This is a call by Sigma Xi, the scientific research honor society, to support rebuilding public trust in science and to reinforce the integrity of publicly funded research under the incoming Biden...
This is a call by Sigma Xi, the scientific research honor society, to support rebuilding public trust in science and to reinforce the integrity of publicly funded research under the incoming Biden administration. If you’re not familiar with the history of publicly funded research in the U.S. this also provides a brief background.
Along with education about and involvement in the democratic process, reversing the erosion of trust in science is absolutely critical for the health of society (e.g. how we tackle climate change or, as the article states, the COVID pandemic).
While I know the article is about just how anti-science the president was, I think the bigger problem now is the lack of scientific integrity in research itself. The profit and budgetary motives...
While I know the article is about just how anti-science the president was, I think the bigger problem now is the lack of scientific integrity in research itself. The profit and budgetary motives definitely put the thumb on the scale.
That, and stop paygating access to research. Restricting access to science is never going to be a net win for humanity.
I'm conflicted on this point. On one hand, I totally support the idea that research papers and journals should be as accessible as possible, and this particularly has an effect on researchers at...
That, and stop paygating access to research. Restricting access to science is never going to be a net win for humanity.
I'm conflicted on this point. On one hand, I totally support the idea that research papers and journals should be as accessible as possible, and this particularly has an effect on researchers at underfunded institutions and in developing countries. On the other hand, I do think there are instances where data needs to be paygated. In large, cross-national scientific collaborations somebody has to pay for the infrastructure and the operating overhead (which can often be comparable in cost to the initial investment in instruments over the lifespan of the project), and using the data outputs of the collaboration as a carrot on a stick is one reliable way to make sure everyone pays their fair share and science can get done. If institutions or nations know they are going to get access to the data anyway since it is published for free, there is very little incentive for them to contribute to these aspects of the budget. This has caused some issues in the past for some collaborations I have experience with, and I imagine it is not a new problem.
Perhaps it's just a degree to when it gets set free. Maybe not ongoing experiments, but almost certainly after peer review. Knowledge should be shared, it's virtually free to reproduce, and is a...
Perhaps it's just a degree to when it gets set free. Maybe not ongoing experiments, but almost certainly after peer review. Knowledge should be shared, it's virtually free to reproduce, and is a fantastic source for self-learning.
If the science needs done, somebody will put up the resources. Take the 'infinite money's button away from the military and give it to scientists. Perhaps distribution of data should be done via BitTorrent, IPFS, or the like.
This is a call by Sigma Xi, the scientific research honor society, to support rebuilding public trust in science and to reinforce the integrity of publicly funded research under the incoming Biden administration. If you’re not familiar with the history of publicly funded research in the U.S. this also provides a brief background.
Along with education about and involvement in the democratic process, reversing the erosion of trust in science is absolutely critical for the health of society (e.g. how we tackle climate change or, as the article states, the COVID pandemic).
While I know the article is about just how anti-science the president was, I think the bigger problem now is the lack of scientific integrity in research itself. The profit and budgetary motives definitely put the thumb on the scale.
That, and stop paygating access to research. Restricting access to science is never going to be a net win for humanity.
I'm conflicted on this point. On one hand, I totally support the idea that research papers and journals should be as accessible as possible, and this particularly has an effect on researchers at underfunded institutions and in developing countries. On the other hand, I do think there are instances where data needs to be paygated. In large, cross-national scientific collaborations somebody has to pay for the infrastructure and the operating overhead (which can often be comparable in cost to the initial investment in instruments over the lifespan of the project), and using the data outputs of the collaboration as a carrot on a stick is one reliable way to make sure everyone pays their fair share and science can get done. If institutions or nations know they are going to get access to the data anyway since it is published for free, there is very little incentive for them to contribute to these aspects of the budget. This has caused some issues in the past for some collaborations I have experience with, and I imagine it is not a new problem.
Perhaps it's just a degree to when it gets set free. Maybe not ongoing experiments, but almost certainly after peer review. Knowledge should be shared, it's virtually free to reproduce, and is a fantastic source for self-learning.
If the science needs done, somebody will put up the resources. Take the 'infinite money's button away from the military and give it to scientists. Perhaps distribution of data should be done via BitTorrent, IPFS, or the like.