Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help

Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a complex mix of political pressure, social urgency, public panic, and scientific curiosity has significantly impacted the context of research and development. The goal of this study is to understand if and how researchers are shifting their practices and adjusting norms and beliefs regarding research ethics and integrity. We have conducted 31 interviews with Health Science Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch which were then analyzed using integrated deductive and inductive coding. We categorized participant views into four main areas: 1) limitations to the research design, 2) publication, 3) duplication of studies, and 4) research pipeline. Although certain researchers were in keeping to the status quo, more were willing to modify norms to address social need and urgency. Notably, they were more likely to opt for systemic change rather than modifications within their own research practices.

Is Open Science Neoliberal?

The scientific-reform movement, frequently referred to as open science, has the potential to substantially reshape the nature of the scientific activity. For this reason, its sociopolitical antecedents and consequences deserve serious scholarly attention. In a recently formed literature that professes to meet this need, it has been widely argued that the movement is neoliberal. However, for two reasons it is hard to justify this widescale attribution: First, the critics mistakenly represent the movement as a monolithic structure, and second, the critics' arguments associating the movement with neoliberalism because of the movement's (a) preferential focus on methodological issues, (b) underlying philosophy of science, and (c) allegedly promarket ideological proclivities reflected in the methodology and science-policy proposals do not hold under closer scrutiny. These shortcomings show a lack of sufficient engagement with the reform literature. What is needed is more nuanced accounts of the sociopolitical underpinnings of scientific reform. To address this need, we propose a model for the analysis of reform proposals, which represents scientific methodology, axiology, science policy, and ideology as interconnected but relatively distinct domains, and thus allows for recognizing the divergent tendencies in the movement and the uniqueness of particular proposals.

10 Simple Rules for a Supportive Lab Environment

The transition to principal investigator (PI), or lab leader, can be challenging, partially due to the need to fulfil new managerial and leadership responsibilities. One key aspect of this role, which is often not explicitly discussed, is creating a supportive lab environment. Here, we present ten simple rules to guide the new PI in the development of their own positive and thriving lab atmosphere. These rules were written and voted on collaboratively, by the students and mentees of Professor Mark Stokes, who inspired this piece.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions: the need for coordination and cooperation to improve research quality

Various factors contribute to low reproducibility and replicability of scientific findings. Whilst not all of these are necessarily problematic, there is growing acceptance that there is room for improvement. Many sectoral organisations have a role to play in this, by refining incentives and rewards, promoting specific behaviours such as open research practices, and exploring innovations in grant funding and scientific publishing. However, given the systems nature of the challenge, real change will require the coordination of these efforts, and partnerships that ensure alignment of activity and interoperability of training. Efforts to improve research quality will require investment, in infrastructure, training, and research on research to ensure that innovative solutions are evidence-based, and potential unintended consequences are explored (and avoided). National structures (e.g., the planned UK Committee on Research Integrity) should focus on understanding the research system, identifying areas for improvement, and promoting research to understand the impact of novel approaches and innovations, in order to advise on how to maximise benefit and avoid harm.

From evolutionary ecosystem simulations to computational models of human behavior

We have a wide breadth of computational tools available today that enable a more ethical approach to the study of human cognition and behavior. We argue that the use of computer models to study evolving ecosystems provides a rich source of inspiration, as they enable the study of complex systems that change over time. Often employing a combination of genetic algorithms and agent-based models, these methods span theoretical approaches from games to complexification, nature-inspired methods from studies of self-replication to the evolution of eyes, and evolutionary ecosystems of humans, from entire economies to the effects of personalities in teamwork. The review of works provided here illustrates the power of evolutionary ecosystem simulations and how they enable new insights for researchers. They also demonstrate a novel methodology of hypothesis exploration: building a computational model that encapsulates a hypothesis of human cognition enables it to be tested under different conditions, with its predictions compared to real data to enable corroboration. Such computational models of human behavior provide us with virtual test labs in which unlimited experiments can be performed. This article is categorized under: Computer Science and Robotics > Artificial Intelligence.

Prosociality in science

Science is unthinkable without collaboration between scientists. Yet, science is also unthinkable without competition (i.e., competing for the best and most solid arguments and limited, precious resources). In this review, we argue that scientific work routines represent social dilemmas and that two facets of prosociality help researchers solve these dilemmas: (i) sacrificing personal profit for the sake of collective profit (i.e., cooperation) and (ii) deciding to make oneself vulnerable to exploitation (i.e., trust). We use two contemporary developments in science to illustrate our reasoning: First, researchers' willingness to engage with the lay public (e.g., investing one's limited time to public engagement) and second, their commitment to 'open science' (e.g., sharing one's data and materials despite the risk of exploitation).

Self-promotion and the need to be first in science

Scientists, like all humans, are subject to self-deceptive valuations of their importance and profile. Vainglorious practice is annoying but mostly harmless when restricted to an individual’s perception of self-worth. Language that can be associated with self-promotion and aggrandizement is destructive when incorporated into scientific writing. So too is any practice that oversells the novelty of research or fails to provide sufficient scholarship on the uniqueness of results. We evaluated whether such tendencies have been increasing over time by assessing the frequencies of articles claiming to be “the first”, and those that placed the requirement for scholarship on readers by using phrases such as “to the best of our knowledge”. Our survey of titles and abstracts of 176 journals in ecology and environmental biology revealed that the frequencies of both practices increased linearly over the past half century. We thus warn readers, journal editors, and granting agencies to use caution when assessing the claimed novelty of research contributions. A system-wide reform toward more cooperative science that values humility, and abhors hubris, might help to rectify the problem.