“Science will always be at the forefront of my administration and these world-renowned scientists will ensure that everything we do is based on science, fact and truth.”
With these statements, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, marked the main lines of his action against covid-19. In 2020, scientific research became the great hope for finding a solution to the pandemic. In the midst of a sea of doubts, it has been the researchers who have provided the tools to control the crisis. From the development of vaccines to the use of masks, scientific discussion has never been more present in daily life.
Despite this, few know that science is still struggling with its own crisis, the so-called “reproducibility crisis”.
Since 2010 it has been observed that, to a greater or lesser extent, a large part of the results published in scientific journals cannot be reproduced by independent researchers. This crisis has affected areas such as the psychologythe economy and the medicine.
Research related to covid-19 is no exception. Many authors have urged caution when interpreting the results of research carried out in Record timeand where the usual standards of review and control may have been compromised.
>
In this framework of mistrust, we have explored in a recent study the level of confidence that scientists have in studies on covid-19.
Scientists are human too
In the study, a group of scientists evaluated fourteen aspects of research related to covid-19. Those who had participated in a project related to the coronavirus valued both their own projects and those of their colleagues.
The results showed a clear pattern: participating in studies related to covid-19 was related to a better evaluation of this type of study. This was so both in its perceived quality and in its theoretical underpinnings, and even in the adequacy of its (generally limited) preparation time.
In addition, researchers who had participated in studies related to covid-19 consider that, despite being more open and collaborative, their projects had received fewer resources than other research on the pandemic.
The interpretation of these results is that scientists, although we sometimes forget, are also human.
Despite the view of the researcher as a rational and objective person, they suffer from the same biases as other people: they tend to believe that what they participate in is better than what we do not know.
These results have important ramifications for considering how scientific evidence is assessed. He stresses that criticism of these studies may vary from which side the researcher is on.
Can we believe everything that is published?
As a society, we tend to forget that the possibility of accessing a job and funding in the university system depends, to a large extent, on the volume (not the quality) of the applicant’s scientific publications. Faced with the risk of falling behind in the scientific race, researchers are pushed to publish all the studies in which they participate. This situation is also exacerbated because scientific journals, like gossip magazines, they like novel headlines with meaningful results.
Today it is known that some scientists performed questionable research practices. These represent behaviors intended to present the results of an investigation in a way that makes them more attractive and, therefore, publishable. In our study we asked our participants to what extent they admitted having committed any of these practices. We also asked them what percentage of studies in their field might have been affected by them.
As previously observed in USA and Italy, Spanish scientists (regardless of their participation in projects on covid-19) expected that these practices would be quite common. They calculated that more than half of the studies only present significant results, hiding conditions or samples that were not convenient, or modifying their research hypotheses after seeing the results.
Again, biases played a role: admission rates for these behaviors were considerably lower than rates expected in other peer studies. This indicates that scientists are likely to commit these practices, but not themselves.
the future of science
Does this study mean that scientific research is unreliable? Nothing is further from reality. Covid-19 has highlighted how science plays a central role in solving the challenges facing our societies. However, if we want to avoid doubts about scientific results, our scientific system has to change.
For this we have to systematize a culture of open science, reproducible and robust, promoting transparency and responsibility in the evaluation of scientific projects. This is impossible if we do not sufficiently finance researchers, seeking to reward the quality rather than the quantity of their studies. This is the only way to dispel doubts and move towards mature and quality science.
Eduardo Garcia GarzonProfessor in methodology, Camilo Jose Cela University Y Guido CorradisProfessor of perception and attention, Camilo Jose Cela University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. read the original.