A sharp-eyed scientist became biology’s image detective
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
Her work is pure positive externality: nobody has incentive to pay for it. Journals barely care about fraud (as long as it's not caught by someone else), reviewers don't have much incentive to check carefully for it (and might even be in on the fraud), and the authors engaging in fraud obviously prefer that journals not look too closely.
That's why I am a patron: https://www.patreon.com/elisabethbik
She maintains a blog if you want to read more about what she does, e.g.: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/12/31/2020-a-year-in...
There are many more interested parties than journals, reviewers, and authors. Universities have incentives to protect their reputations from fraudulent scientists; funding agencies have incentives to protect their funds from being misused, etc. Certainly they don't have resources to exhaustively check the outputs of their scientists, however, and it seems difficult or impossible to quantify the return on investment of such proactive research integrity efforts.
This seems like an area where one of the large science-focused philanthropic organizations -- the Gates Foundation, Allen Institute, Chan Zuckerberg, HHMI, etc. -- would be well positioned to have a huge impact on the quality of scientific output and also reap a large return in terms of positive press for their efforts. Any of these organizations could easily fund an entire team of Elisabeth Biks, not to mention an AI team on the side to augment and partially automate this work.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1410653746...
Published research is not perfect; tons of crap gets through peer review. Every scientist knows this. Peer reviewed science may be more reliable than other forms of information, but treating it as settled and unquestionable is foolish and, in fact, unscientific.
Currently institutional judgment on misinformation relies on fact checkers, that in best case turn to published research, which is not perfect as you pointed out.
Depending on the zeitgeist in the future she calls for, she may be censored herself.
> We need this to be a career that people can make money and use their talents in. [1]
Journals, IMO, should adopt something like a Knuth reward check [2] as an actual system. They, after all, are the ones profiting the most from our present system of scientific publications. I'm not sure what's fair; maybe 100 USD for catching a major post-publication error?
It's currently a system where most of the incentives operate in opposition to self-correction.
[0] https://retractionwatch.com/
[1] https://retractionwatch.com/2019/05/07/meet-elisabeth-bik-wh...
This would create an economic incentive to hunt scientific fraud, and possibly even replication studies, while also over time putting the money that's currently just being gouged by legacy publishers back into science.
"Look, I bet you that when [scenario details] happens then [result] will happen. And here is money on the line to prove it."
https://scienceintegritydigest.com/frequently-asked-question...
Q: Someone should develop software to find these things. Software is going to be much better than the human eye.
A: I agree, and several groups are working hard on that. I have shared a dataset of 400 papers with image problems and 800 matched controls in which I did not find any problems with several teams that are developing such software. I have not heard back from any of them, so I assume this is much harder than most people assume. But this is only a matter of time.
But I am still left shaking my head. How did we get to this point? Science is the peak achievement of our civilisation, the pandemic is a clear testament to that. The kind of scientific fraud she picks out is incredibly disappointing, whether it is careless or mercenary or (usually) some combination of both.
We've always been here. There have been tales of fraud peppered throughout history, after all. Pirates and thieves and literal snake oil salesmen.
Maybe this kind of uncritical scientism played a part?
the pandemic is a clear testament to that.
It's not even clear yet that the practice of science did not cause the pandemic. Science is a tool and when people start treating it like an end, such problems will arise.
In many cases, it already is -- generally falling under misuse of government research funds. However it is usually only pursued as such in extreme cases. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dong-Pyou_Han
https://web.archive.org/web/20210701031117/https://www.newyo...