Comment by afpx
7 hours ago
They should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.
7 hours ago
They should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.
Why would you bring up fraud in the midst of science research in the US being burned to the ground?
Fraud is not the reason it is happening. Even the people who are making the cuts in this case have clarified the purported reason and it has nothing to do with fraud.
There are too may bad scientists, and I don't want to fund them. When the sciences became status-oriented, group-think and profit-seeking became the norm.
This administration is trash, but I'm still tired of paying taxes to fund jokers.
If your 'science' is so important, then any other country in the world will be happy to scoop you up. gtfo
Just one example out of many: Today, I looked up research on EMDR treatments. Major problems in replication for things outside of PTSD. Yet, therapists are told by their boards to push the treatment for all sorts of things.
Have many of you actually looked at a lot of the garbage funded by NIH?
The fraud is the point with this administration.
Who has time to talk about billions in emoluments and pumping+dumping the American Economy to insider trade war news when we are subject to such calamitous fraud as a wet-behind-the-ears PhD getting overly enthusiastic in their grant proposal?
There is a fixed (decreasing) budget for research.
What should be the balance between repeating things that have already been done, and expanding knowledge?
Frankly, this is a bit of an ignorant take.
1st, K-awards are specially meant to provide a funding path to support an early career scientist to continue in the field. Expecting that another team has already replicated the early work of a young scientist is not realistic. They are just starting out.
2nd. If you want replication, you got to fund replication. Researcher money doesn't appear out of nowhere, so make the decision, increase the science budget with a new replication budget.
3rd. Yes there is some fraud. Always has been. Is it more than before? Maybe? But unless you count paper mill journals that no serious scientist reads, it is much smaller than pop media makes it out to be.