Sciences, politics: the replication crisis, part 1

Self-tutoring about science and its evolution: the tutor mentions the replication crisis.

The following is according to my understanding.

The other day one of my sons asked me if I’d heard of the replication crisis – I had not. Therefore, I asked what it is. “It’s that the results of scientific experiments turn out not to be reproducible when someone else re-runs them,” he explained.

Somebody might suggest I have a lot of background in science – besides a B.Ed., I’ve got two BScs. This is not meant as a brag; lots of people driving down the same roads as I do have Master’s and/or PhD’s. Nonetheless, I’ve spent enough time in academic corridors to know that world.

The replication crisis intrigued me momentarily, but unfortunately, it soon became, in my opinion, fairly easy to explain. The reason is that, as I’ve been reminded a few times, success in academics doesn’t, by itself, earn a living – at least, not that I know of.

I remember talking to some physicists/astronomers more than 30 years ago. They both had PhDs, but they more or less seemed to live on a shoestring. They loved doing astronomy research, but getting funding for their research wasn’t easy. In spite of all their education, they seemed at someone else’s whim, who got to decide whether their research grant would continue or not. I was under the impression that “someone” might not have held a PhD.

It’s my suspicion that, in many cases, bodies who fund scientific research just as likely have a political agenda. In such a world, the truth might become tempting to manipulate, eh? After all, doesn’t it seem likely that the research team whose work confirms the funding body’s hopes will have their grant renewed?

Source:

ipr.northwestern.edu