Category Archives: Philosophy

Deviation from preregistration

I know tons of papers that deviate from their initial plan, but I am not aware of so many papers where this can be unequivocally found by comparing pre-registration and publication.

It has been mentioned recently and there seems also a formal analysis in the literature

We observed deviations from the plan in all studies, and, more importantly,  in all but one study, at least one of these deviations was not fully disclosed.

Further research required,

Why research integrity matters

A new paper by Lex Bouter clearly shows

Scholars need to be able to trust each other, because otherwise they cannot collaborate and use each other’s findings. Similarly trust is essential for research to be applied for individuals, society or the natural environment. The trustworthiness is threatened when researchers engage in questionable research practices or worse.

Revolten gegen die Macht des Wissens

aus Bogner, Alexander: Die Epistemisierung des Politischen. Wie die Macht des Wissens die Demokratie gefährdet, Zitat

Die Wissensgläubigkeit der Moderne ist schon früh zum Gegenstand philosophischer Kritik geworden. … Es herrscht der unbedingte Glaube daran, dass Wissen besser ist als Nichtwissen, dass rationale Analyse dem intuitiven Erleben überlegen ist und das Bewusstsein über dem Sein steht. Scientia potestas est verkündeten schon die Frühaufklärer. . …
Im Zuge des technischen Fortschritts und militärischen Wettrüstens wird offensichtlich, dass das Wissen auch Risiken, Gefahren und Verwüstungen hervorbringen kann. Man lernt, dass das Wissen um die kleinsten Elementarteilchen in seiner technischen Anwendung zu den größten Katastrophen führen kann (Atomkraft). Und man kriegt zunehmend Angst vor der technischen Neugestaltung der Natur (Gentechnik), auch der menschlichen (Biomedizin), so dass die Ethik bald zur ständigen Begleiterin der Genetik wird. Außerdem kommt man darauf, dass Wissen keineswegs eindeutig sein muss. …
Die von der linksalternativen Bewegung popularisierte Expertenkritik trägt dazu bei, dass bald alle Leute in allen wichtigen Fragen, vor allem in Gesundheitsfragen, routinemäßig eine zweite Meinung einholen.

was erklärt warum wir heute so viele Klima-, Corona-, Impf- und Aidsleugner haben. Aber wäre die Entwicklung verhinderbar gewesen?

Arguments against germline therapy

from Tina Rulli “Reproductive CRISPR does not cure disease” in bioethics 2019.

Consider an analogy. Imagine Bill has the following options:
6. Take SICK pill. Bill gets sick.
7. Take SICK pill, then take ANTIDOTE. Bill prevents sickness and remains healthy.
8. Do nothing. Bill stays healthy.
Now imagine that prior to this decision, ANTIDOTE is taken off the market so that it is unavailable to Bill. The unavailability of ANTIDOTE does not mean that Bill gets sick. For Bill has the option to simply not take the sick pill. Bill could just stay healthy (option 8). Offering ANTIDOTE is only morally urgent if it is inevitable that Bill will get sick, i.e., if Bill is forced to take the SICK pill (option 6).

Unethical clinical research

Unethical is every research that is not ethical.

But what is ethical? A paper already 22 years back proposed 7 requirements that make a coherent framework.

  1. value— enhancements of health or knowledge must be derived from the research;
  2. scientific validity—the research must be methodologically rigorous;
  3. fair subject selection—scientific objectives, not vulnerability or privilege, and the potential for and distribution of risks and benefits, should determine communities selected as study sites and the inclusion criteria for individual subjects;
  4. favorable risk-benefit ratio—within the context of standard clinical practice and the research protocol, risks must be minimized, potential benefits enhanced, and the potential benefits to individuals and knowledge gained for society must outweigh the risks;
  5. independent review— unaffiliated individuals must review the research and approve, amend, or terminate it;
  6. informed consent—individuals should be informed about the research and provide their voluntary consent; and
  7. respect for enrolled subjects—subjects should have their privacy protected, the opportunity to withdraw, and their well-being monitored.

Fulfilling all 7 requirements is necessary and sufficient to make clinical research ethical.

A real, no-fake Springer Nature press release

Springer Nature continues its focus on tailored solutions for academics with acquisition of researcher-created writing tool, TooWrite (14 Feb 23)

Developed by researchers for researchers, the TooWrite platform streamlines and simplifies scientific writing by guiding researchers through the process as if they were answering a questionnaire. In addition, expert how-to guides are attached to each question, supporting researchers as if they had an editor by their side. By structuring it in this step by step way, researchers’ time is freed up by making the writing process more efficient.

 

the comment that hits the nail

At some point there will be nothing left to buy. But then there will be no way out for researchers anymore from ready-made workflows that suck them dry at every stage of the research life cycle.

https://openbiblio.social/@RenkeSiems/109867215004553634 16Feb23 

 

the strategy is from “cradle to grave”

https://twitter.com/brembs/status/1625871585428004865 17Feb23

 

in the original full version

https://101innovations.wordpress.com/workflows/ 17Feb23

The system itself is untenable

The review system is broken – not only by the sheer number of “me too” papers but also by the lack of reviewers who are willing to spend their time on these papers. This is also the result of a new essay Continue reading The system itself is untenable

Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm

Carsten Dippel “Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm”

Woher kommt die besondere Wertschätzung der Frage im Judentum? Sie reicht weit zurück, bis in die biblischen Ursprünge der jüdischen Religion, so Grözinger. Es fing schon mit einem Gespräch zwischen Gott und Abraham an. Da will Gott die Stadt Sodom zerstören. Er spricht mit Abraham über das drohende Strafgericht. Doch Abraham will Gottes Tun nicht einfach akzeptieren. Er fängt an, mit Gott zu diskutieren.
Karl Erich Grötzinger erklärt: „Abraham fragt dann immer, willst du denn als Gerechter den Gerechten wie die Ungerechten zerstören? Und Gott gibt dann nach, es gibt dann eine Reihe von Zahlen, wie viele Gerechte in der Stadt sein sollen, Abraham lässt nie nach und fragt immer weiter und fragt immer weiter

legendär auch Bernd Ginzel mit “Der Zweifel ist konstitutiv fürs Judentum”

Im Christentum – jetzt wohlgemerkt aus jüdischer Sicht – ist das Problem, dass man alles auf Jesus konzentriert. Und alles muss schön sein und alles muss wunderbar sein; und es fehlt der jüdisch-kritische Geist, der sagt: Warum? Wieso? Muss das so sein? Wenn ich sage: Jesus ist Gott selbst, warum klagt er mit dem jüdischen Gebet: ‚Mein Vater, mein Vater, warum hast du mich verlassen?‘

bis dann hin zu Lichtenberg.

Was tun gegen Wissenschaftsbetrug?

Dirnagl/LJ hat die Antwort

Besteht die Lösung des Problems also darin, Wissenschafts­betrug härter zu sanktionieren? Schaden würde das sicher nicht. Schließlich kann man die Fälle, in denen bislang Strafen verhängt wurden, an einer Hand abzählen. Wissenschafts­betrug wird also nicht nur selten aufgedeckt, sondern noch seltener geahndet.

Müssen wir mehr gute wissen­schaftliche Praxis lehren und trainieren? Auch das ist eine gute Idee, aber sehr viel nützen wird es wohl nicht. …

Brauchen wir vielleicht eine Wissenschafts­polizei, die unangekündigte Kontrollen von Western Blots und Festplatten in Laboren durchführt? Ganz sicher nicht! Moderne Wissenschaft ist viel zu komplex …

Ein viel naheliegender Ansatz zur Abhilfe ist es, sich dem Kern des Problems anzunehmen und das toxische Karriere- und Bewertungs­system zu reformieren – also Forscher nicht auf Basis fragwürdiger Metriken, sondern mit Fokus auf Forschungs­qualität, Inhalte und dem tatsächlichen wissen­schaftlichen oder gesell­schaftlichen Impact zu beurteilen.

Language models need to be regulated

Shobita Parthasarathy in a recent interview

I had originally thought that LLMs could have democratizing and empowering impacts. When it comes to science, they could empower people to quickly pull insights out of information: by querying disease symptoms, for example, or generating summaries of technical topics.
But the algorithmic summaries could make errors, include outdated information or remove nuance and uncertainty, without users appreciating this. If anyone can use LLMs to make complex research comprehensible, but they risk getting a simplified, idealized view of science that’s at odds with the messy reality, that could threaten professionalism and authority.

Teresa Kubacka

So ziemlich alles, was beim Verfassen eines wissenschaftlichen Textes nicht schief l�aufen sollte [ist hier passiert]:
Die Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) kann wissenschaftliche Quellenangaben nahezu perfekt fälschen.
Und zwar so geschickt, dass selbst Fachleute auf dem entsprechenden Gebiet Mühe bekunden, die entsprechenden Falschinformationen als solche zu erkennen.
Die als «Datenhalluzinationen» bezeichneten Kreationen der KI können auch, aber nicht nur, auf die vom Menschen gestellten Fragen zurückgeführt werden.

Systemic science flaw

Bruce Alberts, one of the most reputable living scientist, already back in a 2014 PNAS paper

The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work…

The great majority of biomedical research is conducted by aspiring trainees: by graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. As a result, most successful biomedical scientists train far more scientists than are needed to replace him- or herself…

Competition in pursuit of experimental objectives has always been a part of the scientific enterprise, and it can have positive effects. However, hypercompetition for the resources and positions that are required to conduct science suppresses the creativity, cooperation, risk-taking, and original thinking required to make fundamental discoveries…

The inflated value given to publishing in a small number of so-called “high impact” journals has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work.

there is nothing to add.

No more disruptive science?

Nature yesterday reporting a new paper by Russell Funk on research innovation or “disruptiveness”

The number of science and technology research papers published has skyrocketed over the past few decades — but the ‘disruptiveness’ of those papers has dropped, according to an analysis of how radically papers depart from the previous literature.
Data from millions of manuscripts show that, compared with the mid-twentieth century, research done in the 2000s was much more likely to incrementally push science forward than to veer off in a new direction and render previous work obsolete. Analysis of patents from 1976 to 2010 showed the same trend.

So has (A) everything already discovered by low hanging fruits A? Are scientists nor more taking any risk (B)? Or is the “disruptive” science now hidden in the meaningless research (C)? OR did only change citation practices (D)? The answer is in the original paper

Specifically, despite large increases in scientific productivity, the number of papers and patents with CD5 values in the far right tail of the distribution remains nearly constant over time. This ‘conservation’ of the absolute number of highly disruptive papers and patents holds despite considerable churn in the underlying fields responsible for producing those works… These results suggest that the persistence of major breakthroughs—for example, measurement of gravity waves and COVID-19 vaccines—is not inconsistent with slowing innovative activity. In short, declining aggregate disruptiveness does not preclude individual highly disruptive works.

In my own words: Progress is found in the top percentiles just as many decades before. But most research publications are a waste of money and  even harmful for cluttering up the research field.

There seem to be also some critical comments and of course some methodological issues need to be clarified for any interpretation (eg exclusion of reviews, validity of the 5 year interval, …). In any case, the authors promised to give me the CD5 dataset which will be nice to look up my own work.