Are most papers generated for the advancement of careers rather than
advancement of human knowledge? Should research funding be allocated by
lottery? Do we reward splashy results over rigorous methodology? Not random
ramblings but ideas from a thought provoking article based on the responses of 270 (predominantly)
biomedical and social scientists in the USA. It aims to identify perceived
problems facing science and offers fixes for each. A small, limited survey but
it certainly raises questions and probably has lessons and ideas for a much
wider community.
No comments:
Post a Comment