<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>"How a happy moment for neuroscience is a sad moment for science"<br><br>Systems neuroscience is celebrating a landmark, but one that shows the way we do science is broken.<br><br>The Allen Institute for Brain Science released <a href="http://www.alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/news-press/articles/introducing-allen-brain-observatory" class="" rel="nofollow">a landmark set of data</a>
in June. Entitled the “Allen Brain Observatory”, it contains a vast
array of recordings from the bit of cortex that deals with vision, while
the eyes attached to that bit of cortex were looking at patterns. Not
too exciting, you say. In some respects you’d be right: some mouse brain
cells became active when shown some frankly boring pictures.
Experimental neuroscience is eternally lucky that mice have a very high
boredom threshold.<p name="7bcc" id="7bcc" class="">The release of this data took a privately funded institute. It could not have come from a publicly-funded scientist. <span class="" name="anon_8554fb5d3b3d">It
is a striking case-study in how modern science is worryingly broken,
because it prioritises private achievement over the public good.</span></p><p name="4945" id="4945" class="">You see, it’s not the what, but the how. These data are the first complete set of neural activity recordings released <em class="">before</em>
publication. No papers preceded it; not even a report. Nothing. Just:
here you go guys, the fruits of the joint labour of around 100 people
over 4 years.</p>Texto completo: <a href="https://goo.gl/LtP6MM">https://goo.gl/LtP6MM</a><br><br>___<br><br><br>"The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists"<br><div class="">
<p><em>"Science, I had come to learn, is as political, competitive,
and fierce a career as you can find, full of the temptation to find easy
paths." — Paul Kalanithi, neurosurgeon and writer (1977–2015)</em></p>
</div>
<p id="MZEvIG">Science is in big trouble. Or so we’re told.</p>
<p id="dZDCRI">In the past several years, many scientists have become
afflicted with a serious case of doubt — doubt in the very institution
of science.</p>As reporters covering medicine, psychology, climate
change, and other areas of research, we wanted to understand this
epidemic of doubt. So we sent scientists a survey asking this simple
question: If you could change one thing about how science works today,
what would it be and why?
<p id="9MKA5X">We heard back from 270 scientists all over the world, including graduate students, senior professors, laboratory heads, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal">Fields Medalists</a>. They told us that, in a variety of ways, their careers are being hijacked by perverse incentives. The result is bad science.</p>
<p id="wHPWN0">The scientific process, in its ideal form, is elegant:
Ask a question, set up an objective test, and get an answer. Repeat.
Science is rarely practiced to that ideal. But Copernicus believed in
that ideal. So did the rocket scientists behind the moon landing.</p>
<p id="jsxj9P">But nowadays, our respondents told us, the process is
riddled with conflict. Scientists say they’re forced to prioritize
self-preservation over pursuing the best questions and uncovering
meaningful truths.</p>
<p>"I feel torn between asking questions that I know will lead to
statistical significance and asking questions that matter," says Kathryn
Bradshaw, a 27-year-old graduate student of counseling at the
University of North Dakota.</p>
<p id="cltn88">Today, scientists' success often isn't measured by the
quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It's instead
measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they
publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public.</p><p id="FgvfHf">Scientists often learn more from studies that fail. But
failed studies can mean career death. So instead, they’re incentivized
to generate positive results they can publish. And the phrase "publish
or perish" hangs over nearly every decision. It’s a nagging whisper,
like a Jedi’s path to the dark side.</p>
<p id="Cqk4Bz">"Over time the most successful people will be those who
can best exploit the system," Paul Smaldino, a cognitive science
professor at University of California Merced, says.</p>
<p>To Smaldino, the selection pressures in science have favored
less-than-ideal research: "As long as things like publication quantity,
and publishing flashy results in fancy journals are incentivized, and
people who can do that are rewarded … they’ll be successful, and pass on
their successful methods to others."</p>
<p id="e3oD2l">Many scientists have had enough. <span>They want to break this cycle of perverse incentives and rewards. </span><span>They are going through a period of introspection, hopeful that the end result will yield stronger scientific institutions</span><span>. </span><span>In
our survey and interviews, they offered a wide variety of ideas for
improving the scientific process and bringing it closer to its ideal
form.</span></p>
<p id="3NybGN">Before we jump in, some caveats to keep in mind: Our
survey was not a scientific poll. For one, the respondents
disproportionately hailed from the biomedical and social sciences and
English-speaking communities.</p>
<p>Many of the responses did, however, vividly illustrate the challenges
and perverse incentives that scientists across fields face. And they
are a valuable starting point for a deeper look at dysfunction in
science today.</p>
<p id="8hUsRy">The place to begin is right where the perverse incentives first start to creep in: the money.</p><p>Texto completo: <a href="http://goo.gl/FPyjzz">http://goo.gl/FPyjzz</a><br></p></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>carlos palombini, ph.d. (dunelm)<br>professor de musicologia ufmg<br>professor colaborador ppgm-unirio<br><a href="http://www.proibidao.org" target="_blank">www.proibidao.org</a><br><a href="http://goo.gl/KMV98I" target="_blank">ufmg.academia.edu/CarlosPalombini</a><br></div><div><a href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Palombini2" target="_blank">www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Palombini2</a><br><a href="http://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=YLmXN7AAAAAJ" target="_blank">scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=YLmXN7AAAAAJ</a><br></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>