
How Failing Better Could Advance Science - talles
http://nautil.us/issue/30/identity/why-scientists-need-to-fail-better
======
jrandm
I'm always shocked to read about how academia -- especially scientific fields
-- punishes failure of the 'Experiment did not succeed' type.

My 6th grade science teacher was adamant that the scientific method is about
testing, logging, and refining... While I get not working doesn't usually make
for an interesting paper, isn't it important for scientists to share what
_doesn 't_ work as often as what does?

Or have I just gotten the wrong impression from a few articles I've seen pop
up on HN?

~~~
digi_owl
The basic issue is the intrusion of the MBA.

[http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/the-scourge-of-
manage...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/the-scourge-of-
managerialism-generic-management-the-managers-coup-detat-mission-hostile-
management-rolled-up-as-described-by-some-men-from-down-under.html)

These MBAs have latched onto article reference rates as a way to measure
"productivity", and negative results rarely gets referenced, thus producing a
classic perverse incentive that is distorting the scientific method.

------
FLengyel
Scientists are already doing what the author suggests. At least one very fine
hydrologist and climate scientist of my acquaintance lived by Beckett's motto.

