Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Credibility of Scientific Papers.

11K views 70 replies 28 participants last post by  TehachapiGal 
#1 ·
Over the last year or two I've noticed that some people on this forum have a view of scientists and scientific papers which borders almost on reverence - and so I thought it important that someone should mention the 'other side of the coin', so to speak.

One of the key features of the Scientific Method is the concept of 'Reproducible Results': that anyone who performs the same experiment, or conducts the same observational study should expect to see the same, or very similar results.

Two days ago, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist retracted her own paper due to a lack of 'Reproducible Results' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50989423), and is - quite rightly - being applauded for doing so. There was a reference in that article to the journal Nature expressing a concern over the steep rise in retracted peer-reviewed articles. From the 1990's onwards there have been a growing number each year, with 2019 seeing over 1400 retractions.

Many of these retractions result from honest mistakes, but some are due to outright fraud. When scientific prestige and promotion are allied to publication and theories such fraudulent conduct is understandable, and perhaps inevitable. There was even one case of a Chinese Professor who gave a lecture on the need for integrity within science, who was later found to have fabricated data to support his own theory.

For news of a newly-created database of retracted papers: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...eals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

I'm not suggesting that fraud or sloppy science necessarily applies to any known bee-related research - but it's always a possibility to be taken into account if that work has not been independently reproduced by others.
LJ
 
See less See more
#60 ·
“PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.[/QUOTE]”

Is it really that important? Yikes.
 
#62 ·
“PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.


Is it really that important? Yikes.[/QUOTE]

I suppose we could just refer to said people as "Pat". :D
 
#63 ·
I'm not a scientist but I do realize that in beekeeping research there are SO MANY variables that doing tests and repeating to see if you get the same results is next to impossible. Every frame of honey is different, the bees are different every 8 weeks, the wx, pollen sources, moisture, sugars and the % thereof. Read, absorb, think it thru and try it. Location is everything and what works in NC in January may NOT work in California.
 
#64 ·
Shoot, what works in NC in January this year may NOT work in NC in January next year! But repeatability is not about precisely reproducing results, it is more about getting the results to be similar in effect such that the relationship between the test and control is reproduced, not the actual data.
 
#66 ·
I can speak from some understanding that you state this correctly. Some so called solutions are driven by laziness, greed, or vainglory. Others are, simply the result of the "herd" mentality that plagues much of society.

Personally, I have found it profitable to always wonder about why we do certain things. I always have my mental ears alert for the comments like "this is a huge pain" or "everyone hates this job". These are doorways for innovation.
Regarding scientific research: I will repeat what Mark Twain said: "In life there are 3 kinds of lies, plain lies, **** lies, and statistics". It pays to think that we do the best we can (if that is indeed what we actually do) and remember that the world, and what we really know of it, is profoundly complex.
 
#67 ·
My husband is a scientist. He is not lazy, greedy or vainglory. Neither are most other scientists. He was a MIT fellow (paid to go to the school), got his law degree while working full time in the aerospace industry. One of 51% who passed the bar test. Without scientists man would still be using rock tools and the rock wheel. Mark Twain wasnt a genius or scientist. He was a writer of fictitious stories. My husband's middle name is Finley from the book Huckleberry Finn. His family were neighbors to Samuel Clemens in Missouri. Their last name was Wigglesworth. Just saying.

We live on ancient Indian land. In the photo are a few stone tools that 2 thousand year old Indians used. Upper left, a cutting tool made from petrified palm that grew on the top of our mountain when the Earth was still covered by water. Right. hunk of palm with seeds. Lower left. A hunk of obsidium from Owens Valley and traded by Indians to make arrowheads. Lower right. A rock cutting tool. These are a small representation of tools man would be using today without brutely intelligent, honest and creative people on our planet.
Rock Artifact Mineral Flooring


There are numerous books written by beekeepers who are the experts through years of working with bees. We owe them tremendous respect for sharing their knowledge.
 
#68 ·
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." ― Albert Einstein
Isaac Asimov: 'The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.', 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.', and 'In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.'

I also disagree with your assertion that Mark Twain wasn't a genius. I would hold that he probably was in his understanding of human nature. Oh and he was friends with Nicola Tesla. Not that this means anything in particular but it causes one to ponder the nature of the company one keeps.

Questioning the integrity of the members of the scientific community does not equate with remaining a Neanderthal. In all of society we must question and challenge for the sake of finding the gems of true knowledge. How we feel about something has no bearing on reality. In the engineering group I worked in, the mantra was "show us the data". Keeping in mind that data was vetted carefully and questioned as best we could. Published data and statistics were often found to be corrupted by greed and vainglory, with careers and promotions being the driving force.

I never said 'all scientists' I said "some". So kindly refrain from straw man arguments. My concern is derived from personal experience with corruption in the sciences associated with industry. Oh, I grew up with a phd. father, so I am familiar with academia. Not impressed with the current product in general. I believe there has been a general decline in education from bottom to top with far too much emphasis on massaging the ego of students and not enough teaching on moral logic or how to determine sound reasoning. I am very concerned about the prevalence of narcissism I see in society. This is really bad for science.

There are many conscientious people going about their careers who truly love their respective vocations. This doesn't mean they are always right. Sincerity doesn't equate with truth or reality.

One of my friends is an amateur American Indian archeologist and flint knapper. I am familiar with the subject. Some of the artifacts we have found elicited an excited admiration for the maker in that the artifact showed a high level of skill.

Ignorance is not stupidity, rather it can be the launchpad of innovation if one applies themselves diligently with integrity, always remembering with humility, ones ignorance.
 
#70 ·
As far as % of studies that are untainted by bias or outside influence; My dad was a phd. scientist. I am not, but I can repeat what he told me. In his field of entomology he estimated that somewhere around 85% of studies he had reviewed were corrupted by faulty foundational work. He presented at an international conference on this and exposed errors. It was not well received to say the least. Careers were called into question as a result. He suffered being blackballed because he pissed a lot of people off. He told me that he exposed the errors because he loved science and was mortified by the lack of integrity he was seeing.

Didn't get any National Science Foundation grants after that. He was approached and asked to study various things but funding had dried up. So he continued his research as a private citizen and eventually handed his work off to a young phd. who wanted to continue his work.

Now if I could just bring myself to trust a politician. :D (OK it is a backhand at the plethora of governmental dishonesty and corruption gripping our nation.)

I only knew 1 politician I could say with any certainty was honest. Former roommate who served one term in the Michigan house. He didn't get re-elected because he wouldn't take special interest money. He said "my job is to serve the people of my district, all of them". As a republican he sent some company lobbyist's packing. He really did care about all of the people, and did his best to serve them.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top