Abbreviated Science Round-up: Science of science, progress by death, molecular machines
newsdepo.com
I’m starting with a bit on “metascience” this afternoon, because in a sense it’s what we’re doing. By being here, by spotlighting some articles over others, by reading these articles, I, you … we are affecting the reach and impact of the researcAbbreviated Science Round-up: Science of science, progress by death, molecular machines
I’m starting with a bit on “metascience” this afternoon, because in a sense it’s what we’re doing. By being here, by spotlighting some articles over others, by reading these articles, I, you … we are affecting the reach and impact of the research contained in these articles. Right here, right now, I’m acting as a filter, as an amplifier and as an interpreter. That means an article about the expression of adenosine receptors isn’t here because I found it both challenging to read and difficult to express in relatable terms, even though that article is directly connected to basic research on breast cancer. It means that an article on an ancient group of creatures known as the Ediacaran and a biochemical analysis of one of their fossils is here, because I’ve long had an interest in the area and find the latest news exciting. While I’m trying to select a broad range of articles each week, I invariably grab those related to issues that I think will have broad interest, or generate the most excitement. In doing so, I’m mimicking the process that turns “journal science” into “popular science.” That adenosine receptors article? It’s also not in the New York Times this week. Or Discover Magazine. That puzzling ancient fossil, esoteric as it may seem, can be found across a broad spectrum of media. And of course I’m not just bringing forward articles, I’m putting my own — often clumsy — spin on them. Even when not intentionally bringing forward something that supports a position I already hold, I’m interpreting these articles through the lens of my own bias and (very) limited knowledge. That’s a very big deal. The consequences of selecting the wrong article to support and giving it the wrong spin can result in wholesale changes in people’s diets that are counter to good health. It can result in thousands of kids dying because their parents became convinced that vaccines can’t be trusted. So I’m trying to be careful, to be catholic in my selections, and to be more careful in my interpretations. I encourage you to do the same. Go back to the original sources. Bring in articles that I missed. Lend your own expertise to the conversation. And most of all, call me out when you think I’m wrong, dead wrong, or simply bullshitting. Because, seriously, I appreciate it. Science: The growing number of researchers researching research Given the billions of dollars the world invests in science each year, it's surprising how few researchers study science itself. But their number is growing rapidly, driven in part by the realization that science isn't always the rigorous, objective search for knowledge it is supposed to be. Editors of medical journals, embarrassed by the quality of the papers they were publishing, began to turn the lens of science on their own profession decades ago, creating a new field now called “journalology.” More recently, psychologists have taken the lead, plagued by existential doubts after many results proved irreproducible. Other fields are following suit, and metaresearch, or research on research, is now blossoming as a scientific field of its own. Read more