[ANPPOM-Lista] dois artigos sobre ciência

[Carlos Palombini]

"How a happy moment for neuroscience is a sad moment for science"

Systems neuroscience is celebrating a landmark, but one that shows the way
we do science is broken.

The Allen Institute for Brain Science released a landmark set of data
<http://www.alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/news-press/articles/introducing-allen-brain-observatory>
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.

The release of this data took a privately funded institute. It could not
have come from a publicly-funded scientist. It is a striking case-study in
how modern science is worryingly broken, because it prioritises private
achievement over the public good.

You see, it’s not the what, but the how. These data are the first complete
set of neural activity recordings released *before* 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.
Texto completo: https://goo.gl/LtP6MM

___


"The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists"

*"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)*

Science is in big trouble. Or so we’re told.

In the past several years, many scientists have become afflicted with a
serious case of doubt — doubt in the very institution of science.
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?

We heard back from 270 scientists all over the world, including graduate
students, senior professors, laboratory heads, and Fields Medalists
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_Medal>. They told us that, in a
variety of ways, their careers are being hijacked by perverse incentives.
The result is bad science.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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.

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."

Many scientists have had enough. They want to break this cycle of perverse
incentives and rewards. They are going through a period of introspection,
hopeful that the end result will yield stronger scientific institutions. 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.

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.

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.

The place to begin is right where the perverse incentives first start to
creep in: the money.

Texto completo: http://goo.gl/FPyjzz
-- 
carlos palombini, ph.d. (dunelm)
professor de musicologia ufmg
professor colaborador ppgm-unirio
www.proibidao.org
ufmg.academia.edu/CarlosPalombini <http://goo.gl/KMV98I>
www.researchgate.net/profile/Carlos_Palombini2
scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=YLmXN7AAAAAJ
-------------- Próxima Parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: <http://www.listas.unicamp.br/pipermail/anppom-l/attachments/20160810/94b829f7/attachment.html>