I got into science in order to discover truth and develop new things.
Left after less than a year, got a job as a SWE then eventually started my own business selling used video games of all things.
Have never met a group of people less interested in the truth, or a system that goes to such extreme effort to actively inhibit discovery, than what I experienced in academia.
A friend who works for a private non-profit "researching" cures for cancer has reached the same conclusion there too.
Getting money from rich old people/the government takes precedence over science and it's just sad.
that's sort of shabby treatment of a group of people who step forward as willing to give money. You're singling them out because virtually nobody else is stepping forward. But you want the money (that's called greed, btw) so I guess you'd rather have money disbursed to you... how?
the proper functioning of an economy is essentially defined as allocating resources in a way that leads to the best outcomes for the most people. Look around the world and describe a better system than the one the US has had. I agree it's headed in the wrong direction, but it's not at all clear how to fix it.
They aren't giving money for truth, they are giving money because they want to hear their opinions repeated by someone with a PhD. Be it climate change denial, sex denial or whatever the flavor of the moment is you will find someone willing to give you money to say whatever it is they already believe.
I doubt that. It's much easier to get all of those things elsewhere (ok, maybe not the green card, but the fact that this is not a US-only problem also discards this).
If it is an issue of systemic corruption, people are getting corrupted after they walk in, not before.
What possible gate could keep out people who get into science for the wrong reasons? As long as there are people willing to pay off a scientist, there will always be scientists willing to pocket the money in exchange for lies. As long as scientists are well respected, people who want to be respected will give consideration to becoming a scientist.
All we can can do is open the gates and doors, keep an eye on everyone who comes in, and kick out the ones who cause problems. In fact, it's better not to be aggressive about gatekeeping when it comes to science because otherwise you risk kicking out someone who could have discovered something important. Transparency and verification make for good science anyway so it's not as if anyone would be saving money on 'cameras and motion detectors' by locking the gates and doors and only letting their friends in.
Accountability is the key here and the lack of it is not just limited to scientists. Not long ago in the US a doctor who believes that tumors and cysts are caused by the sperm of demons found her way into international headlines. She is also on record saying that medications contain the DNA of aliens. She still got to keep her medical license and she has a medical practice. There is almost no accountability at all.
I think this also applies at all levels. I'd argue that it is the big reason people feel very frustrated with reviewing, and especially in hyped areas (e.g. ML). There's plenty of incentives to reject papers (low acceptance rates mean "higher quality" publications, advantage yourself by rejecting or being overly critical of your competitors, you get no clout for reviewing and no one will get upset if you take all of 5 minutes to review), but very few incentives (I can't even name one) to accept papers. It is fairly easy to dismiss papers as not novel because we all build off the shoulders of giants and things are substantially more obvious post hoc. Metareviewers and Area Chairs will 99/100 times stand with reviewers even if they are in the wrong and can be proven so (I had a reviewer give me a strong reject claiming I should compare to another work, which was actually our main comparitor and we compared to in 5+ tables and 5+ graphs). I can't see these issues being resolved until we all agree that there needs to be some incentive to write high quality reviews. The worst of this is that the people it hurts the most is the grad students and junior researchers (prevents graduating and career advancement). I'm not saying we have to accept papers, but I am saying we need to ensure that we are providing high quality reviews. Rejections suck, but rejections that don't provide valuable feedback are worse.
If the publication system is a noisy signal then we need to fix it AND recognize it as such. There's been plenty of studies to show that this process is highly noisy but we're all acting like publications are all that matters.
This is all before we even talk about advantages linked to connections even in double blind reviews, collusion rings, or citation hacking. I feel we can't even get the first step right.
I've had plenty of good reviews and plenty of bad reviews. A reject doesn't sting nearly as much when I think "maybe they have a point." But if a reviewer tells me to compare to something I'm already comparing to and is in many graphs and tables, I'm entirely unconvinced that they even read the paper and I think we can all agree that that type of reviewer is not benefiting anyone. They are the system failing.
You may disagree with the number of bad reviewers there are (and that's okay) but I highly doubt you would actually defend them. I'm just saying we need a system where we either encourage these people to change the _quality_ of their reviews or stop reviewing (I am _not_ arguing that we need to change their scores).
No one cares, when you can watch 5 movies in a day and feel all sorts of emotions people used to only feel a few times a year, watch porn, play videogames, read about anything you want, you have little time or neurochemistry left to be mad at scientist, journalists or politicians lying to you.
The older I get, the more I believe this is the truth. For most institutions we've been taught to hold in high regard.
It used to be that the media controlled how much of what went on that we saw, and the media was part of an establishment that valued the status quo and "stability" so didn't report on some things.
Now, the blinders are off and we're seeing what was always there.
For Science, this means that the institutions that were set up by a bunch of rich men who could afford to spend their time satisfying their curiosity, are now visibly falling apart. Because we can see this, we can change it to something better. The pressure to kill off the journal system is growing. The various crises that the article mentions, etc. This is all good, in the long term.
But I'm also increasingly worried that we're not very far from losing this. It already seems like social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit are increasingly controlled by US propaganda and corporate interests. It's hard to know how far gone what we think is true freedom of speech and democratization of voice already is.
There's a variety of indicators suggesting that something changed in the mid90s to about 2000 with academics (grant success rates, publications, etc). When I talk to much more senior colleagues, I also get the sense something changed even if they describe it in different terms.
Was everything better before? No, I think many things are better now, but it feels like the fundamentals of the system are worse. To me it feels like being in a house that's been remodeled with a new roof and HVAC system, but where the ground is sinking and foundation is in the process of collapsing.
We have the same problem with the misuse of the words leader and journalist. Allowing violators to claim a respected title *that they don't deserve* only enables the problem.
Put another way: if you pet barked, do you still call it a cat?
The point is, a scientist does science. Fraud is not science. If you do fraud you no longer deserve the right to be called a scientist.
Words matter.