Self-interested nepotistic shittebagges constantly assert this parade of horribles that if we don’t fund the right subset of scientists in today’s tight scientific funding environment (coincidentally them, their friends, their trainees, and their family members), then we are going to destroy scientific progress. This is because they are delusional......
Archive for the 'Conduct of Science' category
When you "storyboard" the way a figure or figures for a scientific manuscript should look, or need to look, to make your point, you are on a very slippery slope.
It sets up a situation where you need the data to come out a particular way to fit the story you want to tell.
This leads to all kinds of bad shenanigans. From outright fakery to re-running experiments until you get it to look the way you want.
Story boarding is for telling fictional stories.
Science is for telling non-fiction stories.
These are created after the fact. After the data are collected. With no need for storyboarding the narrative in advance.
My esteemed colleague says no:
— Rick Bevins (@RBevins) May 27, 2015
My view is that a job talk is more prestigious than a mere invited seminar due to the focal competition and review.
So sure, put those down in the same CV category as non-job-talk seminar invitations.
An article by Dan Vergano at Buzzfeed alerts us:
Electric shocks, brain surgery, amputations — these are just some of the medical experiments widely performed on American slaves in the mid-1800s, according to a new survey of medical journals published before the Civil War.
Previous work by historians had uncovered a handful of rogue physicians conducting medical experiments on slaves. But the new report, published in the latest issue of the journal Endeavour, suggests that a widespread network of medical colleges and doctors across the American South carried out and published slave experiments, for decades.
Savitt first reported in the 1970s that medical schools in Virginia had trafficked in slaves prior to the Civil War. But historians had seen medical experiments on slaves as a practice isolated to a few physicians — until now.
to the following paper.
Kenny, S.C. Power, opportunism, racism: Human experiments under American slavery. Endeavour,
Volume 39, Issue 1, March 2015, Pages 10–20[Publisher Link]
Medical science played a key role in manufacturing and deepening societal myths of racial difference from the earli- est years of North American colonisation. Reflecting the practice of anatomists and natural historians throughout the Atlantic world, North American physicians framed andinscribed the bodies, minds and behaviours of black subjects with scientific and medical notions of fundamental and inherent racial difference. These medical ideas racialised skin, bones, blood, diseases, with some theories specifically designed to justify and defend the institution of racial slavery, but they also manifested materially as differential treatment – seen in medical education, practice and research.
I dunno. Have we changed all that much?
From the Twitts.....
That is, I'm driven more by rage at my own inadequacy than by love of discovery.
— Bill Hooker (@sennoma) April 27, 2015
Me, I think I never got past "I wonder what that does?"
When do I get to that stage where my lab is operated entirely by oppressed trainees who are totally doing the PI job in all ways but name and I get to sit back, eat bonbons and watch my h-index rise?
First, I shouldn't have to remind you all that much about a simple fact of nature in the academic crediting system. Citations matter. Our quality and status as academic scientists will be judged, in small or in large ways, by the citations that our own publications garner.
This is not to say the interpretation of citations is all the same because it most assuredly is not. Citation counting leads to all sorts of distilled measures across your career arc- Highly Cited and the h-index are two examples. Citation counting can be used to judge the quality of your individual paper as well- from the total number of cites, to the sustained citing across the years to the impressive-ness of the journals in which your paper has been cited.
Various stakeholders may disagree over which measure of citation of your work is most critical.
On one thing everyone agrees.
One problem (out of many) with the "Supplementary Materials", that are now very close to required at some journals and heavily encouraged at others, is that they are ignored by the ISI's Web of Science indexing and, so far as I can tell, Google Scholar.
So, by engaging in this perverted system by which journals are themselves competing with each other, you* are robbing your colleagues of their proper due.
Nat observed that you might actually do this intentionally, if you are a jerk.
So now, not only can supplementary info be used as a dumping ground for your inconclusive or crappy data, but you can also stick references to your competitors in there and shaft them their citations.
Try not to be a jerk. Resist this Supplementary Materials nonsense. Science will be the better for it.
*yes, this includes me. I just checked some Supplementary citations that we've published to see if either ISI or Google Scholar indexes them- they do not.
For those who wonder where this idea came from, please see the commentary by Deputy Director Tabak and Director Collins (Nature 505, 612–613, January 2014) on the issue of the reproducibility of results. One part of the commentary suggests that scientists may be tempted to overstate conclusions in order to get papers published in high profile journals. The commentary adds “NIH is contemplating modifying the format of its ‘biographical sketch’ form, which grant applicants are required to complete, to emphasize the significance of advances resulting from work in which the applicant participated, and to delineate the part played by the applicant. Other organizations such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute have used this format and found it more revealing of actual contributions to science than the traditional list of unannotated publications.”
Here's Collins and Tabak, 2014 in freely available PMC format. The lead in to the above referenced passage is:
Perhaps the most vexed issue is the academic incentive system. It currently overemphasizes publishing in high-profile journals. No doubt worsened by current budgetary woes, this encourages rapid submission of research findings to the detriment of careful replication. To address this, the NIH is contemplating...
Hmmm. So by changing this, the ability on grant applications to say something like:
"Yeah, we got totally scooped out of a Nature paper because we didn't rush some data out before it was ready but look, our much better paper that came out in our society journal 18 mo later was really the seminal discovery, we swear. So even though the entire world gives primary credit to our scoopers, you should give us this grant now."
is supposed to totally alter the dynamics of the "vexed issue" of the academic incentive system.
Right guys. Right.
Everyone who is more approving or lenient than you are is an incompetent moron.
Everyone that is harsher or less enthusiastic is a total jackhole.