This piece started as a response to an article in The Age in regard to a number of Australian research articles that have recently been called into question (https://www.theage.com.au/national/bad-science-australian-studies-found-to-be-unreliable-compromised-20190719-p528ql.html?fbclid=IwAR1Mfh7sS2U9Dy29GFRLoAfrR7CZVq59avuuuRa9GJaYgLAV9m-vhmhGyIg). I quickly realised it was going to be too large for the short Slack comment I intended it to be. I also realised that my initial response tapped into some thoughts and feelings I have about ‘open science’ in general. So, I sat down and put some of my ideas on virtual paper, realised I needed somewhere to put it, set up a website (thanks to Dan Quintana for his awesome Twitter tutorial! https://twitter.com/dsquintana/status/1139846569623281664), and now here we are - my first ever blog post!
Here’s the thing - I worry about the language used in this article. I like that papers were described as being ‘compromised’, that feels non-judgemental, in the way we might say a building’s structural integrity is compromised for various reasons without necessarily attributing blame to the builder. But I think some of the other language will seriously undermine public trust in science altogether. Statements such as ‘the database reveals the scale of scientific misconduct in Australia’ suggests that these are all deliberate and wilful actions of nefarious researchers. This might be true for some, but I think it’s a very small proportion and to tar all researchers with the same brush only inflames the public outcry invoking ‘big pharma’ or ‘government conspiracy’.
The reality is, the vast majority of scientists are trying to do good, worthwhile science. There are a number of ways that research can be compromised, not least of which is that we are human, prone to error and bias. Should a person be condemned for misconduct for simple typo’s? The journalists and editors of Melbourne’s two main newspapers might be less vocal if this was applied to their own work.
I think it’s important to acknowledge that there are problems, in any field of endeavour. I also think it’s important to be part of the solution, especially when raising criticism which is why I’m trying to position myself within a community of researchers trying to effect change. I think an Office of Research Integrity is a sensible (and bleedingly obvious!!) suggestion. I’ve heard Professor Vaux speak about this in person and he makes a compelling argument.
I often wonder about the strength of the language we use to describe what’s going on in science, and particularly social psychology (e.g.: ‘crisis’, ‘revolution’, etc.) and if there aren’t better (more reasonable/middle ground) alternatives. Personally, I like terms such as ‘renaissance’ and ‘reform’. I even try to steer clear of ‘open science’, as it implies that what isn’t open is closed. My concern is that the way we, as a community, allow these topics to be framed will negatively impact on the future success of any reforms, and on scientific endeavour in general. If we want more people to adopt improved practices, we need to be more thoughtful about using more inclusive, less accusatory language to describe the state of the art.
