

Science Is Broken - bmahmood
http://www.scienceisbroken.org/

======
Strilanc
Skimmed around the site for all of 30 seconds and saw this [1]:

> Only 0.1% of published exploratory research is estimated to be reproducible.

Which sounds downright _absurd_. Only one in one thousand studies are _even in
principle_ able to be performed again? So I followed the reference.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't say that. Based on skimming the reference[2],
I think the 0.1% number comes from the section "An Example: Science at Low
Pre-Study Odds".

It is not talking about reproducibility, it is talking about p-values. It is
not talking about studies in general, it is talking about a specific type of
study (whole genome association). It assumes statistical mistakes are made on
purpose, as opposed to estimating how often this is done in reality, and that
the prior probability of a given association being true is 10^-4. The example-
of-a-bad-study study barely moves that probability to 1.5 * 10^-4 (that's why
it's a good example of a bad study), which the quote rounds back down to 0.1%.

The quote is an egregious exaggerations, especially for a site criticizing a
method of gaining knowledge. Hopefully the whole site is not like that.

1: <http://www.scienceisbroken.org/posts/30> _edit_ : it appears that the fact
changes every time. I don't know how to link it.

2:
[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124)

~~~
ByronT
Science is broken is broken.

------
djkn0x
There are some funny quips here (like "#WhenIGraduate I'm going to work for
McKinsey because the hours are better"), but I like how each is paired with a
pretty sobering 'fact'. For instance I was surprised that a postdoc scientist
makes roughly the same as a McDonalds Store Manager (~$39k).

~~~
jpdoctor
> _For instance I was surprised that a postdoc scientist makes roughly the
> same as a McDonalds Store Manager (~$39k)._

The joys of supply and demand.

~~~
dnautics
The McDonald's Store Manager is helping feed people. What is the average
postdoc doing for the world? (I say this as a postdoc)

~~~
splawn
Idk about 'average' (what does the average [insert any classification of
person] do for the world?), but here is an example of a postdoc feeding the
world

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug>

edit: i just realized there is a "billions served" joke in there somewhere...

~~~
dnautics
actually, no. Borlaug went straight from his PhD into industry (worked for
DuPont), then did some wartime stuff. The "postdoc" as a career stage did not
exist at the time, most PhDs went into industry or straight into academic
research as a professor. The postdoc, I think is an emergent phenomenon that
is resulting from the broader academic bubble, largely fueled by several
countries' nationalistic fervor to "produce PhDs" as a measurement of national
greatness. The consequences have been quite bad.

~~~
splawn
whoops, I stand corrected. Thank you. He is still a good example of science
working well for the world. (even if it is born out of industry)

~~~
dnautics
yup, I completely agree, but I think since that era the structure of science
research has changed to the point where examples like him are liable to be few
and far between.

------
mrcactu5
Science _is_ broken. It's just this site is redonkulous.

------
tankbot
Serious question:

What is the point of this site?

~~~
ExpiredLink
Classic science was conducted to gain knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Modern 'science' is conducted to serve an economic purpose. Classic science is
on the decline in favor of result-driven studies.

~~~
tankbot
Arguable, but let's assume that is true.

It still doesn't tell me the purpose of this site. Are they trying to raise
awareness? Affect change? Is it a feeler probe to test a niche website? Are
they religious fundamentalists who want to decry science in the name of god?

I don't know, so I asked.

------
zallarak
I don't understand the purpose of this website. Yes, universities, the
government and certain institutions fail at science (we all are aware of the
publishing rat race and countless instances of misplaced priorities). However,
scientific progress is incredible & undeniable and to discredit it due to the
angst of certain people is weak. If you love science and are sick of academia,
you have options, or make your own options. I have a problem with this website
because its simply a bi%$#fest.

------
mtrn
I once saw a research group leader talk his head off, why what his group was
doing was innovative, even though the committee thought otherwise - even
though most of the people in the room knew he was just trying to secure funds
and the work they've done wasn't nearly as revolutionary as it was advertised.
Not the most uplifting experience, but reality I guess.

------
nathell
Immediately reminded me of #stillnotsignificant:

[http://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-
signific...](http://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-
significant-2/)

(see also the hashtag on Twitter)

------
STRiDEX
"We want free government money" -Everyone

Science may be broken, but a lot of these sound like first world problems.
Academic books aren't purchased for me either!

------
cahitonur
to be able to break science, you need scientific methods, talking only is not
enough.

