In recent years, there has been an alarming increase in research that can’t be reproduced or is rife with errors — including made-up data. What to do?
How about setting up a federal oversight body?
In today’s Martin Center article, J. Scott Turner of the National Association of Scholars explains why he thinks that is a bad idea. The root of the problem is federal money attracting all kinds of grifters.
Here’s a key paragraph:
Since 1950, however, the science ecosystem has morphed into a “big science cartel,” united through an interwoven network of self-aggrandizing actors who hold a common interest, not around science but around capturing research funds. University administrations are one such actor, but there are many others. A spendthrift Congress is another, comprising legislators whose election prospects are tied to delivering the goods to constituents, which, in many districts, includes universities who look with favor on representatives who can keep the research money flowing in. Those 21 federal agencies represented on the task force constitute another crucial player: bureaucratic entities whose value and very existence is tied to capturing dollars from the federal budget. In some instances, such as the corrupt relationship of NIH bureaucrats to the pharmaceutical industry, science-based agencies may have their fingers in some very profitable private interests. Lately, even the academic publishing industry has been drawn into the big science cartel, fueled by generous page charges that are increasingly built into research-grant budgets (thus inflating direct costs).
Maybe science shouldn’t be funded by the feds — just as college attendance shouldn’t be.