Question about scientists

[Jazzy]

Do you think scientists skew data so they can continue to receive funding, why or why not?

 

[Lamb]

I believe that some do because they want to keep researching. There are many that don't though.

 

[Josiah]

Do you think scientists skew data so they can continue to receive funding, why or why not?

........ WELL.......

As one with a Ph.D... One who has done scientific research.... although that's in my past life now.....

In THEORY, I and think often, scientists are truly interested in science (that process) which mandates critical evaluation, accountability, and a quest for truth (within in framework of science). Scientists CAN be (and when at their best are) glad to be shown wrong, glad to be surprised by the unexpected. The method itself is set up that way. Stuff is published (made public) NOT to show off or justify the grant but so that others can shoot it down, reveal the errors and weaknesses, show what work needs to be done. It's all intended to be critical. The method depends on this "peer review."

But @Jazzy scientists are human... and sinful. Their work is often expensive and requires funding. Those of us who have worked in labs KNOW that we are completely at the mercy of those funding the grants. Sadly, gone are the days when a very rich person could just fund his own work down in the basement. Scientists usually aren't billionaires who can fund things themselves.

And, "who holds the purse" does have an impact. Yeah..... if the sole grant for some research came from a drug company and their product gets good results from the study, well..... it would not be unusual to look EXTRA carefully at their study, to hold it to even tighter review.

And while all scientists SAY they love to be proven wrong, well.... they aren't totally honest there. Scientists are not entirely void of ego. AND no one wants the grantor of the money they spend to read "This dude is wrong, all this was bad." He wants a good reputation, he wants to be known for being right. And the scientist will try to "spin" things in that direction. Human nature. Economics.

And YES, it is in fact COMMON to share the results with lots of "more study needs to be done on this point." Those words - or similar - are typically found all over the place. It's there PARTLY because the scientists are admitting they don't know it all but also because they want the grant renewed, they want more money, they want the lab to continue and not "die" due to lack of funding (hey, they have mortgages to pay!).

The process is good and OFTEN helpful. But it ain't perfect. And those doing it ain't perfect, either.

Life.




.

 

[tango]

I know a couple of people who are research scientists and the pressure they have to constantly come up with grant money is remarkable. You'd have thought people doing cutting edge scientific research would have at least some job security and could spend their time doing what they do best but, no. They spend a lot of their time applying for grants, justifying grants, and trying to find someone who will fund the next stage of their research.

I would like to think that most scientists have at least a reasonably strong sense of ethics where results are concerned although with the best will in the world it's easy to see how the endless pressure to find funding to keep their lab operating for the next year could encourage them to be a little creative with statistical interpretation of their results.

In the context above I'm talking about scientists who aren't directly employed by a company that has a vested interest in products being evaluated. If you look at some of the questions being raised in recent months and years about drugs like antidepressants you might be forgiven for wondering how they were ever approved. But presumably the research presented by scientists indicated there was a benefit that outweighed the harm, even if now people are questioning the basic premise behind what they do in the first place and asking whether they actually do offer a significant benefit over a placebo.

 

[Josiah]

You'd have thought people doing cutting edge scientific research would have at least some job security and could spend their time doing what they do best but, no. They spend a lot of their time applying for grants, justifying grants, and trying to find someone who will fund the next stage of their research.

Largely true.

This is especially true for the administrator, the head of the lab. Those doing the grunt work are less concerned but yeah, as the grant comes to an end, their job may be on the line (depends on the setting).

And accompanying this is pressure to accomplish something (or at least have a solid case to CLAIM that). This can be enormously frustrating because sometimes, the work doesn't accomplish much - and that in and of itself IS an accomplishment (OFTEN told point: Edison failed many, many, many times to find a reliable, practical filament for the light bulb - and considered each failure a success, "I know what doesn't work.") Knowing what isn't true IS a great thing - but hard to sell to the company or agency who gave you the million bucks to discover that.

I would like to think that most scientists have at least a reasonably strong sense of ethics where results are concerned although with the best will in the world it's easy to see how the endless pressure to find funding to keep their lab operating for the next year could encourage them to be a little creative with statistical interpretation of their results.

In the context above I'm talking about scientists who aren't directly employed by a company that has a vested interest in products being evaluated. If you look at some of the questions being raised in recent months and years about drugs like antidepressants you might be forgiven for wondering how they were ever approved. But presumably the research presented by scientists indicated there was a benefit that outweighed the harm, even if now people are questioning the basic premise behind what they do in the first place and asking whether they actually do offer a significant benefit over a placebo.

Some scientists are employees, perhaps of a university or a company (as I was) and their "job security" isn't bad. If things don't "jell" there, they will just be moved to another project. Many scientists are pretty secure IF they are well known for the quality of their work and their ability to work with others. But (as with all employees) the financial health of their employer is a factor.

But there are scientists who pretty much are free-lancers, even in academic settings. They work for the lab, not the university or company. Their job security is a lot less - they can easily be laid off and their job ends when the project ends. But if they are good, they have no problem getting a new position (but they sometimes move A LOT).

The "ethics" question rests mostly with the administrators, the lab heads.



.

 

[tango]

Largely true.

This is especially true for the administrator, the head of the lab. Those doing the grunt work are less concerned but yeah, as the grant comes to an end, their job may be on the line (depends on the setting).

And accompanying this is pressure to accomplish something (or at least have a solid case to CLAIM that). This can be enormously frustrating because sometimes, the work doesn't accomplish much - and that in and of itself IS an accomplishment (OFTEN told point: Edison failed many, many, many times to find a reliable, practical filament for the light bulb - and considered each failure a success, "I know what doesn't work.") Knowing what isn't true IS a great thing - but hard to sell to the company or agency who gave you the million bucks to discover that.

I guess if you're not the one running the research you've got less pressure. You'd just hope that the people who are qualified to do the research could spend as much time as possible on researching their subject matter and as little time as possible chasing funding. Of course there might be differences based on areas of expertise and location of research.

As you say, finding out that something definitely doesn't work is a step forward although to many people it seems like a lot of money spent to not understand something much better. It's obviously far more useful to come up with "this new drug will cure the disease" than "this drug cost $25,000,000 to develop and our research proves it to be mostly ineffective", even if proving the latter drug to be ineffective tells us something more about how the disease might respond to other treatments.

With the mighty dollar playing its part it's easy to see why a scientist proposing to say "you've put $250,000,000 into getting this drug to this stage of trials, and the reality is it doesn't seem to work anywhere near as well as we'd hoped" could come under pressure to focus on something more positive. Whether that's the fact it does produce a clinically significant benefit even if only for a small minority of patients, or that 87% of patients see an improvement even if it's not a particularly impressive improvement, or whatever else, it's easy to see why the company pumping that kind of money into the drug would rather recover some of it rather than write off the entire investment.

Some scientists are employees, perhaps of a university or a company (as I was) and their "job security" isn't bad. If things don't "jell" there, they will just be moved to another project. Many scientists are pretty secure IF they are well known for the quality of their work and their ability to work with others. But (as with all employees) the financial health of their employer is a factor.

Another factor is that if the scientists can't bring in enough money to fund their research they can only be kept around for so long. Ideally you'd have administrators tasked with doing the grunt admin work but that's not always the case. I don't want to post details that might identify people without their permission so I'm being deliberately vague, but a friend of mine who presumably matches your listed criteria (he is internationally published and as far as I can tell works well alongside the rest of his team) has very little sense of long term job security. Not only that but even if he does make a huge scientific breakthrough he won't profit much, if at all, from it because the intellectual property is owned by the people funding the research.

But there are scientists who pretty much are free-lancers, even in academic settings. They work for the lab, not the university or company. Their job security is a lot less - they can easily be laid off and their job ends when the project ends. But if they are good, they have no problem getting a new position (but they sometimes move A LOT).

I imagine a lot would depend on your area of specific expertise, and how willing you are to relocate. I get the impression that in general Americans are more open to relocating than Europeans.

The "ethics" question rests mostly with the administrators, the lab heads.

Or at least partly with whoever is doing and/or presenting statistical analysis of the results. If the lab head is the scientist doing (leading?) the research there's potentially one less opportunity to catch any kludging of statistics.

 

[Stravinsk]

Do you think scientists skew data so they can continue to receive funding, why or why not?

Some "scientific research" is very much like marketing but with different tactics. Outright lies don't necessarily have to be told, but the business of convincing the reader of one or more views can depend on presenting selective studies/leaving other important ones out, or doing selective studies/analysis that favor certain outcomes while leaving those who don't out. A simple example of this might be highlighting all the benefits of the flavonoids in red wine for the human body and leaving out the broader question of how this balances against the detrimental effects of the alcohol itself. Or perhaps limiting the study time to favor certain conclusions. Often (but not always) there is a conflict of interest because of who (what) funded the study.

 

[tango]

This also reminds me of the way some information can be presented in a way that looks sensational but actually isn't when you take the time to read the underlying figures.

If you see a report that says eating bacon doubles your risk of dying of heart disease it sounds bad. When you see that the actual study indicated that if you eat many pounds of bacon every week, eating it every day, then over the course of many years your risk of death increases from 0.02% to 0.04% it suddenly doesn't sound so bad.

To take another example, I read one of the studies about wearing masks where COVID was concerned and how a simple cloth mask reduced the number of droplets reaching the target by 90%. That sounds like an impressive figure, until you read the details and find it was a fresh cloth mask and the subject was eight inches away. I'd be annoyed if my wife coughed on me from eight inches away. Aside from very crowded conditions no stranger has any business being within eight inches of my face and if they were I'd be getting them to back off regardless of whether there's a virus going around. Suddenly the effectiveness doesn't look so impressive.