Daniele Fanelli thinks(1) that efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a “science is in crisis” narrative, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. He thinks that this is not is not actually a new narrative, it is not empirically supported, and it is, in fact, counterproductive.
Instead of inspiring younger generations to do more and better science, it might foster in them cynicism and indifference. Instead of inviting greater respect for and investment in research, it risks discrediting the value of evidence and feeding antiscientific agendas.
(1) Fanelli, Daniele. 2018. ‘Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March, 201708272. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114.
I’m not really clear on what’s being said… care to expand on it?
Sure! Sorry. There is an ongoing debate (and concern) about scientific results that cannot be reproduced. With an ever increasing number of research papers published every year, this might become a “serious” problem for science. You may find more references about the question here: https://pacojariego.me/2016/04/17/there-is-a-research-paper-for-that/ and https://pacojariego.me/2017/01/18/how-reliable-is-our-most-reliable-way-of-gaining-knowledge/
Thanks for taking the time! I’ll check out those links.
[…] able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress. A paper(1) published this week in Nature Human Behaviour […]