Zero Accountability Science
Does It Even Qualify As Science Anymore?
I am a disciple of science … or at least I was … I am not sure what qualifies as science anymore. Some of my misgivings come from the recent annexation of science in the name of political policy. Government destroys everything it touches — so maybe I should give science a break … only that feels really, really evil.
Yes, I said evil … not wrong. I don’t like making moral judgments and I promise the rest of this article won’t be preachy or moral high roading — but consider two names from history before we move on — Socrates and Galileo. So should science really get a pass? Again — click the links for their stories … I am moving on.
Science MUST be held accountable or it is NOT science.
Oxford defines science as a “systematic study”. I am not an expert in ALL science. I am an expert in analytics. So you will understand if I want to focus on that aspect. Systemic study or the discipline of learning or whatever name you want to give it is not subjective. All learning requires feedback and great learning requires A LOT of feedback or put differently — accountability.
Nearly four years ago, I wrote a lot about accountability in business. Businesses are “ultimately accountable”. The businesses that inspired me at the time of that writing are no longer with us (okay — one might be but no one who worked there then, still is). This is accountability along the lines of Socrates and Galileo — but far more extreme than we need to take it… I think.
I have railed on (seriously I wrote a lot of articles on this one) about the systemic breakdown of science and policy when it came to peanut allergies. I won’t rail any longer or expect you to believe just me. Those early articles are a little light on links — so try this one (and click on the links it provides to get to the actual scientific studies). Point being — zero accountability science may actually kill people! Oops, sorry, high road alert.
So bringing this together — science in the business world is held accountable. Sometimes not as well as it should be, but ultimately with extreme prejudice. Outside the business world, things collapse. Government and universities have zero accountability for anything in the domain of science. You might want to argue that research universities buck that trend — fair… but many research grants come from the government. So ultimately — the only force for accountability is self-induced or election-based. Neither of those systems are direct and both are horribly biased.
Peer review is broken.
Yes there is some debate on the subject but defenders’ arguments amount to “hey, that is a really mean way to phrase it!” You can go find all those links on your own. As for those pointing out fundamental flaws in the system, have two from Richard Smith and John Ioannidis. The point being — you can’t rely on a broken system to create accountability and honestly — even if it worked well, it is just useful feedback. The process lacks direct consequence. Indirectly, a working peer review system could destroy reputation and thus cause consequence — but this is all too indirect.
Science must predict measurable and timely outcomes that can be validated. It is the only means for direct accountability.
You may want to argue about theoretical vs applied science. You might want to point out that many of Einstein’s theories were not validated until years after his death (some still linger). Fair — but I would offer you are going to the scientific margins and areas without much direct personal impact (for now). I would also offer that Einstein took many opportunities to attempt to validate his theories at a time when such opportunities were fleeting.
The fact is that science that does not make predictions that can be validated in a reasonable period of time is nothing more than theory (at best) and speculation (at worst). This was true for Einstein (until it wasn’t). Sticking with his example, nothing he said was widely accepted for quite a long time. Essentially his theories were debated until they could be properly validated. The same was true for Tesla and plenty of others.
So how is it today we have so much “science” that is completely unable to be validated? Why does the general public … oh, wait there we go. In Einstein’s day, the general public had little access or opinion about science. This was doubly true in the days of Socrates and Galileo — who were oddly persecuted for subversion (not of the general public). Science was debated in the scientific community … at least until some Dutch explorer showed up with a black swan (then the debate ended — validation complete). Today it is picked up and broadcast to every end of the globe by an overzealous and vastly under-educated media.
The more the “popular science” plays on people’s fears the better. In fact, this is positive feedback in many respects. “When people fear it, it gets funded” (told to me in 1993 by a university scientist with the initials MM). So rather than accountability, popular science seems to be governed by sensationalism. Boy, that can’t be as bad as it sounds? Can it?
Personally, I think too many scientists and analysts lack the testicular (or ovarian) fortitude to push back against what is “popular” but then I am the bad guy. Don’t accept zero accountability science. Demand proof! It is the scientific way.
Thanks for reading! Stay safe. And more importantly, stay informed.
