, malicious actions of individuals. We shrug our shoulders and continue business as usual. I think it’s the wrong reaction.
The real issue here is the misalignment of incentives with the desired outcomes. We get rewarded for telling simple and clean stories – preferably the kind of stories others want to hear. For applying a credible looking veneer of rigorous science to those stories. For theoretical novelty. For demonstrating productivity with lots of publications, preferable “top-publications”. That’s what’s getting us the research grants, the career promotions, the media attention and the policy influence.
What we are not getting rewarded for, is being open about how complex, messy and uncertain research results can be. For articulating all those pesky assumptions our inferences are based on – or even for worrying about them too much ourselves. For showing how variable our results are, depending on the models we choose apply to our data. For being transparent about all the decisions we make as part of our scientific workflow, at best based on reasoned and reasonable trade-offs between practical feasibility and maximum rigor rather then self-serving opportunism.
For spending the time, effort and money needed for collecting high-quality data when there are cheaper short-cuts available. For showing the results of our analyses that don’t fit so nicely with the story. For admitting that the data are simply too noisy to provide a clear signal. For taking the time that is necessary to complete research projects that adhere to FAIR principles, rather than just pumping out another publication. For doing the kind of theoretical and empirical grunt work that is needed to contribute to the accumulation of knowledge instead of just telling interesting “new” stories.
By no means universally, with large variations between different areas of study and between academic communities, and with incremental improvements over time. But still way too pervasively.
I do believe that many of us are doing our stinking best to maintain scientific integrity and produce rigorous research. But let’s not kid ourselves, we do that mostly despite the incentives created by the academic system, not because of them.
So, by all means, hold individual scientists accountable. But also recognize that they might merely be responding to the incentives that we, as a scientific community, are creating. Be willing to consider that the known cases of academic fraud may well be the symptom of a much more systemic problem.
... continue reading