Let's take a look at the job of a scientist through an economic lens. Science is not simply a lone sport. Scientists are competing with other scientists to make money and get grants, to grab readers' attention, and, most importantly, to advance science. Scientists want to be known- they want acclaim for their work just as any of us do. Therefore, science is a competitive sport, one that feeds off of networks and rivalry.
As Saslow mentions in his piece "How Lies Become Truth in Online America", "the more extreme... the more people believe it". Saslow recounts stories of outlandish rumors that people think are true, simply because they are extreme statements that catch eyes. When an extreme statement is posted, we tend to share it, and make it known to others. It catches attention, and people begin to make comments about it and write about their own views regarding the statement. In all this crazy media frenzy, people begin to believe a crazy statement or article because of the repetition of the post, and the frequency that they are seeing it. And simply, one extreme and completely falsified statement has gained attention and credence.
We can apply this same process to science, although it may not be as extreme. Unfortunately, the job of a scientist is not to uncover the truth, it is to grab attention, acclaim, and money. Therefore, if scientists believe they can get away with it, they may falsify studies for fame.
The title and the opening paragraph are really attractive. The blog reflects a phenomenon in the research field. It would help if more examples are included in the post to fortify your argument.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting article, but I think you need to do some more research on the topic. I've worked in several research labs with a lot of scientists who publish papers, and I can assure you for the vast majority them the truth is the most important thing. Most of their papers are only read by other experts in their fields, not by regular people. There are of course exceptions to this, but I don't think the claim you are making is accurate. Before papers are published in journals, they are thoroughly peer reviewed and sensationalism is extremely frowned upon in the scientific community. Funding is allocated largely through the government and is based on evidence, utility, and most importantly proof. I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you can paint the entire scientific community with such a broad brush. Maybe try and focus on specific cases like the doctor who claimed vaccines caused autism.
ReplyDelete