Category Archives: Philosophy

Philosophy

When is the critical rate of discoveries that warrants any further experiment?

We were recently dicussing that problem too what Nature writes about the Encode project:

The question is, where to stop? Kellis says that some experimental approaches could hit saturation points: if the rate of discoveries falls below a certain threshold, the return on each experiment could become too low to pursue

As always – the scientific method once invoked – creates beautiful results but when it comes to justification of programs or methods it’s all about personal preferences, irrational beliefs, common misunderstandings, conformance to general trends, and whatsoever non-scientific influences.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

The true reason for retractions?

Retractions are increasing anytime I look around retraction watch. A new PNAS paper now has the most thorough analysis of retractions:

A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%) …fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975.

So, fraud is the most frequent cause – and it usually does not come isolated Continue reading The true reason for retractions? →

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

Warning: Reply to all

Nature 486, 157 (14 June 2012) warns:

Scientists discussing their work through written media, including e-mail, should be aware that they could at any time be asked to reveal their conversations.”You are commanded to produce…any and all documents, data, and/or communications.” Towards the end of last year, those orders appeared in a subpoena that landed at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

so please write me private things only in a closed letter. Maybe it’s not such a problem Continue reading Warning: Reply to all →

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Genetics, Philosophy, Software

A broken contract

Erika Check Hayden ( who asked me by email before she wrote that piece ) has a new article about “A broken contract – as researchers find more uses for data, informed consent has become a source of confusion. Something has to change“. While I largely agree with her analysis of the current situation, her points for change are somewhat weakly described ( BTW that paper already generated a heated discussion at The Mermaid’s Tale: “Informed consent — who’s it supposed to protect, anyway?” ). Continue reading A broken contract →

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

What is life?

There is an interesting discussion going on starting with Trifinov’s ( whom I met here last year ) seminal paper in J Biomol Struct Dyn 2011

Analysis of the vocabulary of 123 tabulated definitions of life reveals nine groups of defining terms of which the groups (self-)reproduction and evolution (variation) appear as the minimal set for a concise and inclusive definition: Life is self-reproduction with variations… Over 100 of definitions of life exist today– learned opinions each one of which is, or has been in the past, defended not without a reason though generally met with skepticism. Continue reading What is life? →

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

Science is not about certainity. But also not objective at all?

Re-post of a conversation with Carlo Rovelli 30/5/2012

I seem to be saying two things that contradict each other. On the one hand, we trust scientific knowledge, on the other hand, we are always ready to modify in-depth part of our conceptual structure about the world. But there is no contradiction, because the idea of a contradiction comes from what I see as the deepest misunderstanding about science: the idea that science is about certainty.”

which is in line Continue reading Science is not about certainity. But also not objective at all? →

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

Peer Review Lottery

From a recent call for a conference in my mailbox ( July 17th, Orlando, Florida, KGCM 2012

Richard Smith also affirmed that regarding peer review there is “more evidence of harm than benefit…[and] Studies so far have shown that it is slow, expensive, ineffective, something of a lottery, prone to bias and abuse, and hopeless at spotting errors and fraud.”

Smith, R, 2006, “The trouble with medical journals,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, March, 2006, p. 116 (accessed at http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/content/99/3/115.full.pdf)

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

38% – not such a big interest

Only 38% voted in the DFG election

Zur Fachkollegienwahl waren mehr als 110.000 Wissenschaftler aufgerufen. Sie konnten vom 7. November bis zum 5. Dezember 2011 in einer der weltweit größten Online-Wahlen über die Besetzung der Fachkollegien für die Amtsperiode von 2012 bis 2015 entscheiden. Rund 38,2 Prozent der Wahlberechtigten nutzten ihr Stimmrecht.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025
Philosophy

Crossmarks

Papers are not sacred – this what I have been advocating even after having personal distress after commenting on a PLoS ONE paper. Nevertheless, the new Nature editorial supports my view

What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It should expand the record of a scientific study past an individual paper, including additional material such as worthy blog posts about the results, media coverage and the number of times that the paper has been downloaded.

where Crossmark may jump in Continue reading Crossmarks →

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf accessed 05.11.2025