Blame bad incentives for bad science
By Bethany Berkshire,
ScienceNews
| 10. 21. 2016
Most of us spend our careers trying to meet — and hopefully exceed — expectations. Scientists do too. But the requirements for success in a job in academic science don’t always line up with the best scientific methods. The net result? Bad science doesn’t just happen — it gets selected for.
What does it mean to be successful in science? A scientist gets a job and funding by publishing a lot of high-impact papers with novel findings. Those papers and findings beget awards and funding to do more science — and publish more papers. “The problem that we face is that the incentive system is focused almost entirely on getting research published, rather than on getting research right,” says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
This idea of success has become so ingrained that scientists are even introduced when they give talks by the number of papers they have published or the amount of grant funding they have, says Marc Edwards, a civil engineer at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg.
But rewarding...
Related Articles
By Carolyn Riley Chapman and Nirvan Bhatia, Hastings Bioethics Forum | 03.12.2026
Last year, researchers saved an infant named KJ from a life-threatening rare metabolic disorder using a customized gene editing therapy. This was the first time that an individualized gene therapy was used to treat a human patient, and it has...
By Ryan Cross, Endpoints News | 03.24.2026
Cathy Tie has an audacity more typical of a tech startup founder than a biotech executive. She dropped out of college to start a genetic screening company and later founded a telemedicine startup. The 29-year-old has been on two Forbes...
By Charles Pulliam-Moore, The Verge | 03.21.2026
Like many people, director Valerie Veatch was intrigued when OpenAI first released its Sora text-to-video generative AI model to the public in 2024. Though she didn’t fully understand the technology, she was curious about what it could do, and she...
By Emily Mullin, Wired | 03.23.2026
As the Trump administration phases out the use of animal experimentation across the federal government, a biotech startup has a bold idea for an alternative to animal testing: nonsentient “organ sacks.”
Bay Area-based R3 Bio has been quietly pitching the...