Senior scientists "usually wrong"

[iain]

Quite an interesting article in the Guardian where science writer Nigel Calder attacks scientists.

Calder criticised leading scientists for having forgotten that big new scientific discoveries, which remain to be uncovered in many fields, can overturn widely held beliefs.

"In any branch of science there are only two possibilities. There is either nothing left to discover, in which case, why work on it, or there are big discoveries yet to be made, in which case, what the scientists say now is likely to be false," he said. "The problem is, the top scientists seem to have forgotten that."

The result is a generation of scientists who have become a little too confident that their understanding of the world is more scientifically accurate than it will be proved to be.

Calder said the use of peer review, where established scientists decide what research gets published, and the use of review panels that hold the purse strings of university research, were exclusive and had the effect of hindering rather than encouraging new discoveries.

"It amounts to a systematic resistance to discovery," he said. Such "self-appointed clubs that claim to be experts" supported the publication and funding of mainstream work, rather than innovative science.

He said scientists were wilfully resisting pursuing certain lines of inquiry because they could upset the balance of science research. "The vast number of scientists are not even trying to do research that could lead to a Nobel prize because they don't want to rock the boat."

 

[rockoon]

Do you hear that all you environmental wackos?

 

[yersinia29]

who the ◊◊◊◊ is nigel calder? This guy has zero credibility. He's not a scientist and has no clue what real science is. He's just a reporter and nothing more.

when this journalist gets scientific training, then maybe I'll take what he says worth a grain of salt.

this guy is a clueless moron

 

[iain]

who the ◊◊◊◊ is nigel calder? This guy has zero credibility. He's not a scientist and has no clue what real science is. He's just a reporter and nothing more.

when this journalist gets scientific training, then maybe I'll take what he says worth a grain of salt.

this guy is a clueless moron

Can you justify that ad. hom. attack? Can you back up your claim that Mr Calder has "no clue what real science is". I don't feel I have enough knowledge to comment one way or the other on these claims, but I was hoping people might address what the guy has said rather than just being abusive.

To just say that he isn't a scientist so he can't possibly have valid opinions on how the scientific community works seems very elitist, especially if you can't back it up.

Nigel Calder, author of Magic Universe: the Oxford guide to modern science, a tome weighing more than the latest Harry Potter book and shortlisted for the 2003 Aventis science book awards.

 

[Wudang]

"In any branch of science there are only two possibilities. There is either nothing left to discover, in which case, why work on it, or there are big discoveries yet to be made, in which case, what the scientists say now is likely to be false," he said

Questionable dichotomy, surely. For one thing the logical corollary is that scientists do no research at all because it's either pointless or forbidden by the Illuminati.
Frank Close' comment in the article are more realistic but less headline-grabbing. Neil is just courting controversy. Unfortunately he's also playing into the hands of every nutter who ever said "they laughed at Einstein too!".
Anyone else here remember Frank Abian and Ludwig Plutonium?

 

[Bowser]

What iain quotes about the position that biased senior scientists are in with respect to their potential impact on the peer review process is precisely what I was commenting on the other day, having seen it in action. I was arrogantly and naively told that nothing of the sort was happening. The peer review process is incorruptible. Right.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Calder has made several science programs for the BBC over the years- often accompanied by books. I think he is generally worth listening to.
On this issue he is just saying something which has been pointed out many times- that science , while it radically changes our world, is an innately conservative business. As it must be.

Kuhn's "paradigm shift" notion makes much sense. A groundswell of opinion, backed by gathering evidence, slowly accumulates, before prevailing wisdom can suddenly shift.

The establishment resists the shift. That is it's function, to act as a sea anchor and stop us changing direction with every change of wind.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Arthur C. Clarke (1962??)

 

[Prester John]

Maybe its just damned hard to make big steps. Science is a slow and expensive process. A step by step incremental appoach offers a surer path, not quite guaranteed but with a greater chance of success than more speculative science. Additionally details matter. There are lots of details that are not known. This work is not headline grabbing but still is important. Then you have applied science, practical applications of science.

I'm sure every scientist would love to make a Nobel class discovery. Doing it is just a littlebiy difficult.

The peer review process does try to maintain a semblance of quality to published research. Maybe Bowser should look at the quality of homeopathic research for his answers. Certainly proof of homeopathic effects could be a huge step towards a Nobel prize.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fortunately, if there is some great big thing waiting to be discovered, some young whippersnapper who doesn't know the rules yet will probably discover it and then blab it all over town. Whew!

Calder's lament is similar to the age-old lament "Kids these days! What a bunch of impolite know-it-alls." If these laments carried any weight, the world would have ended long ago and science would have stopped long ago.

That said, the establishment can always use a bit of upping. I wonder if Calder's next article will be about how absolutely crazy string theory is.

~~ Paul

 

[Bowser]

And PJ, of course, cannot imagine the "quality" is "maintained" as a result of the human foibles of the established scientists?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Seems to me, science is a very human activity. Two characteristics of humans are the desire to stand out from the crowd and the desire to be part of the establishment. They tend to come at different times of life. The trick is to balance the springs and the shock absorbers, so we smooth out the bumps and potholes , while actually going somewhere

 

[geni]

And PJ, of course, cannot imagine the "quality" is "maintained" as a result of the human foibles of the established scientists?

If you think any piece of published research is flawed you are of course free to prove it.

 

[drkitten]

What iain quotes about the position that biased senior scientists are in with respect to their potential impact on the peer review process is precisely what I was commenting on the other day, having seen it in action.

I don't think you understand the peer review process, Bowser.

 

[Prester John]

And PJ, of course, cannot imagine the "quality" is "maintained" as a result of the human foibles of the established scientists?

No the studies have varying levels of quality, there are ways of scoring it. Low quality work which has little or no grounding in the currently accepted scientific paradigm has admitedly little chance of publication in a reputable journal. Funnily enough as the quality of the science increases the effects of homeopathy decrease. Some sort of correlation but i can't for the life of me work it out.

 

[crimresearch]

"I don't think you understand the peer review process, Bowser."

I don't know what Bowser's understanding of it is, but the peer review process has more than a few screw ups to its credit over the years.
It isn't perfect, as it consists entirely of human beings, who do let their egos, politics, and personal agendas influence their decision making.

That doesn't make any of the sweeping generalizations by Calder particularly useful.
Without *a* review system of some sort, the amount of pure hokum purporting to be research would quickly eclipse the rigorous studies on sheer volume alone.

 

[Bowser]

I spent enough time in a graduate environment to become very familiar with the peer review process. It can work. It can also fail as a result of the human shortcomings of the peer reviewers.

 

[geni]

I spent enough time in a graduate environment to become very familiar with the peer review process. It can work. It can also fail as a result of the human shortcomings of the peer reviewers.

Have fun trying to come up with a better system.

 

[Bowser]

geni, your comment is a total non-starter. I wasn't suggesting change.

 

[drkitten]

I spent enough time in a graduate environment to become very familiar with the peer review process. It can work. It can also fail as a result of the human shortcomings of the peer reviewers.

I resubmit that you're not familiar with the peer review process; "a graduate environment" almost by definition will give you a one-sided view of the process, in the same way that a football player will have a one-sided view of the process of refereeing a match. You're also -- forgive my bluntness -- criticising a process that, quite frankly, a typical graduate student is still being trained in.

You're making the common mistake of assuming uniformity on the part of peer reviewers. I'd like to point out that every journal is independently run and edited, and at a "typical" journal, there will be anywhere from three to five independent assessments of the quality of the submissions. These are not typically from "senior scientists," as you put it, but from a variety of people at a variety of places in their careers, including a disproportionate number of early-stage assistant/associate professors (because they're the only ones who have time for the amount of paperwork involved in review).

How, then, are these "senior scientists" supposed to be enforcing their biases on the rest of the community when they don't even read the d*mn manuscripts?

 

[drkitten]

"I don't think you understand the peer review process, Bowser."

I don't know what Bowser's understanding of it is, but the peer review process has more than a few screw ups to its credit over the years.

Yes, but not because of the conspiratorial biases that Bowser is alleging. When my car keys went missing the other day, it wasn't because a senior scientist from the NSF came and stole them....