OBJECTIVE SCIENCE

Quantifying Objectivity in the Natural and Social Sciences

 Partecipanti

Mappa

 Word cloud

Esplora la "nuvola delle parole (Word Cloud) per avere un'idea di massima del progetto.

 Obiettivo del progetto (Objective)

'Every year, over 1.4 million scientific articles are published worldwide. How many of them are objective and unbiased descriptions of real phenomena? Increasing evidence suggests that malpractice and publication bias are seriously affecting modern research. Their effects, combined with biased science communication, are potentially distorting scientific knowledge to an unprecedented degree. Research agendas and political agendas risk being misdirected, and human and financial resources risk being wasted on scientific questions that are based on false assumptions. The nature and gravity of this phenomenon, as well as its consequences, are only starting to be investigated. The project aims at assessing the level of bias in the natural and social sciences by focusing on three fundamental phases in the production of scientific knowledge: data collection, publication, and popularization of results. With interviews and a survey sent to thousands of European researchers in all scientific fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, sociology, economics, political science), the project will investigate research malpractice (e.g. data falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) in Europe. With advanced statistical techniques and a very broad data set, it will quantify publication bias in all scientific disciplines, producing the first comparative and interdisciplinary study of this phenomenon. By analysing discourse and narrative in popular science articles and in editorials of scientific journals, it will investigate public’s attitude towards research integrity and bias. The project will contribute to maintaining the reputation of excellence of European research, and it will be of great interest to decision makers and to scientists in all disciplines. In addition, it will allow the fellow to train in many techniques of social research, and to resume a scientific career addressing a largely unexplored field of study.'

Introduzione (Teaser)

The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or indulge in other forms of misconduct is a matter of controversy. New EU-funded research sheds light on how the ever-growing pressure to produce publishable results can impact the quality of scientific research.

Descrizione progetto (Article)

Support for this research came from the 'Objective science' project, which received funding from the Seventh Framework Programme to assess the level of bias in natural and social sciences. The analysis of thousands of papers showed that researchers tend to report more 'positive' results for their experiments in a small number of elite institutions. But are 'positive' results more interesting than 'negative' ones?

Surely, a 'negative' result is not one where nothing has been found, but where evidence suggests that the hypothesis was not correct. This has as much scientific validity as a positive result providing the hypothesis is correct. For example, the statement 'the data proves without doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real'. It is as valid as 'the data proves without doubt that global warming is not real', provided that it did.

On the other hand, the condition of today's academics is commonly described by the expression 'publish or perish'. Their careers are increasingly evaluated based on the sheer number of papers listed in their CVs and the number of citations received. Therefore, to secure funding and jobs scientists need to publish continuously. And papers are likely to be accepted by journals and later cited based on the results they report.

The 'Objective science' researchers asked scientists directly where they have committed research misconduct. Two percent of respondents admitted to have fabricated, falsified or 'cooked' data or results at least once - serious misconduct by any standards. The percentage was significantly higher when they were asked about the behaviour of colleagues. Considering that this survey asked sensitive questions, this may be a conservative estimate of the prevalence of scientific misconduct.

To further support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increases the bias against 'negative' results, data from the National Science Foundation were analysed. When examining the relationship between the percentage of paper reporting 'positive' results with institute productivity and expenditures in R&D, a distinct trend was observed.

Most ground-breaking scientific research is conducted within a small number of elite institutions. This may not be an indication that the system is biased - it is an indication that talented individuals are concentrated with resources in places where they can achieve more than by working alone. Furthermore, higher-quality journals are much more selective of what they publish and many will only accept papers that advance their field - this means positive results.